ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Jason71 · 18 February 2010, 05:50 AM

I have been switching between my 14060M and my A-serial SeaDweller for the last week or so. One thing that I have really noticed lately is just how much higher the crystal sits above the level of the bezel on the SeaDweller. It definitely is closer to being flush with the bezel on the 14060M. Another thing that is noticeable is just how much thicker the bezel is on the SeaDweller. VERY noticeable. The crystal is not all that noticeable in pictures, but it is REALLY evident when wearing each watch.

I am not necessarily saying that I like the SD better for these reasons, but it is just interesting to see how different these watches truly are when comparing them side by side. The 14060M is definitely thinner, and less apt to get dinged in a doorway, or on a rock underwater since it sits so much more flush with the wrist.

Both these watches are GREAT for different reasons.

cks · 18 February 2010, 06:01 AM

How timely to see your photo comparison as "less apt to get dinged in a doorway, or on a rock underwater..." is just the reason I might trade my fat SD for a thin Sub. I'm tired of [worrying about] bashing the thing and also hope a Sub's glass will last longer than the old SD's plastic.

cks

sea-dweller · 18 February 2010, 06:33 AM

Thanks, I have both a 14060 and a SD and agree with your observations...

18 February 2010, 05:50 AM	#1
Jason71 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: Jason Location: USA Watch: Rolex/Tudor Divers Posts: 7,973	A Subtle Difference......SD vs 14060M I have been switching between my 14060M and my A-serial SeaDweller for the last week or so. One thing that I have really noticed lately is just how much higher the crystal sits above the level of the bezel on the SeaDweller. It definitely is closer to being flush with the bezel on the 14060M. Another thing that is noticeable is just how much thicker the bezel is on the SeaDweller. VERY noticeable. The crystal is not all that noticeable in pictures, but it is REALLY evident when wearing each watch. I am not necessarily saying that I like the SD better for these reasons, but it is just interesting to see how different these watches truly are when comparing them side by side. The 14060M is definitely thinner, and less apt to get dinged in a doorway, or on a rock underwater since it sits so much more flush with the wrist. Both these watches are GREAT for different reasons. __________________ Best Regards, Jason Just Say "NO" to Polishing Card-Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch Curmudgeons LIfe is too short to wear inexpensive watches PLEXI IS SEXY

18 February 2010, 06:33 AM	#3
sea-dweller "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Real Name: Dennis Location: Bay Area - 925 Posts: 40,018	Thanks, I have both a 14060 and a SD and agree with your observations... __________________ TRF Member #6699 (since September 2007)

18 February 2010, 06:01 AM	#2
cks Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: London & France Posts: 30	How timely to see your photo comparison as "less apt to get dinged in a doorway, or on a rock underwater..." is just the reason I might trade my fat SD for a thin Sub. I'm tired of [worrying about] bashing the thing and also hope a Sub's glass will last longer than the old SD's plastic. cks

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)