Subs 16610 and 14060 (M).. Some Comparisons..

[Tools]

Most neophytes to Rolex see the Sub and the Sub Date and just assume that one has a date, the other doesn't, and that's the difference..

Of course, this is not true. They are completely different watches..

Here is a bit of trivia to amaze your friends:

......................... Sub................. Sub Date

Case Size ........ 39.5mm................ 39.5mm

Case inc Crown . 43.50mm..............43.60mm (difference could be possible to a higher seated tube)

Bezel Diameter... 39.5mm ...............40.00mm

Thickness.......... 12.20mm ..............12.55mm (Sub Date middle case is thicker as is the bezel)

Crystal Diameter..29mm ...................30mm

Visible Dial..........25.5mm..................26.5mm

Lugs.................Holes..................No Holes (since ~2001)

Weight ............ 127 grams .............. 135 grams

Hand length.....................same.......

Almost nothing on these watches interchanges except the hands and Triplock Crown... Even the bezel inserts are different to fit the different size bezels, and they use different (although interchangeable until SEL's) bracelets.... Since they do use the same hands, it gives an illusion that they are longer because of the smaller dial..they extend into the markers more..

136354

Here you can clearly see that the Bezel on the 16610 is thicker than the 14060 by comparing the undercut beneath the bezel grip surface:
136353

Another difference is the machined ledge on the backside of the 16610 (right) for the fitment of an SEL bracelet. The 14060 does not have suich a lip or ledge and an SEL bracelet cannot be fitted to this model without modification..

136355

Since these watches are made independently, and since they have continued on with the legacy of the original (nostalgic) Sub in the 14060M; I believe it will continue in production..

[kcmo]

Great info, Larry! :thumbsup: Both are so iconic and just beauties!!! :dude:

[sea-dweller]

Thanks Larry, great info.

[acce1999]

Thanks Larry! Great info. If it is OK for you I'll add them to the list of measurements I already have.

Best,

A

[Nicko]

Wow Larry, I never knew this, I was one of those who assumed the only difference was the date. :dummy:

[buz-lh]

As usual a very informative post. Thanks Larry.

[Tools]

Thanks Larry! Great info. If it is OK for you I'll add them to the list of measurements I already have.

Best,

A

Sure.. I've rounded them off so they are not absolutely precise..:thumbsup:

[acce1999]

Would you mind posting the EXACT measurements, for a true WIS like me? Or a PM perhaps?

(Crazy, I know...), but I guess you understand ;-)

[jlopicco]

Thanks for the info! This is one of the reasons I am such a big fan of this site!:thumbsup:

[tifosi]

Very informative, Larry. Thanks for sharing.

[JJ Irani]

Great info as always, Larry.......thanks!! :thumbsup:

[wgs]

Expert knowledge at its finest. :thumbsup:

[Sub'erman]

great shot! great info! great watches!!
My first(14060) and fourth(16610)Rolex. For some reason they haven't been flipped, and they won't! EVER!!!

[Subexplorer]

Hello Larry! Thanks for this info!
Just amazing! I´ve been owner of both subs for decades, and never had paid attention to these differences. I thought they were identical except for the date feature.
Thanks again for a most informative post and nice pictures!!
Kind regards, Abel

[slevin kelevra]

Thanks! I have the 14060M and the only thing I feel im missing out on is the improved braclet of the 16610. Other than that I prefer the ND (just!).

Both lovely watches! Especially in SS.

[SteelerFan65]

Thanks--great info!

[hng]

Good info. I too was thinking only date difference but now I know. Thanks!

[ParisDakarBmw]

Thanks for the good thread!

[sakuraba]

I always learn something new on TRF.

Thanks Larry! :thumbsup:

[Juggernaut]

Thanks Larry
another great informative post.
I was quite surprised to read that the Bezels/inserts are different. can you possible post a photo of the view profile of the 2 bezels??

[erolorhun]

Quality post, thanks

[007Willster]

Good job Larry! I just bought both about 2 weeks ago. The Sub Date for my wife and the Sub for me. I knew the date was thicker, but to the casual eye everything else looks close. My wife will find this interesting as well.

BTW, my sub is the certified version. Thanks again.

[erolorhun]

A question pertaining to the 14060M. Has the font that "Submariner" is written in changed between the 14060 and the 14060M? I remember seeing some Subs where the font is different from the ones pictures above.

[chrislkb]

I didnt know these are 2 distinct models. Thank for sharing!

[MarineRider]

Thanks Larry, great info. Now I know they are different.:cheers:

[eagle_lex]

thanks but i really hope they update the NO date as im a huge fan and i would like to add a new one to my collection!!!!

[DSLAM]

The knowledge here is impressive, thanks.

