114060 How Thin Does it Wear?

[Photovideopro]

This question is for all you thin watch fanatics like me...

How thin does the 114060 wear in YOUR experience?

After owning an ETA Black Bay for well over a year I’m ready to let it go for a Rolex. Naturally, the watch I’m drawn to most is the 114060. I’ve tried it on a bunch of times and am seriously considering it. Do any of you feel that it’s too tall? I love my Black Bay but my main complaint is that it’s all midcase.

Bonus question... to those of you who’ve owned 5 & 6 digit sub nds. Can you tell a difference on case height?

Thank you!

[brettpaul]

The 114060 wears very slim IMHO...I've worn the Sub, GMT, Daytona, etc with casual wear and suits and they work well. The only Rolex that doesn't lend itself to suit wear is the Deep Sea (my opinion).

Get the 114060 - you'll never take it off your wrist!

[SearChart]

Significantly thinner than any Seiko diver, that's for sure.

[Old Expat Beast]

Depends on your wrist shape, and how the more convex caseback of the SubC fits it. SubC and the ETA BB are, as I recall, 12.5mm and 12.7mm respectively, including the slight dome of the BB crystal. For me the flat back of the BB ETA is the most comfortable, and wears well when slightly loose, without the need for a glidelock.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Depends on your wrist shape, and how the more convex caseback of the SubC fits it. SubC and the ETA BB are, as I recall, 12.5mm and 12.7mm respectively, including the slight dome of the BB crystal. For me the flat back of the BB ETA is the most comfortable, and wears well when slightly loose, without the need for a glidelock.

I agree; I find the BB much more comfortable. I let go of my Sub C due to it feeling top heavy on my wrist. I find the 11600 more comfortable than the Sub C as well. We're all different and you have to wear a watch to know how it will feel on you.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Photovideopro

This question is for all you thin watch fanatics like me...

How thin does the 114060 wear in YOUR experience?


Bonus question... to those of you who’ve owned 5 & 6 digit sub nds. Can you tell a difference on case height?

Thank you!

The 114060 is a great watch. In my experience it doesn't wear thin at all. Not tall like a 116600, but still not slim.

Bonus question answer...Yes you can tell a difference in height, comfort and weight. I prefer the 5 digit Subs overall. IMO, the only benefit of all of the 6 digit Subs are the maxi dial and hands. YMMV

[mountainjogger]

Does not wear slim. But it does wear well.

[Rokoru]

I own a Black Bay RED since 5 years and I wore it daily for 4,5 years.. I love it. Same thing happend to me and I Bought a 114060 8 months ago. Haven´t taken it off since then. Especially when used to the Black Bay size this 114060 wears much thinner. I even sometimes fall asleep at night and forget taking it of. Its an amazing watch. One thing I do think of right now is the fact that I have to watches without the date. I didn't like the date bubble before but I am kind of over that now. I think if I had to choose right now I would go for the date version..

[1William]

The 114060 wears great and is a true daily wearer. It could be a one and only very easily. The Glide Lock clasp is worth the price of admission. I have owned numerous Black Bay's and several 114060's and for what it is the Rolex is my choice if I had to choose. I don't own either now as I have a SD43, the perfect Rolex for me in that I am a bigger person and have always liked bigger watches. Can't go wrong though.

[slide13]

I think it wears pretty thin for the type of watch it is.

I’ve had a couple BBs before and never liked how they wore. The flat back and thick midcase makes it wear very tall in my opinion and makes it look thicker than it really is.

The Subs thin midcase, thicker bezel, and domed caseback are all a better fit for me both physically and visually.

[mjclark32]

Compared to the Tudor it should wear slimmer, but if you want a thin watch look outside of a diver.
That said, I wear a sub (16610) 99% of the time and it’s absolutely fine.
Good luck!

[JR16]

I agree with a lot of the above- I own a SubC date, 14060M, and B.B. eta on strap... i would not call the SubC a “thin watch” but I suppose it’s what you are comparing it to. Compared to a panerai or seiko diver it is thin. Compared to the BB, it is less tall by a little bit but for me the B.B. is actually more comfortable due to its flat back. The SubC is chunky. The 5 digit subs def wear smaller and thinner. With all that said, the glidelock is a huge advancement in getting the right fit. I had to flip the bracelet on the 14060M, and I hated the B.B. bracelet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Maiden]

For a 300m dive watch it wears well IMO. Wear it with shirts and jackets all the time and no problems. Glidelock ensures a comfortable fit. Go for it!

[Chadridv]

never owned a 114060. Is the case the same as the 116610? anyhow, depending on that, I'd never describe my SubC as "thin". I think it wears really well though and easily slips under a cuff, which seems to be the most point of reference when trying to describe the height (thickness) of a watch.

[RHIII]

I agree with many of the aforementioned comments, and really wouldn't describe any Sub as 'slim'. Having said that - the 14060 and 114060 are the two references I've worn as my daily over the years - more than any others, and have found they are perfect for that.

The reference I would however describe as 'slim' is the DJ41.

