5513 Compared to 14060

[bluemartinifan]

Hi All, it has been 7 days since I sold my 14060 A and the next day received my 5513 1.7 mil 1967.
Beyond the obvious differences (dials, markers, crystals, luminova) (both have the 93150)
What are the finer or more sublte differences to you?
Below is my list:

-5513 feels a little bigger on my wrist - hard to explain but it does
-the bezel edge looks different on the 5513 - hard to define - but it does
-bezel insert numerals are different
-the rarity of wearing a 44 year old watch Rolex...
-the difficulty of finding it
-chamfers on the 5513!

What else?

[yessir69]

I also have a 1967 model.

Mine is different in that mine has the original bracelet.

I didn't notice any size difference. But my 5513 seems MUCH lighter. It may be the bracelet. And the ticking is much louder. I like the 5513 much better.

[bayerische]

I love the old maxi-dial. Especially the large triangle at 12'o'clock.

Plastic, domed crystal... MMM, can it get any better?

[Jagatai]

I currently own both a 14060 (from 1993) and a 5513 (1979).
I can tell you that the sense of the 5513 being "bigger" comes from the superdome acrylic crystal. The 14060 sapphire is flat. So from the visual standpoint it does "seem a little bigger."

However, the case for the 14060 is much thicker (the caseback of the 14060 is HUGE compared to the 5513).
The lugs for the 14060 start from the wider part of the case and taper much less.

I can feel the edge of the bezel slightly protruding from the watch case on the widest part of the 5513. On the 14060, the bezel and the case at its widest point is pretty much flush.

The "teeth" of the bezel is more brilliant on the 14060. Upon close observation I can see that the "teeth" are cut differently. Also the 5513 bezel has an upwards "flying saucer" like taper when viewed from the side. The 14060 bezel is thicker as it meets the case.

Also weight wise the 14060 is much heavier than the 5513. Its because of the 904L steel composition of the 14060 I assume.

I must say the 5513 gets much more wrist time than the 14060. When I wear my 14060 (in bad weather) I end up thinking bout my 5513 or 5512.

Thats a very nice meters first 5513 you have there. I def think you made the right choice.

[bluemartinifan]

Originally Posted by Jagatai

I currently own both a 14060 (from 1993) and a 5513 (1979).
I can tell you that the sense of the 5513 being "bigger" comes from the superdome acrylic crystal. The 14060 sapphire is flat. So from the visual standpoint it does "seem a little bigger."

However, the case for the 14060 is much thicker (the caseback of the 14060 is HUGE compared to the 5513).
The lugs for the 14060 start from the wider part of the case and taper much less.

I can feel the edge of the bezel slightly protruding from the watch case on the widest part of the 5513. On the 14060, the bezel and the case at its widest point is pretty much flush.

The "teeth" of the bezel is more brilliant on the 14060. Upon close observation I can see that the "teeth" are cut differently. Also the 5513 bezel has an upwards "flying saucer" like taper when viewed from the side. The 14060 bezel is thicker as it meets the case.

Also weight wise the 14060 is much heavier than the 5513. Its because of the 904L steel composition of the 14060 I assume.

I must say the 5513 gets much more wrist time than the 14060. When I wear my 14060 (in bad weather) I end up thinking bout my 5513 or 5512.

Thats a very nice meters first 5513 you have there. I def think you made the right choice.

Really nice comparison Philip
i agree with all.

[red1108nyc]

I too fell in love with the vintage world.. here is my meter first 5512 1.6mil serial... love it!





Best,

Fred/NYC

[TurboWatch]

they make plastic super domes for these COSC and non 14060 babies.