The Last of the Best...

[Ketler]

[FTX I]

Great pic and I agree.

[Chester01]

Indeed. No functional improvements after the 5 digits only more bling, added heft, and wrist presence.

[jpwv]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Indeed. No functional improvements after the 5 digits only more bling, added heft, and wrist presence.

Spot on.

[Marcjvr]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Indeed. No functional improvements after the 5 digits only more bling, added heft, and wrist presence.

Amen

[Cru Jones]

Nice photo!

Originally Posted by Chester01

Indeed. No functional improvements after the 5 digits only more bling, added heft, and wrist presence.

Well, except for the improvements to the movement, the better clasp, a more solid bracelet, larger markers for better visibility and a longer-lasting bezel insert, among other things.

Sure, some might prefer the aesthetics of 5 series watches, but to say there were no improvements with the 6 series is simply wrong.

As for more bling, the 5 series had polished case and bracelet sides like the 6 series. The aluminum inserts are quite shiny (but less glossy than ceramic, true).

I do agree that the newer ones weigh more and are larger.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Nice photo!




Well, except for the improvements to the movement, the better clasp, a more solid bracelet, larger markers for better visibility and a longer-lasting bezel insert, among other things.

Sure, some might prefer the aesthetics of 5 series watches, but to say there were no improvements with the 6 series is simply wrong.

As for more bling, the 5 series had polished case and bracelet sides like the 6 series. The aluminum inserts are quite shiny (but less glossy than ceramic, true).

I do agree that the newer ones weigh more and are larger.

The 3135 is widely considered one of the most robust movements ever made full stop. The bracelet is heavier and bulkier and the old had 4 fine adjustments, and was lighter. Both are held by the same pins and so the new is not stronger. The bezel insert using cereal bowl “technology” is more likely to fail when used outside of the desk environment sooo, no. I stand by my comments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChipotleBanana]

Originally Posted by Chester01

The 3135 is widely considered one of the most robust movements ever made full stop. The bracelet is heavier and bulkier and the old had 4 fine adjustments, and was lighter. Both are held by the same pins and so the new is not stronger. The bezel insert using cereal bowl “technology” is more likely to fail when used outside of the desk environment sooo, no. I stand by my comments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your comments are a rather silly argument. All of the newer models have obvious benefits; The new bracelets with solid links, milled clasps + glidelock, 70-hours of power reserve, better luminescence, and brighter colors(my preference but not really a benefit) are absolutely improvements to the watch. The old bracelets and clasps had to be fixed/replaced on a frequent basis compared to anything produced 2010+. Your preference for the older watches does not void the improvements of newer references.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by ChipotleBanana

Your comments are a rather silly argument. All of the newer models have obvious benefits; The new bracelets with solid links, milled clasps + glidelock, 70-hours of power reserve, better luminescence, and brighter colors(my preference but not really a benefit) are absolutely improvements to the watch. The old bracelets and clasps had to be fixed/replaced on a frequent basis compared to anything produced 2010+. Your preference for the older watches does not void the improvements of newer references.

Read my other comments. I get it you paid bank and want your watch to be better it’s not. It’s bloated and flashier that’s it.

70 hours power reserve is only better for folks that let their watch sit in a safe or are as sedentary as a plant. Are you a plant? I’m not and it’s over kill and not needed to justify the bloated prices. I wear my watch and so I have no need for anything about 24. 40 year old cereal bowl material is not better, is more likely to fail when impacted, and the much heavier bracelet not stronger period.

I have worn my sub doing things 99 percent of you folks would be screaming for their gshocks and never had a bracelet clasp fail period. I had my sub 23 years now. Serviced after 17 (had no problem AD guilted me into it).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RFC]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Nice photo!




Well, except for the improvements to the movement, the better clasp, a more solid bracelet, larger markers for better visibility and a longer-lasting bezel insert, among other things.

Sure, some might prefer the aesthetics of 5 series watches, but to say there were no improvements with the 6 series is simply wrong.

As for more bling, the 5 series had polished case and bracelet sides like the 6 series. The aluminum inserts are quite shiny (but less glossy than ceramic, true).

I do agree that the newer ones weigh more and are larger.

I couldn’t agree more and would add that the 124060 is more accurate. I own both the 14060M and the 124060. The 12 series is closest in design to the 5 series than the 11 series ever was. The M 2 liner remains my favorite go to Sub.

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Indeed. No functional improvements after the 5 digits only more bling, added heft, and wrist presence.

1. A clasp that matches the quality of the rest of the watch.
2. 70 hour power reserve.
3. Glidelock clasp for easy on the fly adjustments.

To name a few...

But yeah, no real functional improvements

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Ollie1982

1. A clasp that matches the quality of the rest of the watch.
2. 70 hour power reserve.
3. Glidelock clasp for easy on the fly adjustments.

To name a few...

But yeah, no real functional improvements

1) I have never had my existing clasp fail and I mountain biked in in many times. I never heard padi who wears his diving fail either. Clasp is not stronger as the pins are the same on old and new and that’s where they would fail.

