The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex Reference Library

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 5 October 2019, 09:33 AM   #91
JP.
"TRF" Member
 
JP.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Real Name: Juho
Location: Finland
Watch: Submariner 16610
Posts: 1,914
Thanks for "bumping" this up. Valuable information here. I added this chart to my 5-digit Rolex Guide (Tools is credited).

https://luxurywatches635.wordpress.c...-rolex-to-get/
__________________
My Luxury Watch Reviews Blog
JP. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15 October 2019, 02:58 AM   #92
ricof
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: London
Posts: 1
Hi everyone, first post here.

Are there differences in the bezel inserts? Fat fonts/flat four etc?

Thank you.
ricof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 October 2019, 07:54 AM   #93
springer
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
springer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: jP
Location: Texas
Watch: GMT-MASTER
Posts: 17,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricof View Post
Hi everyone, first post here.

Are there differences in the bezel inserts? Fat fonts/flat four etc?

Thank you.
Bezel inserts vary based on the era the watch is from. some inserts had the pointed 4s, some had the flat-top 4s and there are other variations also.

You need to look at some various examples to get an idea what the inserts looked like during the various eras or years of production.

As an example, during 2004, the insert's 4s changed from the ones found on previous inserts. In 2004, the 4s went from being flat on top to pointed at the top.
__________________
Member of NAWCC since 1990.

INSTAGRAM USER NAME: SPRINGERJFP
Visit my Instagram page to view some of the finest vintage GMTs anywhere - as well as other vintage classics.
springer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17 December 2019, 01:40 PM   #94
SOG DIVER
"TRF" Member
 
SOG DIVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Real Name: LtCol R
Location: Mtns-NM-MT
Watch: 1680Red-551214060M
Posts: 274
Tools finely distinguished between the two Rolex references.

As an aside, the 14060 M or Modified 14060 came into existence 1999-2000 and it featured a return to a full balance bridge with Breguet over coil.
Stronger and more accurate. This change resulted in the caliber 3130 movement. The ref. 16610 utilizes a 3135 caliber, which has the date complication.
Agree with Larry that this 14060M should be continued by Rolex as issued with lug holes.
Might as well add two other features from decades gone by that would really set the
14060 M apart in a league of its own.
A re-issuance including a gilt dial and hands with a domed crystal. As a chronometer
with SEL case ledge; this would make it unique -almost a modern 40 mm 5512 reference.
Might as well do it large. There are probably enough 14060 SS cases left near Geneva to justify the re-issuance.

Rolex would not be able to keep them on the AD shelves. They could charge a slight premium increase to justify the added features expense.
SOG DIVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 February 2020, 04:57 PM   #95
WeiLo
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: N/A
Posts: 30
Nice share
WeiLo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 February 2020, 04:06 AM   #96
GONZO2LR
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Real Name: Luis
Location: Texas
Watch: SS Submariner Date
Posts: 1,390
wow...i did not know this....thank you...
GONZO2LR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 February 2020, 03:00 AM   #97
wangyuetian
"TRF" Member
 
wangyuetian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: SoCal, CA
Watch: Meteorite GMT II
Posts: 69
Thank you for sharing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wangyuetian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 March 2020, 06:07 AM   #98
ztonsi
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Dallas
Posts: 8
Interesting stuff.
ztonsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 June 2020, 08:15 PM   #99
Bruno Datejust
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Real Name: Bruno
Location: Italy
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 327
Sub thickness 14060 16610

Hello Tools,
Great thank you for this info. I'm considering the purchase of a 5 digit Sub. Do you know if there is a difference in the thickness of the
back of the Subs also? Maybe more protruding back cover or more protruding mounting of the cover?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tools View Post
Most neophytes to Rolex see the Sub and the Sub Date and just assume that one has a date, the other doesn't, and that's the difference..

Of course, this is not true. They are completely different watches..

Here is a bit of trivia to amaze your friends:

......................... Sub................. Sub Date

Case Size ........ 39.5mm................ 39.5mm

Case inc Crown . 43.50mm..............43.60mm (difference could be possible to a higher seated tube)

Bezel Diameter... 39.5mm ...............40.00mm

Thickness.......... 12.20mm ..............12.55mm (Sub Date middle case is thicker as is the bezel)

Crystal Diameter..29mm ...................30mm

Visible Dial..........25.5mm..................26.5mm

Lugs.................Holes..................No Holes (since ~2001)

Weight ............ 127 grams .............. 135 grams

Hand length.....................same.......

