Rolex Stainless Steel Question

[visualplane]

I got my first Submariner no date last week, and I have a question. It's the stainless steel no date from 2000. Recently I saw that they just got a 2010 model today for $400 more.

Is it worth trying to make an exchange? Is there much of a difference between the 2000 model vs the 2010? Does 10 years show that much wear? I know it depends on the usage, but was wondering how much the steel can fade over 10 years.

Thanks!

[Tools]

Sorry, your question doesn't make much sense without more information..

Rolex does not make watches by model year and the 14060M was pretty much the same for it's entire production except for some minor cosmetics..

Stainless steel doesn't fade

[77T]

The SS doesn't fade and I wouldn't trade if it were me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wdin]

Put both side by side. Whichever you like more, grab that.

Some here would prefer a 2-liner as compared to a 4-liner.
Some would go for ceramics over aluminium bezel insert.
Some prefers glidelock vs no glidelock.

Pick what you want and love most.

[brandrea]

The significant difference would be the ceramic bezel and glidlock clasp

[Jack T]

I find it surprising that a watch newer by 10 years, with the ceramic bezel and upgraded bracelet and clasp, is only $400 more. For two watches with comparable wear and tear, the price difference should be considerably more, in my opinion.

[Tseg]

Originally Posted by Jack T

I find it surprising that a watch newer by 10 years, with the ceramic bezel and upgraded bracelet and clasp, is only $400 more. For two watches with comparable wear and tear, the price difference should be considerably more, in my opinion.

I agree with all said... but as life would have it, the moment the 10 year old one is traded in you would discover that particular model had some weird quirk making it infinitely more collectable.

[SemperFi]

Congrats on your new Sub and welcome to the forum.

[schwartz914]

They are the same. No date ceramic sub came out in 2012

[Cdn328is]

Originally Posted by schwartz914

They are the same. No date ceramic sub came out in 2012

x2, though I'm not sure if they made the subs in 316L stainless or 904L in 2000. All rolex SS watches were made with the latter starting around 2004.

[jhe888]

What do you mean by stainless steel fading?

[visualplane]

The steel looks a bit dark but i'm not sure if that's how it's made or it's from aging. If the steel color doesn't change over 10 years, then everything else is fine to me. The sub no date is definitely my favorite watch of all the other models out there. I actually prefer this before the redesign of the 2012. I'm ok with not having a ceramic or gridlock clasp. I'm more concerned about the color of the steel.

[visualplane]

Thanks for the welcome everyone :)

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Cdn328is

x2, though I'm not sure if they made the subs in 316L stainless or 904L in 2000. All rolex SS watches were made with the latter starting around 2004.

Rolex have been using 904L in there watch cases since around 1987/8 but there is nothing magical about 904L

[LumpHammer]

The steel is 'fadeless' forever! The stuff Rolex use is much higher grade than even surgical steel so don't give it another thought.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by LumpHammer

The steel is 'fadeless' forever! The stuff Rolex use is much higher grade than even surgical steel so don't give it another thought.

Thats not quite correct 316L is more suited for surgical use, and the only difference between 904L and 316L is simply this.The main difference between 316L over 904L it has slightly more Molybdenum(Mo)approx 2% more, approx 1-2% more Crome(Cr), 1% copper(Cu), and approx 10% more nickel and that's it.And far more 316L is sold than 904L now if it was the other way round 904L would be cheaper than 316L.There are some disadvantages to 904L it will scratch and show scratches more easily than 316L.The only advantage is, its a bit more corrosion resistant, but in the real world with today's pampered watches its doubtful if any real advantage over the industry norm 316L.And 904L is no harder than 316L how the metal is tempered defines its over all hardness.

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by brandrea

The significant difference would be the ceramic bezel and glidlock clasp

Originally Posted by schwartz914

They are the same. No date ceramic sub came out in 2012

Yep.

Now if it's $400 to get the ceramic version, I would do that all day long.

