14060 vs 14060M vs 16610

[clarencek]

I purchased a 14060 (not a "M" model) and have been really surprised at the differences between my 14060M and my 16610 LV.

The case is thinner - I'd say at least by 1 mm. So it wears very nicely on the wrist.

The dial also looks smaller, maybe the bezel is thinner, but it overall looks like a smaller watch at least compared with my 16610.

The hands are thinner than my 16610.

Anyway, just thought I'd share my observations. I can now see why there are folks that like the older models. I have a feeling this 14060 will get a lot of wrist time.

[acce1999]

Are you sure the case is thinner? This is news to me. Do you mind taking comparative shots? I am curious.

The dial is a millimeter smaller in diameter, if I remember correctly.

BTW: Congrats! A nice blend of submariners; the elegant green, the up to date COSC 14060M, and the well used older 14060.

Best,

A

[bluemartinifan]

Nice Collection! Agree to all - I have a 16710 and a 14060. The GMT feels a bit larger on my wrist and appears a little showier (is this a word?) than my 14060. The 14060 goes under the radar - this is a Rolex that does not get noticed much - maybe lack of cyclops - maybe all the clones. Try the 14060 on a strap and it is even lighter and takes on an entirely different look. (I have swung to the dark side - on the Dan Pierce strap team...)
Love both the 16710 and 14060!!!

[sea-dweller]

Congrats. I have a 14060 and I have had few astute observers notice that it is a Rolex, and I do get comments that "it is missing the cyclops". Other than that, the 14060 is an awesome watch !

[xxthe_remedyxx]

Originally Posted by sea-dweller

Congrats. I have a 14060 and I have had few astute observers notice that it is a Rolex, and I do get comments that "it is missing the cyclops". Other than that, the 14060 is an awesome watch !

LoL! Do they notice that their is no date when they make that assumption?

[sea-dweller]

- not sure about the date, they usually mention something to the effect of "that's a Rolex, but it's missing the "bubble"...

Originally Posted by xxthe_remedyxx

LoL! Do they notice that their is no date when they make that assumption?

[warrior]

Nce subs! Is there any difference at all between the 14060 and 14060M ( aside from the script and movement) ?

The 14060 seems to have a deeper dial ( i.e. space from the crystal to the dial)...is that the case? i do not necessarily say this from your pics...just from my personal observations of the two.

Originally Posted by clarencek

I purchased a 14060 (not a "M" model) and have been really surprised at the differences between my 14060M and my 16610 LV.

The case is thinner - I'd say at least by 1 mm. So it wears very nicely on the wrist.

The dial also looks smaller, maybe the bezel is thinner, but it overall looks like a smaller watch at least compared with my 16610.

The hands are thinner than my 16610.

Anyway, just thought I'd share my observations. I can now see why there are folks that like the older models. I have a feeling this 14060 will get a lot of wrist time.

[padi56]

There is no difference between the 14060 and the 14060M except for the slightly modded movement.The 14060M now has a full balance bridge and slightly larger balance wheel,basically its a Cal 3135 without the date complication.

[warrior]

\Oh yes...i was aware that the movement was different. When i quickly compared the two in person, however, I thought that the dial depth on the 14060 was greater that the 14060M ( I owned the latter). It definitely looked deeper to me and that surprised me b/c I thought that they were essentially the same except for the differences I mentioned.

Originally Posted by padi56

There is no difference between the 14060 and the 14060M except for the slightly modded movement.The 14060M now has a full balance bridge and slightly larger balance wheel,basically its a Cal 3135 without the date complication.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by warrior

\Oh yes...i was aware that the movement was different. When i quickly compared the two in person, however, I thought that the dial depth on the 14060 was greater that the 14060M ( I owned the latter). It definitely looked deeper to me and that surprised me b/c I thought that they were essentially the same except for the differences I mentioned.

They're identical, except for the movement..

[warrior]

thanks ...perhaps i was drunk at the time

Originally Posted by Tools

They're identical, except for the movement..

[clarencek]

Originally Posted by acce1999

Are you sure the case is thinner? This is news to me. Do you mind taking comparative shots? I am curious.
A

You know... from the pictures it's really hard to tell... but eyeing it it seems slimmer, but I don't have a fancy measuring tool to confirm this. :-/

My 14060 may also have been polished at some point... so maybe that's it?

[usergiovi]

The only difference regards the movement.

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by clarencek

You know... from the pictures it's really hard to tell... but eyeing it it seems slimmer, but I don't have a fancy measuring tool to confirm this. :-/

My 14060 may also have been polished at some point... so maybe that's it?

Thanks! That is a nice comparison. The 14060 is obviously not as thick as the 16610. I knew that, and others in the thread have said that the 14060 and the 14060M are identical (when it comes to the case). Perhaps yours is polished.

What I've learnt is that every case is unique, at least when it comes to the older style. I have seen 16610s, 14060s, 16570s, 16710s that all are unpolished but the size and dimension of the lugs differs slightly. Actually I have two fairly new 16570 where I can see an obvious difference in the shape of the lugs: They are given a manual final touch when produced in Geneva, so depending upon who does the last polishing, the lugs might differ. This is impossible to notice, unless you have two watches to compare.