Almost nothing on these watches interchanges except the hands and Triplock Crown... Even the bezel inserts are different to fit the different size bezels, and they use different (although interchangeable until SEL's) bracelets.... Since they do use the same hands, it gives an illusion that they are longer because of the smaller dial..they extend into the markers more..

Attachment 136354

Here you can clearly see that the Bezel on the 16610 is thicker than the 14060 by comparing the undercut beneath the bezel grip surface:
Attachment 136353

Another difference is the machined ledge on the backside of the 16610 (right) for the fitment of an SEL bracelet. The 14060 does not have suich a lip or ledge and an SEL bracelet cannot be fitted to this model without modification..

Attachment 136355

Since these watches are made independently, and since they have continued on with the legacy of the original (nostalgic) Sub in the 14060M; I believe it will continue in production..
Bruno Datejust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 August 2020, 12:00 PM   #100
Berminator
"TRF" Member
 
Berminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Real Name: Jake
Location: United States
Watch: Submariner 14060m
Posts: 14
This is the kind of thing I joined TRF for 👍😎👍
Berminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 September 2020, 03:25 PM   #101
Subterranean
"TRF" Member
 
Subterranean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Australia
Watch: 1989 16610 Sub
Posts: 258
Love the technical side ..
Subterranean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 November 2020, 08:24 PM   #102
Dave455
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Sussex, U.K.
Posts: 146
Fantastic post Larry!

The watch you are showing seems to be a 14060 though, rather than a 14060 M.

As SOG Diver pointed out, the ‘M’ stood for modified and the newer movement was more accurate. It came with Chronometer certification, which the older 14060 never did, and of course the dial was marked “Superlative Chronometer, Officially Certified”!

I always preferred the No Date over the Date model. I think it’s about the best “tool” watch out there. When you add a date function, it starts to detract from legibility in low light, which is what these watches are about!
Dave455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 November 2020, 09:40 PM   #103
padi56
"TRF" Life Patron
 
padi56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Real Name: Peter
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng
Watch: ing you.
Posts: 53,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave455 View Post
Fantastic post Larry!

The watch you are showing seems to be a 14060 though, rather than a 14060 M.

As SOG Diver pointed out, the ‘M’ stood for modified and the newer movement was more accurate. It came with Chronometer certification, which the older 14060 never did, and of course the dial was marked “Superlative Chronometer, Officially Certified”!

I always preferred the No Date over the Date model. I think it’s about the best “tool” watch out there. When you add a date function, it starts to detract from legibility in low light, which is what these watches are about!
Not 100% true the 14060M was introduced in 2000 the change from the cal 3000 to cal 3130 and was not then COSC tested. It was not till around 2007 it was COSC tested, and whether tested or not it's how the movement is regulated give the accuracy both cal 3000 and 14060 or 14060M are as accurate as each other.The Explorer had the exact same cal 3000 movement as the 14060 sub, the Explorer was COSC tested but the 14060 was not.Today the COSC test is little more that marketing, as many many movements from most all brands could match the COSC test results, it's quite costly to test each movement this is why many brands did not choose to test.
__________________

ICom Pro3

All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only.

"The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever."
Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again.

www.mc0yad.club

Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder
padi56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 November 2020, 04:12 AM   #104
FTX I
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Real Name: Flavio
Location: N/A
Posts: 14,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave455 View Post
Fantastic post Larry!

The watch you are showing seems to be a 14060 though, rather than a 14060 M.

As SOG Diver pointed out, the ‘M’ stood for modified and the newer movement was more accurate. It came with Chronometer certification, which the older 14060 never did, and of course the dial was marked “Superlative Chronometer, Officially Certified”!
I own a 14060M, 2 liner, Z serial not cosc certified. I believe the (M) on the thread title means the numbers he posted are valid for both.
FTX I is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9 December 2020, 09:07 PM   #105
Nonuendo
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 12
Thanks for the info! This is one of the reasons I am such a big fan of this site!
Nonuendo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 June 2021, 10:00 PM   #106
mountainjogger
2024 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Real Name: H
Location: North Carolina
Watch: M99230B-0008
Posts: 5,675
How did I miss this post!

