14060M No-Date Sub vs. 16710 GMT Master II

[JohnFM]

Hello to all. I realize these two watches don't have a lot in common. One has no date, drilled lugs, and a fairly light (and some would say rattly) bracelet and clasp that some love and some don't. The other has a Cyclops date, fourth GMT Red hand, a smaller crown, thinner caseback, and lower depth rating. Despite the differences, both are discontinued, relatively light, and wear flatter on the wrist, compared to a 16610 Sub Date or 16600 Sea Dweller, for example.

The specific watches I'm considering are in Mint condition but the 14060M is much newer (2012) while the GMT Master II is an older Y serial (2002/2003) in fantastic condition. While the watches are quite different, I like both and am trying to decide between them. Price is similar -- the GMT is a few hundred more.

What I'm hoping for from this thread is not a feature comparsion so much as an opinion as to whether the 14060M or 16710 will be viewed years from now as an absolute, drop dead, iconic classic in the same vein as (or close to) the 16610 Sub or 16600 Sea Dweller. The question is not so much which watch do you like better so much as do you LOVE either one?

Thanks!
John

[Oyster Junkie]

I lean towards the 16710 because of the functionality of the GMT to keep track of multiple time zones. If you travel at all, you will appreciate the GMT.

[Dan Pierce]

John,
For me it's the GMT. I use the second time zone function regularly, love the ability to change bezels and bracelets, and have never tried to go deeper than the GMT will allow.
Plus, the GMT has SELs and possibly lug holes (not sure, but of so, a big bonus).
Your mileage may vary.
dP

[Actsulb]

I recommend the GMT II, it's more versatile and just a great all around Rolex (nothing against the 14060M).

[Tudor66]

I like both of those watches, I own the 16710 GMT, a Submariner w/date, and a TudorSub w/out the date. You will be happy with either purchase, but as others have said the GMT has the very nice second time zone capability, and it fits better on my wrist that my other subs.

Also, in speaking with a well respected TRF seller last month, the GMT 16710 is a very sought after item right now- he can't find enough of these to meet demand. I don't know if this is a temporary market oddity, or because they no longer make this model, but these watches are in demand. Here is GMT with the original fat font bezel insert:

[wokafu]

Im not too fond of the GMT maybe because i have a smaller wrist...looks kinda akward on me..so i vote for the 14060M..much more comfortable..as far as function..the GMT offers much versatile as the 14060M..both are classics in my eye..so you wont lose getting either..

[MortgageGuy]

GMT for me hands down, has to be the most comfortable Rolex I own

[gwalker]

GMT as it has a date.

[LeslieC]

I may be going against popular opinion but I love the ND Sub. I've tried on many watches trying to find the right one and I keep coming back to that. The elegant simplicity of it is so appealing to me that I can't imagine another watch. The irony being that I am going to buy a date sub because it is a good deal. But if I could, I would buy a non date sun instead.

[Hairdude1]

GMTII gets my vote!

[Tudor66]

Originally Posted by wokafu

Im not too fond of the GMT maybe because i have a smaller wrist...looks kinda akward on me..so i vote for the 14060M..much more comfortable..as far as function..the GMT offers much versatile as the 14060M..both are classics in my eye..so you wont lose getting either..

I have smaller wrists as well, 6.5 inch wrist to be exact. The GMT fits better on smaller wrists than the submariners do. You'll see that the caseback is flatter on the GMT, therefore the watch sits lower on your wrist, as it does mine. Also, the clasp mechanism is slightly different on the GMT vs the sub...

Originally Posted by LeslieC

I may be going against popular opinion but I love the ND Sub. I've tried on many watches trying to find the right one and I keep coming back to that. The elegant simplicity of it is so appealing to me that I can't imagine another watch. The irony being that I am going to buy a date sub because it is a good deal. But if I could, I would buy a non date sun instead.

I haven't owned a 14060, but I get what you mean about the simplicity/iconic look of the subs. I will probably own a 14060 at some point, see my other post on my 16800...

[Dan2010]

I like them both. However, I always come back to the 14060M. I grew up around and currently live on the water so the Sub is just something I naturally gravitate to.

[slcbbrown]

Like both. My first Rolex was a GMT and I now have a 14060. Couple points:

* GMT has my favorite Rolex movement.
* the GMT has the bezel-change option
* I believe in buying the newest Rolex I can, when making a choice. I expect a Rolex to last 50+ years, so buying a 2002 vs a 2012 doesn't worry me, much. However, the 2002 may need a service soon and the 2012 should not. This is a $600 cost that may have to be considered for the GMT.
* the SEL bracelet, if it is on the GMT, is a very nice upgrade over the standard 14060 bracelet.

[azguy]

It should be about you IMO, do you tend to swim and be a water guy more, or fly and find yourself, or family members in a different time zone...

Watches should be bought becuase of functionality, if you are going to wear and use it....

[JohnFM]

Thanks to everyone for their input. More positive responses for the GMT Master II, but the 14060M is much loved also.

Maybe I should buy and wear both, especially when flying my seaplane! ;-)

John

[425ranger]

I've had both..... still have the ND sub.

Same case (in general... thinner then a sub date). The GMT and E2 are great second watches... but too busy to me for day to day wear. The most comfortable watches I have ever owned are the the Tudor sub and the ND.

The watch on my wrist....



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[nauticajoe]

GMTII...hands down!

[nick c]

14060 for me

[Speed]

IMO, the Sub you are looking at is not the classic two-liner with NO Rehaut engraving - which I would prefer.

Soooo...I would go with the killer GMT vs the newer 14060M you are looking at.

[dba]

Evening JohnFM,

Had both at different times. I had the GMT first and got used to the date window and the 24 hour hand. Once I got the 14060 without those features, I couldn’t wait to get rid of it and get another GMT.

Both felt fine on my wrist. I have large wrists and need 14 links with the bracelet pinned into the outer most, last hole on the clasp. If a 14060 fell into my lap, I’d find a way to sell / trade it for either another GMT or at least a 16610. Good luck.

Cheers,

David

[drockadam]

I'd go with the 16710 my friend. I love the Submariner, but if it was a 16610 Submariner Date, I'd pick it over the 16710. Which insert does the 16710 have?

[bluemartinifan]

Years down the road both will be part and currently are part of iconic family trees (GMT and Sub). Neither will be considered collectible - but both are considered icons. Of course there are more iconic GMTs and Subss - but you are not consideering those...

The 14060 and 16710 are both great every day watches.
The 14060 is not a 2 liner...
I owned both and currently own both and if I had to chose 1 (just 1) I would likely go GMT... but this is a tough one...

[DCgator]

GMT II has more functionality and the better all-around watch albeit not for serious diving.

[JohnFM]

drockadam,

It's the black insert. Wish it were Coke or Pepsi. Are these hard to find?

John

[Ebruner]

The 14060 is just so simple and classic.

-Eddie

[m j b]

I was a little hesitant when buying my sub 14060 because of the "cheap" bracelet and clasp, but now that I have it and wear it, I love it. No regrets.

I find the GMT a little too busy, the sub is classic. But hey, it's your watch and it's your wrist. If you are getting good prices on them, then buy both, sell the one you wear the least.

[dlubix]

I had both and both gone....
But I'm sure that is only question of time when I buy Pepsi back :-)

GMT Pepsi / Coke has my vote.