[ayres]

i posted this in larry's thread concerning the newly added images. i realize for record-keeping purposes that it is better suited here:

great details!

with the first photo, it is apparent that the 16610's crystal is more recessed inside the thicker thicker bezel when compared to the 14060m's crystal and thinner bezel.

what is the reason behind the thicker bezel? presumably, due to the date complication?

and do you have any readily available comparisons of the 1680 & 16800 (minus the acrylic crystal)? in other words, has the sub date's bezel always sat higher than the sub no date's bezel?

just a thought... it seems rolex would want to make it as easy as possible on themselves and insure that these components are interchangeable. are the differences of mechanics between these two watch cases/movements too great to overcome? stocking separate, large quantities of bezels (in the process of being discontinued) for the 16610 and 14060m seems a very inefficient way of going about it. thoughts?

[everose]

Fantastic info......

You can also see the crystal on the 14060 protrudes above the bezel much more than 16610(maybe because of the different bezel sizes???)

Also the crown appears to be thicker on 16610.

Amazing photos Larry!!!!

[slevin kelevra]

Anyone know the weights of the two watches?? Does the Sub Date feel like a far more substantial watch ??

[CPTL]

I'd be interested in any ideas as to why. Why the different case, thicker caseback, thicker bezel, etc. on the 16610? The only functional difference is the date function; makes no sense from an economy of production standpoint.

I can't believe they had to make a bigger case to fit the 3135. My DJ has a pretty small case.

[eddiethefish]

Larry rocks!

[mikester]

great info!!

[swatty]

:agree::agree::agree::agree:

Thanks Larry:cheers:

[anipit]

Thank you for precious informations.
I think if Rolex celebrates submariner's 50 years with the LV edition (with date) they consider the REAL submariner the one with date.
I can't understand people who still buy 14060 models.

[MikeyTX]

Again, I add another link to my Rolex only file. Thank you Larry. :cheers:

[mdtddd2007]

nice info...thanks

[Syms]

Great info! thanks for sharing!

[tradernick]

Thank you for precious informations.
I think if Rolex celebrates submariner's 50 years with the LV edition (with date) they consider the REAL submariner the one with date.
I can't understand people who still buy 14060 models.Larry, thanks for this post. It helps me in my search for the Grail, which for me is the 14060.

I'm not sure I agree entirely with the above quote. I certainly consider the Sub ND a 'real' Sub and I have a feeling that Rolex feels exactly the same way. The 16610 might be the more iconic piece, but that doesn't make the 14060 any less 'real', in my view.

For some people, the clean lines of the 14060 simply look better to their eye.

[springbar]

Thank you for precious informations.
I think if Rolex celebrates submariner's 50 years with the LV edition (with date) they consider the REAL submariner the one with date.
I can't understand people who still buy 14060 models.Larry, thanks for this post. It helps me in my search for the Grail, which for me is the 14060.

I'm not sure I agree entirely with the above quote.Well, I am sure I disagree entirely with Anipit.

The aesthetic and historical appeal of the no-date Sub is well-known and doesn't need repeating here. It also shares the singleness-of-purpose and beautiful utilitarian quality that made its predecessor, the 5513, the quintessential Rolex "tool" watch.

[ac001]

Larry: I echo the other Forum members in commending your post. Very valuable information. I was at an AD and we compared the ND and Date Submariner and he tried to tell me that there was no difference between the two styles in terms of size. I have a small wrist and the difference in size between the two made the ND Sub a better choice for me. But I did not want the COSC model because the dial appears a bit busy. The non-COSC model is a more classic and clean look (IMO). Which is why I also disagree with Anipit. There is no need to get pejorative with which Submariner is real. I like Springbar's assessment:
"The aesthetic and historical appeal of the no-date Sub shares the singleness-of-purpose and beautiful utilitarian quality that made its predecessor, the 5513, the quintessential Rolex "tool" watch." Pefectly stated.

[nowzen]

I think if Rolex celebrates submariner's 50 years with the LV edition (with date) they consider the REAL submariner the one with date. I can't understand people who still buy 14060 models.

Well I guess the date is something a desk-diver would need :agree: but clearly a REAL sub is the sub that Jacque Cousteau and James Bond's wore -
Rolex's First sub, the no-date. :smokin:

[ArtVandelay]

First of all, thanks for the informative post, Larry. Thanks for the effort.

It seems to me that the debate "date vs no date" Subs is as old as time itself. I can remember being at my AD when i bought mine, I must have run back to the store 3 or 4 times before finally going for a non date Sub. It's not that I hate the cyclops too much, since the magnified date is and will always be an iconic Rolex feature, but I guess I'm just one of those people who prefer to look at the Sub in a purely functional way: in this sense, the 14060 M does have a no nonsense, cleaner and slightly more utilitarian look to it. No other watch in the Rolex line (safe for maybe the Explorer I) conveys that message in my opinion. I also think the 14060 M looks gorgeous with he COSC inscription.

I just hope that Rolex will come out with a ceramic 14060 M COSC hopefully in the near future just to see what it looks like.

[kormaking]

First of all, thanks for the informative post, Larry. Thanks for the effort.

