Subs 16610 and 14060 (M).. Some Comparisons..

[CPTL]

I'd be interested in any ideas as to why. Why the different case, thicker caseback, thicker bezel, etc. on the 16610? The only functional difference is the date function; makes no sense from an economy of production standpoint.

I can't believe they had to make a bigger case to fit the 3135. My DJ has a pretty small case.

[eddiethefish]

Larry rocks!

[mikester]

great info!!

[swatty]

Thanks Larry

[anipit]

Thank you for precious informations.
I think if Rolex celebrates submariner's 50 years with the LV edition (with date) they consider the REAL submariner the one with date.
I can't understand people who still buy 14060 models.

[MikeyTX]

Again, I add another link to my Rolex only file. Thank you Larry.

[mdtddd2007]

nice info...thanks

[Syms]

Great info! thanks for sharing!

[tradernick]

Originally Posted by anipit

Thank you for precious informations.
I think if Rolex celebrates submariner's 50 years with the LV edition (with date) they consider the REAL submariner the one with date.
I can't understand people who still buy 14060 models.

Larry, thanks for this post. It helps me in my search for the Grail, which for me is the 14060.

I'm not sure I agree entirely with the above quote. I certainly consider the Sub ND a 'real' Sub and I have a feeling that Rolex feels exactly the same way. The 16610 might be the more iconic piece, but that doesn't make the 14060 any less 'real', in my view.

For some people, the clean lines of the 14060 simply look better to their eye.

[springbar]

Originally Posted by tradernick

Larry, thanks for this post. It helps me in my search for the Grail, which for me is the 14060.

I'm not sure I agree entirely with the above quote.

Well, I am sure I disagree entirely with Anipit.

The aesthetic and historical appeal of the no-date Sub is well-known and doesn't need repeating here. It also shares the singleness-of-purpose and beautiful utilitarian quality that made its predecessor, the 5513, the quintessential Rolex "tool" watch.

[ac001]

Larry: I echo the other Forum members in commending your post. Very valuable information. I was at an AD and we compared the ND and Date Submariner and he tried to tell me that there was no difference between the two styles in terms of size. I have a small wrist and the difference in size between the two made the ND Sub a better choice for me. But I did not want the COSC model because the dial appears a bit busy. The non-COSC model is a more classic and clean look (IMO). Which is why I also disagree with Anipit. There is no need to get pejorative with which Submariner is real. I like Springbar's assessment:
"The aesthetic and historical appeal of the no-date Sub shares the singleness-of-purpose and beautiful utilitarian quality that made its predecessor, the 5513, the quintessential Rolex "tool" watch." Pefectly stated.

[nowzen]

Originally Posted by anipit

I think if Rolex celebrates submariner's 50 years with the LV edition (with date) they consider the REAL submariner the one with date. I can't understand people who still buy 14060 models.

Well I guess the date is something a desk-diver would need but clearly a REAL sub is the sub that Jacque Cousteau and James Bond's wore -
Rolex's First sub, the no-date.

[ArtVandelay]

First of all, thanks for the informative post, Larry. Thanks for the effort.

It seems to me that the debate "date vs no date" Subs is as old as time itself. I can remember being at my AD when i bought mine, I must have run back to the store 3 or 4 times before finally going for a non date Sub. It's not that I hate the cyclops too much, since the magnified date is and will always be an iconic Rolex feature, but I guess I'm just one of those people who prefer to look at the Sub in a purely functional way: in this sense, the 14060 M does have a no nonsense, cleaner and slightly more utilitarian look to it. No other watch in the Rolex line (safe for maybe the Explorer I) conveys that message in my opinion. I also think the 14060 M looks gorgeous with he COSC inscription.

I just hope that Rolex will come out with a ceramic 14060 M COSC hopefully in the near future just to see what it looks like.

[kormaking]

Originally Posted by ArtVandelay

First of all, thanks for the informative post, Larry. Thanks for the effort.

