ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Andrejb · 3 February 2018, 02:20 AM

Is it just me or does the 14060/14060M wear like a 39mm?

I actually quite like it. But am I crazy for saying it’s smaller than the 16610?

It might be because I switched from a SubC but it actually wears a bit smaller than 40 on my wrist

Anyone else get this from the watch?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AEC · 3 February 2018, 02:23 AM

Wow, the stark steel really stands out against the body-art!

sensui · 3 February 2018, 02:27 AM

I can't say for certain....but I think it has to do with the clean look of having a balanced dial.....and in this case even cleaner with a 2 liner. Love this watch.

watchwatcher · 3 February 2018, 02:28 AM

I get it. I briefly had a 114060 and always thought it wore smaller than the 116610. It doesn't of course, but it always felt like it did.

para38super · 3 February 2018, 02:44 AM

I felt the same way. I went with the 16610. It was perfect for me.

SeaDweller50 · 3 February 2018, 02:46 AM

The 14060 diameter is indeed smaller than the 16610. By half a mm I believe. The 16600 is identical which matches the date window up with the markers. And the reason why the date window does not match up in the 116600

SeaDweller50 · 3 February 2018, 02:50 AM

There is more differences between those then you might think , or would seem at first glance : Just have a look at those figures

......................... N-Date 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)

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

RolexPete · 3 February 2018, 02:57 AM

Best to get rid of that watch before it shrinks further. Humidity is the biggest culprit. I will take it and keep it in a special dry storage container. Will return in a few years.

kilyung · 3 February 2018, 03:14 AM

I agree. My 14060M wore more like a 39mm.

Rokoru · 3 February 2018, 03:17 AM

I had a 114060 for 8 months which I loved but I traded it in for a 16610LV. For me the 114060 wears more like a 41/42 mm and the 16610LV like a real 40mm watch..

HORNBLOWER · 3 February 2018, 04:47 AM

I was always of the opinion that the 14060 is smaller.

SeaDweller50 · 3 February 2018, 06:03 AM

I found it too small for my wrists. The 16610 / 16710 is the absolute smallest I’d ever go. Plus I prefer the SEL’s and sturdier clasp.

Justinmg · 3 February 2018, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sensui

I can't say for certain....but I think it has to do with the clean look of having a balanced dial.....and in this case even cleaner with a 2 liner. Love this watch.

+1 perfect proportions

The Libertine · 3 February 2018, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justinmg

+1 perfect proportions

Absolutely!

ink3027 · 3 February 2018, 08:07 AM

One of Rolex's finest.

RolexPete · 17 February 2018, 09:46 PM

To me it is the perfect size:

Thuilln · 18 February 2018, 12:18 AM

It fits you very well, stop worrying for 1mm.

yessir69 · 18 February 2018, 12:26 AM

Yes, it feels smaller.

The 16700 GMT is that way for the GMT family.

vitalsignsrn · 18 February 2018, 12:41 AM

Not just you. lol That's actually the reason I bought the 14060 because it fit slightly smaller & more comfortable.

Justinmg · 18 February 2018, 12:47 AM

Perfection in my book

DoctorA · 18 February 2018, 01:01 AM

Nope!!

meyers · 18 February 2018, 01:36 AM

Agreed

I have a 14060 and my brother-in-law has a 16610. Any time we are out somewhere and I catch a glimpse of his watch, it definitely appears to wear larger. Not just the case, but strangely the bracelet appears bigger (wider) too - maybe something about the SEL?

I wouldn't think 0.5mm would have much of a difference in appearance, but evidently it does

dr35mm · 18 February 2018, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrejb

It might be because I switched from a SubC but it actually wears a bit smaller than 40 on my wrist

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this is the key.

iliketime · 18 February 2018, 03:19 AM

i mourn my 14060M, it was a perfect classic

ferrissteve11 · 18 February 2018, 03:44 AM

Always thought the 2 line was 'too sterile' of a dial design IMO....but dial aside size wise it doesn't appear to wear particularly small. Great art work by the way, watch pops against the sleeve.

Cru Jones · 18 February 2018, 04:24 AM

We're talking about 1 millimeter, right? ;-)

3 February 2018, 02:20 AM	#1
Andrejb 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2016 Real Name: Dre Location: Canada Posts: 1,689	14060 wearability. Is it just me? Is it just me or does the 14060/14060M wear like a 39mm? I actually quite like it. But am I crazy for saying it’s smaller than the 16610? It might be because I switched from a SubC but it actually wears a bit smaller than 40 on my wrist Anyone else get this from the watch? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3 February 2018, 02:57 AM	#8
RolexPete "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Peter Location: Massachusetts Watch: 214270 Mk2 Posts: 1,937	Best to get rid of that watch before it shrinks further. Humidity is the biggest culprit. I will take it and keep it in a special dry storage container. Will return in a few years. __________________ 2016 Explorer 214270 Mk2 - 1996 Submariner 14060* - 1972 Datejust 1601 1972 Oyster Perpetual 1002 - 1978 Oysterquartz 17000 Omega Seamaster 2265.80 - Omega Seamaster 300 166.0324 *RIP PAL 1942-2015