What I was curious about was if the 14060, just like the 16700, had a thinner case than its siblings 14060M/16710. The 16700 is 0.2 mm thinner than the 16710. Not much, but for a WIS like me such information is fun to collect.

Thanks again for taking your time to post the pictures. I do not have a 14060, but sure would like to have one.

My conclusion would be that the cases of the 14060, and 14060M are the same, but you have made the same observation as I, that there still are individual differencies.



Best,

A

[rfknauss]

Originally Posted by clarencek

Anyway, just thought I'd share my observations. I can now see why there are folks that like the older models. I have a feeling this 14060 will get a lot of wrist time.

Beautiful subs! I love my new LV, but still wear my old 5513 sub at least once a week.

[Tools]

I think that the minor differences in a 14060 and a 14060M case may have to do with improvements in the robotic technology used in the 80's early 90's to finish the 14060 case, and the more recent improvements and manufacturing plant upgrades that are used on the 14060M..

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by Tools

I think that the minor differences in a 14060 and a 14060M case may have to do with improvements in the robotic technology used in the 80's early 90's to finish the 14060 case, and the more recent improvements and manufacturing plant upgrades that are used on the 14060M..

Perhaps. I've been thinking about this. I have been under the impression that the entire case was done by CNC machines, at least from the 90's and onwards, and the differencies notable on the lugs related to the wear of the tools used (new sharp tools cut deeper), so I asked a Rolex Watchmaker I know, and he told me that there is indeed a last polishing done by hand. At least on the older style models.

I might have misunderstood him, but I do not think so.

As can be seen on the Rolex web site, the polishing of the newer style cases, on the other hand seems to be completely automated.

This is perhaps a reason to phase out the older style models (in addition to changes in the market), but given the highly programmable CNC machines of today there shouldn't be any problems continuing to produce new, and old style cases in parallel. I hope Rolex do so.

Best,

A

[spfx5150]

I just bought a 1996ish 14060 on Ebay yesterday, I cant wait to receive it, Very Excited.

[autofiend]

When I was in the market for my 14060M a few weeks back, I was surprised to notice that the older 14060s were going for about the same $ as the newer 14060Ms.

You'd think the newer movement model would be valued a little higher, but that is the magic of Rolex.

[MagedMS]

Originally Posted by acce1999

Are you sure the case is thinner? This is news to me. Do you mind taking comparative shots? I am curious.

The dial is a millimeter smaller in diameter, if I remember correctly.

BTW: Congrats! A nice blend of submariners; the elegant green, the up to date COSC 14060M, and the well used older 14060.

Best,

A

Both cases (14060M / 16610) have the same thickness.. The difference is in the Bezel thickness.. The Bezel of the 16610 is thicker.. as shown in this picture.

[Reference: The Rolex Reference Library: http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=112776] Post by Larry.

[Juggernaut]

Ok, I know about the difference between 14060 vs 14060M, but what about the different dials (one with the "superlative chronometer officially certified" and one without)... Does this signify differences in production date?

[sleddog]

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

Ok, I know about the difference between 14060 vs 14060M, but what about the different dials (one with the "superlative chronometer officially certified" and one without)... Does this signify differences in production date?

The COSC (4 line) dial came in with the middle of the Z production run....along with the engraved rehalt!
Before that it was the 2 line dial...

[ExpII]

I have one as well and it should get ample wrist time when it comes back from the Ridley Spa. I noticed it wears smaller than my Milgauss despite the bezel.

[ddnyc77]

Originally Posted by MagedMS

Both cases (14060M / 16610) have the same thickness.. The difference is in the Bezel thickness.. The Bezel of the 16610 is thicker.. as shown in this picture.

[Reference: The Rolex Reference Library: http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=112776] Post by Larry.

I think if you read Larry's post carefully you will notice that although the diameter of the 16610 and the 14060M is the same, the height of the case is different, I also recall that the only interchangeable parts between the 14060M and the 16610 is the hands and the crown.

Other than that and this is jut my opinioin as I have a D serial 16610 LV and a Z serial 2 line 14060M, my LV gets a lot of wrist time and personally I think the 14060M is a great watch I just wish it had the large markers and fat hands which is what I really enjoy on the LV.

[Passionata]

Switched from LV to this baby,what a clean design!Therefore nice to keep watches at the bank,always make me smile when i rotate

[James Gould]

had an SD 16600 for 8 years - loved it - changed it for a GMT IIC as fancied a change - it's just not me and want to sell it and go back to an SD but might go for a non-COSC Sub ND 14060 - so clean and balanced, a real classic - the 5512 had a date but the 5513 didn't - the ND is the 'real' Sub although the 16610 has become a classic in its own right - however, might go for a late BNIB 14060M COSC before the production run ends which might not be too far away - tempted by a GMT II 16710 - 3186 but the Subs and SDs are my favourites. Enjoy!!

[al_bongo]

The 5512 did not have a date. The 5512 was COSC certified while the 5513 was not.

[Michael M.]

Very nice collection!!! I really like the 16610, and the 14060!!!

[James Gould]

I always get the 5512 and the 5513 mixed up - which one had the date and which was ND?

[Passionata]

Both are ND versions,the difference is that 5512 was cosc