It seems to me that the debate "date vs no date" Subs is as old as time itself. I can remember being at my AD when i bought mine, I must have run back to the store 3 or 4 times before finally going for a non date Sub. It's not that I hate the cyclops too much, since the magnified date is and will always be an iconic Rolex feature, but I guess I'm just one of those people who prefer to look at the Sub in a purely functional way: in this sense, the 14060 M does have a no nonsense, cleaner and slightly more utilitarian look to it. No other watch in the Rolex line (safe for maybe the Explorer I) conveys that message in my opinion. I also think the 14060 M looks gorgeous with he COSC inscription.

I just hope that Rolex will come out with a ceramic 14060 M COSC hopefully in the near future just to see what it looks like.

I just hope Rolex will not come out with a ceramic 14060 M COSC, it will increase the resale value of mine when discontinue

[Colorao]

Thanks for posting this... My wife was asking me the difference between a Sub date and a ND last night and I really did not have anything to say other than the obvious one has a date and the other doesn't!!!

Thanks for this awesome post!

[slevin kelevra]

I would love to see a ceramic 14060m! I personally prefer the way the 14060m looks to the 16610 but I would like the SEL bracelet and added weight!

[Andad]

Great info Larry but that was one thing you missed.

[BASSETHOUNDS]

Funny I should come across this thread after just putting down the phone with my AD . I had to make sure he was going to in next time I go there . I need to pick up a watch and get my discount .. the Tudor salesman there wants to skin me alive ..
Anyway , I started talking about the my 116520 that should be there tomorrow along with the first 11661LN he gets (sold and paid upfront , I'm on 4th place with no deposit ) .. via 16610 he has still 3 in stock and I could be tempted to buy one if he discounts it enough and FINALLY to the NO date SUB .. he has one and will not discount it as he says they will stop making it and they are harder to get hold of then the 16610 . Does that sound right or is he pulling my leg ?

[janice&fred]

fantastic post as i really had no idea of the size differences with these 2 models. i also just figured one is date and the other is without

i guess i'm just too into the vintage and never explored these newer models very well. i really should know more about this new stuff, as within the last few months i had to fork over big bananas and get janice the new ceramic maxi sub in tutone and blue, along with a new black 16613...as she decided she needed these.

getting back to the 2 watches being compared in this thread, this is very interesting info and very enlightening! i actually have a soft spot for both the date and non-date as they both have their individual allure. i curently don't have a 14060 but i really find them quite interesting. i love the clean "tool" look, and am especially fond of the older style oyster bracelet without the SEL headlink. we have alot of SEL style watches in our stable now, so i think one of these 14060 babies is next on my list. i'm a simple kinda guy

fred

[Alessio Scala]

very informative!
thanks!

[tep663]

very nice info...

[carlhaluss]

Thanks for the great and informative post, Larry!
Since the new Sub-c has come out, I have gained a new interest in the Sub models, in particular the new Sub-c and the Sub no date.
The info you provide has answered a lot of questions for me.
Cheers,
Carl

[Chipmunk]

Very informative. Thanks for sharing, Larry.

[ObscureLight]

Thanks for enlightening me! I had always thought the difference was only the dates but now I know better

[jets]

Wow they really are different huh?

[bezeldoc100]

As a neophyte Rolex owner (but a veteran admirer) I have a question I'd like to put out to the community. I just purchased a the New Submariner Date in SS from an authorized Rolex dealer. On closer inspection I notice the "t" in ft under the Submariner designation is crossed all the way through, from left to right, instead of the way I have seen it on every other Sub, from the center of the 't' to the right. Is this a variant from Rolex or something I should be worried about (i.e. oversight by a high-end forger)? Also, the etched crown at the 12-o'clock position on the flange is slightly off-center relative to the minute mark. Again, maybe I'm being paranoid, but Rolex isn't known for putting random changes out there but they are known for superlative QC. I'd appreciate the wisdom of those who have gone before me.

[Nica64]

Nice information, thanks Larry!!

[sss]

Very informative! Thanks for the info!

[marcel78]

Larry - I wanted to echo everybody's comments, and thank you for a great iconic post :).
M

[marcinthemiddle]

I never saw this until today!
Great info/specs...thanks!