17 February 2018, 09:46 PM	#16
RolexPete "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Peter Location: Massachusetts Watch: 214270 Mk2 Posts: 1,937	To me it is the perfect size: __________________ 2016 Explorer 214270 Mk2 - 1996 Submariner 14060* - 1972 Datejust 1601 1972 Oyster Perpetual 1002 - 1978 Oysterquartz 17000 Omega Seamaster 2265.80 - Omega Seamaster 300 166.0324 *RIP PAL 1942-2015

18 February 2018, 12:18 AM	#17
Thuilln "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2016 Real Name: Nick Location: YUL Watch: 16570 Posts: 1,936	It fits you very well, stop worrying for 1mm. __________________ Nick _________________________________________ 14060M - 114200 - 114270 - 214270 - 16710BLRO - 16570 - 3570.50 - Cartier Tank Solo - Cartier Tank Française ‘Yearling’ - CWC Navy Diver

18 February 2018, 12:47 AM	#20
Justinmg "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Real Name: Justin Location: FL Watch: PO Posts: 3,353	Perfection in my book __________________ //////////////////////////////// Member of The Nylon Nation Does it do anything? It tells the time.

3 February 2018, 02:23 AM	#2
AEC 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Tony Location: Orchard Park, NY Watch: Idiot Savant Posts: 3,239	Wow, the stark steel really stands out against the body-art!

3 February 2018, 02:27 AM	#3
sensui 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 12,356	I can't say for certain....but I think it has to do with the clean look of having a balanced dial.....and in this case even cleaner with a 2 liner. Love this watch.

3 February 2018, 02:28 AM	#4
watchwatcher "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Larry Location: Kentucky Watch: Yes Posts: 34,479	I get it. I briefly had a 114060 and always thought it wore smaller than the 116610. It doesn't of course, but it always felt like it did.

3 February 2018, 02:44 AM	#5
para38super "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Los angeles Posts: 73	I felt the same way. I went with the 16610. It was perfect for me.

3 February 2018, 02:46 AM	#6
SeaDweller50 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Real Name: Sandy Location: England. Watch: 14060M 2 liner Posts: 3,204	The 14060 diameter is indeed smaller than the 16610. By half a mm I believe. The 16600 is identical which matches the date window up with the markers. And the reason why the date window does not match up in the 116600

3 February 2018, 02:50 AM	#7
SeaDweller50 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Real Name: Sandy Location: England. Watch: 14060M 2 liner Posts: 3,204	There is more differences between those then you might think , or would seem at first glance : Just have a look at those figures ......................... N-Date 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) Hand length.....................same.......

3 February 2018, 03:14 AM	#9
kilyung 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cave Watch: Sundial Posts: 33,870	I agree. My 14060M wore more like a 39mm.

3 February 2018, 03:17 AM	#10
Rokoru "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2017 Location: Europe Posts: 759	I had a 114060 for 8 months which I loved but I traded it in for a 16610LV. For me the 114060 wears more like a 41/42 mm and the 16610LV like a real 40mm watch..

3 February 2018, 04:47 AM	#11
HORNBLOWER "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Real Name: Ben Location: Ireland Watch: 1 OR 2 Posts: 2,636	I was always of the opinion that the 14060 is smaller.

3 February 2018, 06:03 AM	#12
SeaDweller50 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Real Name: Sandy Location: England. Watch: 14060M 2 liner Posts: 3,204	I found it too small for my wrists. The 16610 / 16710 is the absolute smallest I’d ever go. Plus I prefer the SEL’s and sturdier clasp.

3 February 2018, 08:07 AM	#15
ink3027 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Location: Texas Posts: 715	One of Rolex's finest.

18 February 2018, 12:26 AM	#18
yessir69 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2011 Real Name: Kevin Location: Tornado Alley Posts: 3,212	Yes, it feels smaller. The 16700 GMT is that way for the GMT family.

18 February 2018, 12:41 AM	#19
vitalsignsrn "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Judy Location: Ontario Watch: 116234 - 14060M Posts: 4,607	Not just you. lol That's actually the reason I bought the 14060 because it fit slightly smaller & more comfortable.

18 February 2018, 01:01 AM	#21
DoctorA "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: USA Posts: 6,523	Nope!! __________________ Wear the watch you like, not the one they tell you to wear!

18 February 2018, 01:36 AM	#22
meyers Banned Join Date: Apr 2016 Location: ○ Watch: 16710 Posts: 435	Agreed I have a 14060 and my brother-in-law has a 16610. Any time we are out somewhere and I catch a glimpse of his watch, it definitely appears to wear larger. Not just the case, but strangely the bracelet appears bigger (wider) too - maybe something about the SEL? I wouldn't think 0.5mm would have much of a difference in appearance, but evidently it does

18 February 2018, 03:19 AM	#24
iliketime "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Real Name: Jack Location: NYC Watch: 16570, 16710 Posts: 1,534	i mourn my 14060M, it was a perfect classic

18 February 2018, 03:44 AM	#25
ferrissteve11 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: USA Posts: 1,115	Always thought the 2 line was 'too sterile' of a dial design IMO....but dial aside size wise it doesn't appear to wear particularly small. Great art work by the way, watch pops against the sleeve.

18 February 2018, 04:24 AM	#26
Cru Jones 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Paris, France Posts: 34,475	We're talking about 1 millimeter, right? ;-)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)