Price Information

[Mick P]

Chaps

I am looking to buy my second Rolex and basically I am at a disadvantage in the sense that I hate the cyclops. Therefore I already have an Explorer1 and I am now looking for a new or nearly new No Date Sub.

The two models of choice are the new 114060 or a used 14060 M.

Although the 114060 is newer, has a much better bracelet and an engraved security ring inside the bezel, its price seems hardly any different from 14060Ms that are a few years old.

So other than appearance, is there any difference and is one model better than the other.

Regards

Mick

[superdog]

Better is in the eye if the beholder.

Try them on, do the research.

Only you can decide.

But if you hate the cyclops, maybe you should look at other brands too. Otherwise you are greatly limiting yourself and your options.

[Mick P]

Superdog

I like my Explorer and I like the No Date Sub, so it is not a disaster.

My natural inclination is to buy a brand new 114060 but some 14060Ms seem to be the same price which I find bizarre.

I know the 14060M has slimmer lugs, but they look almost the same, have a similar mechanism, so how come I can buy a new 114060 cheaper from a Grey Importer than the price being asked for a used 14060M.

I am genuinely surprised by this.

Regards

Mick

[Jack T]

Mick, why a Sub as your next Rolex? I have both an Explorer I and the 14060m, and frankly, can do without the Sub. The Exp is just as rugged as a Sub, as water resistant as my needs will ever require, is more versatile, less demonstrative...but you know that. To supplement the Explorer, I like an Oyster Perpetual, but I want to move away from a black dial.
If there is a price disparity between new Sub C and a pre-owned 14060m, perhaps I should consider putting mine up for sale.

[HogwldFLTR]

Ceramic bezel versus steel bezel. Pretty similar otherwise. I find the prices on the Ms to be cheaper than the SubCs.

[Mick P]

Originally Posted by Jack T

Mick, why a Sub as your next Rolex? I have both an Explorer I and the 14060m, and frankly, can do without the Sub. The Exp is just as rugged as a Sub, as water resistant as my needs will ever require, is more versatile, less demonstrative...but you know that. To supplement the Explorer, I like an Oyster Perpetual, but I want to move away from a black dial.
If there is a price disparity between new Sub C and a pre-owned 14060m, perhaps I should consider putting mine up for sale.

Jack

I think you have more or less killed the argument for a second watch LOL.

I like the Explorer1 because it does everything I needs it to do and above all, it is very understated. It is in all honesty, the perfect watch for all time use.

However, I spend about 24 weeks a year on the Spanish coast and I just fancied something a bit less understated due to Spain being a much more casual place. Therefore the plan was one watch for the UK and another for Spain.

I sort of fancy an Explorer11 because of the time zone facility but Spain is now debating about lining up with UK time and that means I would not need a dual time facility.

The No Date Sub looks cool but so does a Sea Dweller which does not have a cyclops.

When I bought the Explorer1, I intended it to be the only watch I wore, but the Rolex bug is addictive.

Regards

Mick

[nickb732]

Ceramic bezel, glidelock. I would take the newer one just for the Glidelock. As for the dual time, spain is just an hour ahead of the UK, so... you don't really need it?