In terms of build quality and durability

[Finslayer83]

How would you rank the following sport models in terms of durability and overall robustness?

114060

14060M

216570

16600

Trying to help a buddy who is hard on his watches (active outdoorsman) and when showing him my 114060 he became "interested" in getting one. He shot me a text this morning and likes the four above.

Oh to see the addiction start with someone new is fun.

[padi56]

All oyster cased Rolex have the same robustness the only difference is the water resistance.And seeing most Rolex sports watches today dont see any water except perhaps a dip in the pool of shower.The robustness factor does not in the real world enter the equation in oyster cased Rolex watches.

[Finslayer83]

Originally Posted by padi56

All oyster cased Rolex have the same robustness the only difference is the water resistance.And seeing most Rolex sports watches today dont see any water except perhaps a dip in the pool of shower.The robustness factor does not in the real world enter the equation in oyster cased Rolex watches.

He's a big kayak / camper / snowboarder / etc... so it would get some use. He's got a quartz marathon at the moment, but wants to take the plunge. I tried to get him to sign up here but hes not a big "forum" guy.

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

IMO, all are perfectly capable to handle whatever he will throw at it.

Your buddy should just go with what he likes best.

Personally, I would go with the 114060 for the glidelock (useful to adjust during the day if truly "active"), the ceramic insert (the number of examples of broken inserts on TRF over the past decade can be counted on two hands, so I am fine with the "risk" in return for an insert that will be pristine) and movement upgrades compared to the 14060M and 16600.

he likes my 114060 a lot - but "can't have the same watch you do" syndrome - I told him get over that and get one!

[enjoythemusic]

Less = more so voted for the 114060. Less there is, less that may go wrong. On the other hand, ye ol' daily beater 24/7/365 SS SkyD blue rocks it and just came back from off-road bicycling. Agree with Padi they are all very durable so no worries.

Hmm, guess she needs a cleaning from trail dust 'n' stuff. Time for shower to clean it.... if that's, you know, ok for a Rolex to be in, you know, a shower.

Enjoy Your Time

[makak]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Less = more so voted for the 114060. Less there is, less that may go wrong. On the other hand, ye ol' daily beater 24/7/365 SS SkyD blue rocks it and just came back from off-road bicycling. Agree with Padi they are all very durable so no worries.

Hmm, guess she needs a cleaning from trail dust 'n' stuff. Time for shower to clean it.... if that's, you know, ok for a Rolex to be in, you know, a shower.

Enjoy Your Time

That is the absolute best pic of the Blue Sky Dweller dial I've ever seen. Superb

[torrente]

Originally Posted by Finslayer83

He's a big kayak / camper / snowboarder / etc... so it would get some use. He's got a quartz marathon at the moment, but wants to take the plunge. I tried to get him to sign up here but hes not a big "forum" guy.

I would say that a Marathon Pilot with the tritium lume is perfect for that use. I do not baby my fine watches but I do not use them on situations that can result in a heavy hit.

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by padi56

All oyster cased Rolex have the same robustness the only difference is the water resistance.And seeing most Rolex sports watches today dont see any water except perhaps a dip in the pool of shower.The robustness factor does not in the real world enter the equation in oyster cased Rolex watches.

Only correct answer

/thread

[Cru Jones]

IMO, all are perfectly capable to handle whatever he will throw at it (EDIT: seeing your post below, I would hesitate to take a Rolex kayaking due to the risk of slamming one's wrist against rocks in the river - camping & snowboarding is fine).

Your buddy should just go with what he likes best.

Personally, I would go with the 114060 for the glidelock (useful to adjust during the day if truly "active"), the ceramic insert (the number of examples of broken inserts on TRF over the past decade can be counted on two hands, so I am fine with the "risk" in return for an insert that will be pristine) and movement upgrades compared to the 14060M and 16600.

Originally Posted by Finslayer83

Oh to see the addiction start with someone new is fun.

[sco]

If he doesn't want the same watch, maybe he should look at a 116610, either LV or LN.

[Finslayer83]

Originally Posted by sco

If he doesn't want the same watch, maybe he should look at a 116610, either LV or LN.

I told him that I won't cramp his style if we happen to be at the same place at the same time!

Which usually is grabbing beers - married with a toddler keeps me from having the "free time" to be adventurous these days.

[GB-man]

Any will work but to answer your question I would say the expII

[Wcdhtwn]

The Explorer II was made for guys like him. It's easier to read than a Sub and has a great lume for night time, camping etc.

[droptopman]

Oops hit the wrong button. Voted 14060M but meant 114060. Had many 4, 5 and now 6 digit Subs. The 6 digits seems to not show wear and tear as much as their predecessors. Do not know if it is the 904 or the super case, but it is a noticeable difference to me.