The 114060 will not disappoint you!

[GBD]

I had a 114060 and BB (in-house) at the same time, and found that although the BB case hugs the wrist more than the SubC, that the BB was too top-heavy. The SubC sits up a bit, off the wrist, but I found it extremely comfortable, due in part to the ability to get a perfect fit with the glidelock clasp.

[watchwatcher]

In my experience, it doesn't wear thin at all.

Very nice watch, it's just the no date is a deal breaker for me.

[REFZ]

The 114060 was my first Rolex and I have it for over 5 years now.
After I bought my DJ41 around 7 months ago I have been wearing it almost daily and I when I wear my Submariner now I think it is a little bit bulky compared to the DJ41.

Conclusion: I don't think you can call the 114060 a thin watch.

[douglasf13]

It’s thin for a dive watch, but not a thin watch.

It’s really a matter of visual weight vs. comfort, as mentioned above. The convex Rolex caseback has always bothered me a little, which would often have me going back to an old Omega of mine, but the flat Tudor caseback doesn’t bother me.

[tifosi]

It doesn't wear thin or tall, really. It's all relative. As the poster above me stated, "it is thin for a dive watch, but not a thin watch". If you want to wear a dive watch on a daily basis, it really is "The One". I do. It could be a thinner watch, but then I'd be wearing a dress watch which doesn't work with my one watch guy status.

[avusblue]

I owned a Black Bay Black for a while and sold it, and now I daily-wear a 114060. I agree with @slide13’s comments below -- dimensions be damned, the SubC just “wears” much thinner and more comfortably than the BB. The BB case is “all sidewall”, which bulks up its look and feel significantly. I’d add that the bracelet makes a big difference between the two watches as well. The SubC’s narrower, and steeply tapering, bracelet -- plus its amazing clasp that lets you really dial in the fit perfectly -- allow the SubC to wear much slimmer and sleeker than the BB.

The BB is a cool watch, for sure -- but as far as all-around wearability, comfort, and smoothly sliding under dress shirt cuffs? In my personal experience, the Sub is far better. Maybe even....superlative??

Cheers!

Originally Posted by slide13

I think it wears pretty thin for the type of watch it is.

I’ve had a couple BBs before and never liked how they wore. The flat back and thick midcase makes it wear very tall in my opinion and makes it look thicker than it really is.

The Subs thin midcase, thicker bezel, and domed caseback are all a better fit for me both physically and visually.

[Lime]

Isn't this an objective subject? Look at the stated thickness of the watch

[droptopman]

Love my 114060, but if you want thin go to 4 or 5 digit sport models. The modern version with the glidelock wears very balanced to me, but I do miss the thin elegance of the vintage cases sometimes. Especially the GMT which has a flatter case back to wear "thinner".

[tifosi]

Originally Posted by droptopman

Love my 114060, but if you want thin go to 4 or 5 digit sport models. The modern version with the glidelock wears very balanced to me, but I do miss the thin elegance of the vintage cases sometimes. Especially the GMT which has a flatter case back to wear "thinner".

Agree completely. For me the 14060M wore thinner than my 114060. I'd love to back to a 14060 for that reason alone...but I think I'd miss the "feel" of the 114060. When I first bought the 14060M way back when it didn't "feel" like it's MSRP. I think the 114060 makes up a bit in that department.

I do miss the charm of the 5 digits, however. Oh well.

[Onequik135i]

The 114060 wears perfect IMO, I had a 14060 model for a "very short time" and was way too thin along with being to light. I know a lot of purists on TRF really love the 5 digit models but I for one make up the smaller percentage. My wrist size is 6 3/4 or damn close to that if I recall when I had picked up my 114060 at my AD 2 weeks back.

[jrs146]

Originally Posted by mountainjogger

Does not wear slim. But it does wear well.

I would agree with this. It’s noticeably thicker than a GMT but not so thick that it causes a disturbance for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by tifosi

Agree completely. For me the 14060M wore thinner than my 114060. I'd love to back to a 14060 for that reason alone...but I think I'd miss the "feel" of the 114060. When I first bought the 14060M way back when it didn't "feel" like it's MSRP. I think the 114060 makes up a bit in that department.

I do miss the charm of the 5 digits, however. Oh well.

Considering the Sub nearly doubled in price from 2005-2015, one even has to wonder if the current Sub "feels" like its MSRP. I might argue that the 14060 was the better deal in 2005.

[tifosi]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Considering the Sub nearly doubled in price from 2005-2015, one even has to wonder if the current Sub "feels" like its MSRP. I might argue that the 14060 was the better deal in 2005.

Yea I know...That's why I said "makes up a bit" hahaha

[nikesupremedunk]

I didn’t like it at first because it was noticeably taller than my gmt. Now I got used to it and it’s not bad. The case is thinner than the bb though.

[Quailhunter]

I greatly prefer the fit of my GMT II to the Sub C. I thought the Sub clasp was much bulkier than that of the GMT. Fit is a very personal and subjective thing so try the watches on before buying.