2) no functional improvement for those of us that wear the watch rather than a safe)

3) glide lock clasp has adjustments old bracelets have 4 fine adjustments that can be made with a paper clip. Now, I’ll concede the glide lock can be adjusted like 1/2 second faster.

5 digit:

1) absolute bullet proof movement that has a track record proved over DECADES.
2) classic proportions
3) aluminum bezel means less likely to fail when used as a tool.
4) less wrist presence and bling (I don’t have a need to show off-plus for me)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by Chester01

1) I have never had my existing clasp fail and I mountain biked in in many times. I never heard padi who wears his diving fail either. Clasp is not stronger as the pins are the same on old and new and that’s where they would fail.

2) no functional improvement for those of us that wear the watch rather than a safe)

3) glide lock clasp has adjustments old bracelets have 4 fine adjustments that can be made with a paper clip. Now, I’ll concede the glide lock can be adjusted like 1/2 second faster.

5 digit:

1) absolute bullet proof movement that has a track record proved over DECADES.
2) classic proportions
3) aluminum bezel means less likely to fail when used as a tool.
4) less wrist presence and bling (I don’t have a need to show off-plus for me)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regarding point 1, it’s not the clasp failing that concerns me. It’s more the look and feel of a clasp which is far inferior to that of both 6 digit versions.

Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love a 5 digit Sub. But for you to say there have been no functional improvements since the 5 digits is simply not true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tgyberg]

I've had both and prefer the 6 digit

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Ollie1982

Regarding point 1, it’s not the clasp failing that concerns me. It’s more the look and feel of a clasp which is far inferior to that of both 6 digit versions.

Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love a 5 digit Sub. But for you to say there have been no functional improvements since the 5 digits is simply not true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I simply don’t care about look and feel, that’s not what makes a watch objectively better. I got my sub for 3250. I understand how folks that spend 10k+ want their watch to “feel” more luxurious, but the reality is the old one is not functionally inferior. “FEEL” does not equate with function.

We have reached diminishing returns with the improvements and Rolex is simply adding things that folks that spend 10k on a watch want to see to justify the prices now. I mean the crockery is 40 year old technology and Rolex just lazy. If they wanted to actually improve the bezel, they should have devised their own proprietary material rather than using stuff other watch brands started using decades ago. For a tool watch, ceramics are more likely to fail period. Adding bulky lugs and making the watch bloated and heavier just reduces its versatility and only adds wrist presence, of which I can care less about. The less people that know I’m wearing a Rolex the less likely I’m going to get got for my watch. Not looking like a Rolex has more real world advantage than looking like a Rolex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tikandtokalot]

Looks great.
Quality oozes out and no gimmicks.

[adawil2002]

5 digit references are so elegant & aesthetically pleasing.

[SLWoodster]

Kinda? I think they have to have a little patina. These still look like dead metal to me.

[Rick_Nashville]

Love your 'laser-focus' on tool watches.

[Lesnerelli23]

Not to throw fuel on the fire but didn't the 6 series introduce anti-magnetism on par with the Milgaus? That is surely an improvement in addition to others listed. Plus, I'm unfamiliar, but does 5 series have fliplock clasp (I think that's what it is called)? Not the glide adjustment, but the hinged clasp lock.

Edit:

I thought Padi DID lose an SD while diving? Also, to Chester above, not everyone wears a 6 series to "show-off". I prefer the look of the maxi-dial because of the nod to vintage dials with larger markers. Also, it just so happened the 6 series has one more removable link than the 5 (I have small wrist), and it is arguable about the bezel failure since the numbers are much less likely to fade.

[Shadow Play]

I don’t have a 5 digit Sub but I do have a 5 digit SeaDweller. I don’t think it’s better than my 124060 but I think it is a little more “refined” perhaps.

Either way, I don’t think you can lose.

[jlevitt9]

Y'all are missing the real question...on the 14060 do you go for the dial which has the more blocky submariner text (Pic 2 on this thread), or the more curvaceous version (Pic 1 on this thread).

[jlevitt9]

Would you all stop it with the "which sub is best".

The great thing about the Submariner (and many of Rolex's watches) is that decades old iterations and the newest thing look the same, to the untrained eye.

What makes it special is that people in this community, circumstances allowing, can get what speaks to them.

I have a 14060 2-liner because I wanted a Sub that flew under the radar as much as possible, and I love the way the 5-series fits my wrist.

That doesn't mean the newest sub, which has more heft, an updated clasp, more power reserve etc., etc., is any better or less iconic in its own right.

"Best" is subjective. Just enjoy your thing, and appreciate that someone else enjoys their thing within this community =)

[RFC]

Had not put my finger on it but agree that the 14060 seems to fly under the radar more than the 6 series Subs. I end up wearing the M more when I don’t want to call too much attention. I’m happy to own it too and be able to pass it to my grandchildren. What a classic…