[Chadridv]

For the snowboarding I’d rather have the slightly smaller 114060 over the EX2, which IMO are the only two options to go with here.

The only other factor is a bit of a toss up which is a steel bezel vs ceramic insert. Yes, ceramic is extremely scratch resistant but it can shatter, meanwhile the steel bezel will last forever but won’t look new forever.

That said, I’m pretty active and I’ve never had an issue (knock on wood) with any ceramic bezels shattering, in fact in 3-4 years of forum activity I think I’ve only seen one maybe two instances where someone broke their CE bezel.

[Finslayer83]

bump into June

[hugs]

Assuming he is VERY active ...

Would he rather have a cracked bezel that might fall off or one with a few scuffs?

114060 if the former

Otherwise, 216570.

[Rashid.bk]

The same really. Although the X1 seems to have the least movable parts which means the least things to service.

[WatchGuy1966]

216570 hands down, cause it's the only one with paraflex shock. Not to be confused with the parachrom spring.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by WatchGuy1966

216570 hands down, cause it's the only one with paraflex shock. Not to be confused with the parachrom spring.

That’s only a Rolex branded version of a shock system like KIF, which has been in all Rolex watches for a long time. Paraflex being noticeably better than KIF is dubious.

To answer the OP, I generally think the smaller the better for active use. I’d look at a 114270.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

That’s only a Rolex branded version of a shock system like KIF, which has been in all Rolex watches for a long time. Paraflex being noticeably better than KIF is dubious.

Rolex claims the Paraflex system increases shock absorption properties by 50%, which is a fairly substantial increase of something that can be measured.

It seems more dubious that Rolex would claim an engineering improvement if there isn't one, pulling it out of thin air if there were no numbers/tests to back it up.

To answer the OP, increased WR capability (due mainly to caseback thickness) past what all Oyster cases can withstand doesn't translate to an increase in real-world robustness or durability in terms of surviving knocks and bumps etc.

The only real difference in the choices would probably come down to the fewer things that could go wrong = more durable. The Explorer II doesn't have a moving bezel that can be knocked off, broken (if ceramic), or lost. All your dive watch choices do, so the 216570 gets my vote.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Rolex claims the Paraflex system increases shock absorption properties by 50%, which is a fairly substantial increase of something that can be measured.

It seems more dubious that Rolex would claim an engineering improvement if there isn't one, pulling it out of thin air if there were no numbers/tests to back it up.

To answer the OP, increased WR capability (due mainly to caseback thickness) past what all Oyster cases can withstand doesn't translate to an increase in real-world robustness or durability in terms of surviving knocks and bumps etc.

The only real difference in the choices would probably come down to the fewer things that could go wrong = more durable. The Explorer II doesn't have a moving bezel that can be knocked off, broken (if ceramic), or lost. All your dive watch choices do, so the 216570 gets my vote.

This has long been discussed. “Improves the shock resistance of Rolex watches by up to 50 per cent.”

Up to 50% of what? 50% vs. KIF? 50% vs. other brands? 50%. vs. no shock system at all?

Paraflex is first and foremost just another step towards vertical integration.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

This has long been discussed. “Improves the shock resistance of Rolex watches by up to 50 per cent.”

Up to 50% of what? 50% vs. KIF? 50% vs. other brands? 50%. vs. no shock system at all?

Paraflex is first and foremost just another step towards vertical integration.

There's no reason for Rolex to include a lie about improving the shock absorption capability vs the system it replaced if all they're doing is integrating production. They could do that without making such a claim and it would bother no one.

Are you suggesting that no improvement to KIF is possible, or that such performance can't be measured?

[77T]

Abstain -

All are equally robust...

The questions should be what function is more useful for him, followed closely with which form (design and execution) is more appealing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[KWSub]

I’m biased, but definitely the 114060 for me. Here are some of my reasons:

Cerachrom bezel (highly scratch resistant)
Brushed bracelet (won’t show scratches as easily)
Superior water resistance (compared to the non-diver watches)
ND (one less complication in the movement to go wrong)
Micro-adjustments with the glidelock clasp (more versatility regardless of what activity you’re doing)

I can, and do, almost any activity in my life with this watch. From boating to swimming to diving to tennis/golf to playing with my young sons. And it still looks brand new.

Now my PP 5711 & 5167...I admittedly “baby” those two far more.

[c41006]

I vote all of the above

[mineral]

I will recommend the older model 14060. Simple and classic watch with aluminum insert which will fade and show history of the watch has gone thru after many years.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Urosfan]

I agree with cru jones


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RossHetherington]

I'd recommend a G-Shock and keep the nice watch out of the adventuring.

[G'ed]

Polar 217570. Or Explorer I if don’t requires date.

Scratched bezel is nothing compared to cracked ceramic insert or jammed bezel.

[Andad]

The deeper it goes the more robust the construction must be.