Excellent work Larry!
__________________
The King of Cool.
mountainjogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 September 2021, 11:58 AM   #107
jkkwaz
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 14
Great stuff! 16610 is my grail!
jkkwaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17 February 2022, 02:08 AM   #108
srboutros
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Real Name: CharlestoxOB
Location: Moldova
Watch: CharlestoxOB
Posts: 35
Expert knowledge at its finest. )))))
srboutros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 May 2022, 04:11 PM   #109
Vesper Lynd
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Europe
Posts: 794
Thank you very much for this information.
Vesper Lynd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9 May 2022, 09:56 PM   #110
mountainjogger
2024 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Real Name: H
Location: North Carolina
Watch: M99230B-0008
Posts: 5,675
Bumpting this on my yearly read of a great post. Thanks for the info!
__________________
The King of Cool.
mountainjogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 November 2022, 06:25 AM   #111
Filipćo
"TRF" Member
 
Filipćo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Real Name: Filipe
Location: Lisbon & Wadesdah
Watch: Never too many
Posts: 1,898
Thank you Larry.
Filipćo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 January 2024, 02:34 PM   #112
SOG DIVER
"TRF" Member
 
SOG DIVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Real Name: LtCol R
Location: Mtns-NM-MT
Watch: 1680Red-551214060M
Posts: 274
Peter is correct as to the 14060M and the inherent issue date and COSC certification.
Additionally, the 14060M "M" suffix involves the caliber internal changes within the 3130 movement,
as a Breguet over coil and full balance bridge.
An excellent article by Paul Altieri on the 14060/14060M is titled "Last of the Best".
It is recommended reading for those interested in these Rolex Submariner references.
SOG DIVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 June 2024, 06:53 AM   #113
Gerry62
"TRF" Member
 
Gerry62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Italy EU
Watch: Rolex Panerai
Posts: 7,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOG DIVER View Post
Peter is correct as to the 14060M and the inherent issue date and COSC certification.
Additionally, the 14060M "M" suffix involves the caliber internal changes within the 3130 movement,
as a Breguet over coil and full balance bridge.
An excellent article by Paul Altieri on the 14060/14060M is titled "Last of the Best".
It is recommended reading for those interested in these Rolex Submariner references.
"Last of the Best". The title is absolutely true
Gerry62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 June 2024, 08:55 AM   #114
SOG DIVER
"TRF" Member
 
SOG DIVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Real Name: LtCol R
Location: Mtns-NM-MT
Watch: 1680Red-551214060M
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by padi56 View Post
Not 100% true the 14060M was introduced in 2000 the change from the cal 3000 to cal 3130 and was not then COSC tested. It was not till around 2007 it was COSC tested, and whether tested or not it's how the movement is regulated give the accuracy both cal 3000 and 14060 or 14060M are as accurate as each other.The Explorer had the exact same cal 3000 movement as the 14060 sub, the Explorer was COSC tested but the 14060 was not.Today the COSC test is little more that marketing, as many many movements from most all brands could match the COSC test results, it's quite costly to test each movement this is why many brands did not choose to test.
Rolex chose to add the M suffix to indicate the 14060M involved the caliber changes to a full balance bridge and Breguet overcoil, but not enough to justify a new reference series.
My own 16610 and 14060M have drilled lugs, which as a diver-facilitate the use of a NATO band.
Peter is also correct to indicate the direction of COSC testing as it applies today to references considered "luxury" watches.
It is interesting to note that in 1960, when my own 5512 Submariner was
made, some 5512s were two line versions while Rolex was just beginning to
have some dials marked "Officially Certified Chronometer". Most of these very early chronometers utilized the 1560 caliber, as does mine.
The 5512 was also the first Submariner with crown guards as a tool watch, while the 14060/14060M series could be considered as direct descendants.
SOG DIVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 July 2024, 05:49 AM   #115
temporaltactix
2024 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2024
Location: Dallas, TX
Watch: 126610LV
Posts: 79
I see why people own both now. Sometimes it's good to know nothing then you can learn lol
temporaltactix is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Asset Appeal

Wrist Aficionado

DavidSW Watches

Takuya Watches

OCWatches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.