It seems to me that the debate "date vs no date" Subs is as old as time itself. I can remember being at my AD when i bought mine, I must have run back to the store 3 or 4 times before finally going for a non date Sub. It's not that I hate the cyclops too much, since the magnified date is and will always be an iconic Rolex feature, but I guess I'm just one of those people who prefer to look at the Sub in a purely functional way: in this sense, the 14060 M does have a no nonsense, cleaner and slightly more utilitarian look to it. No other watch in the Rolex line (safe for maybe the Explorer I) conveys that message in my opinion. I also think the 14060 M looks gorgeous with he COSC inscription.

I just hope that Rolex will come out with a ceramic 14060 M COSC hopefully in the near future just to see what it looks like.

I just hope Rolex will not come out with a ceramic 14060 M COSC, it will increase the resale value of mine when discontinue :clap:

[Colorao]

Thanks for posting this... My wife was asking me the difference between a Sub date and a ND last night and I really did not have anything to say other than the obvious one has a date and the other doesn't!!! :banghead:

Thanks for this awesome post! :cheers:

[slevin kelevra]

I would love to see a ceramic 14060m! I personally prefer the way the 14060m looks to the 16610 but I would like the SEL bracelet and added weight!

[directioneng]

Great info Larry but that was one thing you missed.:thumbsup:

[BASSETHOUNDS]

Funny I should come across this thread after just putting down the phone with my AD . I had to make sure he was going to in next time I go there . I need to pick up a watch and get my discount .. the Tudor salesman there wants to skin me alive ..:chuckle:
Anyway , I started talking about the my 116520 that should be there tomorrow along with the first 11661LN he gets (sold and paid upfront , I'm on 4th place with no deposit ) .. via 16610 he has still 3 in stock and I could be tempted to buy one if he discounts it enough and FINALLY to the NO date SUB .. he has one and will not discount it as he says they will stop making it and they are harder to get hold of then the 16610 . Does that sound right or is he pulling my leg ?

[janice&fred]

fantastic post as i really had no idea of the size differences with these 2 models. i also just figured one is date and the other is without :thinking:

i guess i'm just too into the vintage and never explored these newer models very well. i really should know more about this new stuff, as within the last few months i had to fork over big bananas and get janice the new ceramic maxi sub in tutone and blue, along with a new black 16613...as she decided she needed these. :rofl:

getting back to the 2 watches being compared in this thread, this is very interesting info and very enlightening! i actually have a soft spot for both the date and non-date as they both have their individual allure. i curently don't have a 14060 but i really find them quite interesting. i love the clean "tool" look, and am especially fond of the older style oyster bracelet without the SEL headlink. we have alot of SEL style watches in our stable now, so i think one of these 14060 babies is next on my list. i'm a simple kinda guy :thumbsup:

fred

[Alessio Scala]

very informative!
thanks!

[tep663]

very nice info...

[carlhaluss]

:thumbsup:Thanks for the great and informative post, Larry!
Since the new Sub-c has come out, I have gained a new interest in the Sub models, in particular the new Sub-c and the Sub no date.
The info you provide has answered a lot of questions for me.
Cheers,
Carl

[Chipmunk]

Very informative. Thanks for sharing, Larry.:cheers::thumbsup:

[ObscureLight]

Thanks for enlightening me! I had always thought the difference was only the dates but now I know better :worship:

[jets]

Wow they really are different huh?

[bezeldoc100]

As a neophyte Rolex owner (but a veteran admirer) I have a question I'd like to put out to the community. I just purchased a the New Submariner Date in SS from an authorized Rolex dealer. On closer inspection I notice the "t" in ft under the Submariner designation is crossed all the way through, from left to right, instead of the way I have seen it on every other Sub, from the center of the 't' to the right. Is this a variant from Rolex or something I should be worried about (i.e. oversight by a high-end forger)? Also, the etched crown at the 12-o'clock position on the flange is slightly off-center relative to the minute mark. Again, maybe I'm being paranoid, but Rolex isn't known for putting random changes out there but they are known for superlative QC. I'd appreciate the wisdom of those who have gone before me.

[Nica64]

Nice information, thanks Larry!! :thumbsup:

[sss]

Very informative! Thanks for the info!

[marcel78]

Larry - I wanted to echo everybody's comments, and thank you for a great iconic post :).
M

[marcinthemiddle]

I never saw this until today! :chuckle:
Great info/specs...thanks! :cheers:

[osjd]

Thank you, i think there are no differences except cyclop eye. Great job !

[drockadam]

I love that 16610! Very beautiful!

[slinger]

Thanks for all of the info, everyone. I am new to the forum and trying to learn about these beautiful watches. Hoping to pick up (probably used) my first nice watch this year!

[evanvito]

Nice piece of info...

[Darkshark]

Very informative post! Thanks for the comparison info.

[Juggernaut]

I wish the comparison photos were back up on this thread.
Any place I can see them?

[sleddog]

I wish the comparison photos were back up on this thread.
Any place I can see them?

The pics are there.......!:agree:

[Juggernaut]

ooops! I wasn't logged in.
Thanks!

[Lew Archer]

Larry,

How do the bracelets (Sub 16610, 14060M) differ?

Thanks much!

[dp7]

Just a new user to RF. This is great info!
TY for posting!