Is a 14060M COSC an even trade for 16710?

[RolexDivers]

Hi folks,

just a little theoretical trade question --- assuming all things equal, I mean condition and boxes and paperwork and the serial letter,
is a 14060m COSC an even trade for a 16710, valuewise?

Thank you,

[Welshwatchman]

The earliest 14060m COSC comes on a Z serial number.

An equivalent 16710 would likely have a 3186 and the variant dial. This model commands a good $1500 more on the used market so it's a good trade for the owner of the 14060m COSC.

Not so much for the other party.

[RolexDivers]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

The earliest 14060m COSC comes on a Z serial number.

An equivalent 16710 would likely have a 3186 and the variant dial. This model commands a good $1500 more on the used market so it's a good trade for the owner of the 14060m COSC.

Not so much for the other party.

So is it true that from Z serial onwards, all 16710s are 3186 movements?

[cornerstore]

Originally Posted by rolexdivers

so is it true that from z serial onwards, all 16710s are 3186 movements?

No not true the Z serial 16710 was a pivot year so some have 3185 others 3186 some have Roman numerials some stick ,also the first 116710 ceramic are Z serials.

[CDNWatchNut]

I think the value of the GMT II is higher. My guess, $800 to $1000 more

[kilyung]

16710 > 14060m

[Roller07]

Not even close.

[RolexDivers]

Thank you all for your kind responses!

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by cornerstore

No not true the Z serial 16710 was a pivot year so some have 3185 others 3186 some have Roman numerials some stick ,also the first 116710 ceramic are Z serials.

Roman numerals and sticks? On a GMT?

[RolexDivers]

Originally Posted by cornerstore

No not true the Z serial 16710 was a pivot year so some have 3185 others 3186 some have Roman numerials some stick ,also the first 116710 ceramic are Z serials.

So there should be no M-series 16710s --- would that be a correct conclusion?