[jhe888]

Originally Posted by LumpHammer

The steel is 'fadeless' forever! The stuff Rolex use is much higher grade than even surgical steel so don't give it another thought.

What does that mean? What IS surgical steel, and what does it mean to be higher grade than that? Not to be snippy, but that sentence doesn't have any meaning at all. There are hundreds of SS alloys. They all have various qualities and advantages and disadvantages over one another. What makes a great knife would make a terrible watch. What would make a great watch would make a terrible ball bearing.

I wouldn't expect the stainless used by any watch maker to change color with normal, or even fairly extreme use, to answer the question about "fading."

[landroverking]

Older classic Subs are just that Classic.
Sub C new case/clasp, but is it really any better?
Don't think the OP is taking about a 2010 Sub C. They weren't made yet right?

[Solo118]

Originally Posted by visualplane

I got my first Submariner no date last week, and I have a question. It's the stainless steel no date from 2000. Recently I saw that they just got a 2010 model today for $400 more.

Is it worth trying to make an exchange? Is there much of a difference between the 2000 model vs the 2010? Does 10 years show that much wear? I know it depends on the usage, but was wondering how much the steel can fade over 10 years.

Thanks!

Depends on the condition. Your "2000" model (lets just assume your paperwork says 2000) could be in better condition than the "2010" model.

If you are happy with you have just keep it, these watches will outlast you so you have nothing to worry about.

[LumpHammer]

Originally Posted by jhe888

What does that mean? What IS surgical steel, and what does it mean to be higher grade than that? Not to be snippy, but that sentence doesn't have any meaning at all. There are hundreds of SS alloys. They all have various qualities and advantages and disadvantages over one another. What makes a great knife would make a terrible watch. What would make a great watch would make a terrible ball bearing.

I wouldn't expect the stainless used by any watch maker to change color with normal, or even fairly extreme use, to answer the question about "fading."

Mearly saying the steel in his watch won't fade. He was worried. I was trying to help him not worry. I'm truly very sorry to offend your metallurgical sensibilities.

[visualplane]

Here's a photo

[JayLexo]

The only difference between the two watches which I know of is that the newer model than the one you have has no holes in the side of the casing for the braclet and the 2010 has an engraved rehaut, apart from that they are the same watch.

Welcome to the Sub club

[visualplane]

Man, i banged my rolex against a closet and there's a scratch already! I thought it was more resistant to that >:(

[tjbender]

The 2010 will also have a solid end link bracelet. If it were me that would be worth the extra $$$

Also, do you know the service history on your watch? That's something else to factor.

[Mak2013]

Originally Posted by visualplane

I got my first Submariner no date last week, and I have a question. It's the stainless steel no date from 2000. Recently I saw that they just got a 2010 model today for $400 more.



Is it worth trying to make an exchange? Is there much of a difference between the 2000 model vs the 2010? Does 10 years show that much wear? I know it depends on the usage, but was wondering how much the steel can fade over 10 years.



Thanks!

I think biggest difference will be visual. 2010 is more likrly then not a COSC ( 4 line on dial) version while yours is a 2 liner. Many prefer your version as dial is more clean looking.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mak2013]

Originally Posted by Jack T

I find it surprising that a watch newer by 10 years, with the ceramic bezel and upgraded bracelet and clasp, is only $400 more. For two watches with comparable wear and tear, the price difference should be considerably more, in my opinion.

Sub 114060 was released in 2012. OP is referring to 2010 COSC 14060m


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian Page]

Originally Posted by JayLexo

The only difference between the two watches which I know of is that the newer model than the one you have has no holes in the side of the casing for the braclet and the 2010 has an engraved rehaut, apart from that they are the same watch.

Welcome to the Sub club

I believe the 14060M had lug holes up until 2011 - last model w holes and COSC

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Brian Page

I believe the 14060M had lug holes up until 2011 - last model w holes and COSC

. The 14060M always had pierced lugs, it never came in either solid lugs or solid end links - classic to the end.