The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Old 31 January 2010, 01:10 AM   #1
clarencek
"TRF" Member
 
clarencek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 400
14060 vs 14060M vs 16610

I purchased a 14060 (not a "M" model) and have been really surprised at the differences between my 14060M and my 16610 LV.

The case is thinner - I'd say at least by 1 mm. So it wears very nicely on the wrist.

The dial also looks smaller, maybe the bezel is thinner, but it overall looks like a smaller watch at least compared with my 16610.

The hands are thinner than my 16610.

Anyway, just thought I'd share my observations. I can now see why there are folks that like the older models. I have a feeling this 14060 will get a lot of wrist time.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Rolex-14060.jpg (45.8 KB, 4426 views)
File Type: jpg Rolex-14060M.jpg (38.8 KB, 4383 views)
File Type: jpg Rolex-16610LV.jpg (63.7 KB, 4375 views)
clarencek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 01:23 AM   #2
acce1999
"TRF" Member
 
acce1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: GMT+1
Posts: 2,711
Are you sure the case is thinner? This is news to me. Do you mind taking comparative shots? I am curious.

The dial is a millimeter smaller in diameter, if I remember correctly.

BTW: Congrats! A nice blend of submariners; the elegant green, the up to date COSC 14060M, and the well used older 14060.

Best,

A
acce1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 01:25 AM   #3
bluemartinifan
"TRF" Member
 
bluemartinifan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real Name: Russ
Location: Dallas Texas
Watch: 5513
Posts: 2,124
Nice Collection! Agree to all - I have a 16710 and a 14060. The GMT feels a bit larger on my wrist and appears a little showier (is this a word?) than my 14060. The 14060 goes under the radar - this is a Rolex that does not get noticed much - maybe lack of cyclops - maybe all the clones. Try the 14060 on a strap and it is even lighter and takes on an entirely different look. (I have swung to the dark side - on the Dan Pierce strap team...)
Love both the 16710 and 14060!!!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 14060.jpg (57.6 KB, 4315 views)
bluemartinifan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 01:40 AM   #4
sea-dweller
"TRF" Member
 
sea-dweller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Real Name: Dennis
Location: Bay Area - 925
Posts: 40,018
Congrats. I have a 14060 and I have had few astute observers notice that it is a Rolex, and I do get comments that "it is missing the cyclops". Other than that, the 14060 is an awesome watch !
__________________
TRF Member #6699 (since September 2007)
sea-dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 01:45 AM   #5
xxthe_remedyxx
"TRF" Member
 
xxthe_remedyxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: George
Location: NYC
Watch: 114060
Posts: 1,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by sea-dweller View Post
Congrats. I have a 14060 and I have had few astute observers notice that it is a Rolex, and I do get comments that "it is missing the cyclops". Other than that, the 14060 is an awesome watch !
LoL! Do they notice that their is no date when they make that assumption?
xxthe_remedyxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 01:47 AM   #6
sea-dweller
"TRF" Member
 
sea-dweller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Real Name: Dennis
Location: Bay Area - 925
Posts: 40,018
- not sure about the date, they usually mention something to the effect of "that's a Rolex, but it's missing the "bubble"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by xxthe_remedyxx View Post
LoL! Do they notice that their is no date when they make that assumption?
__________________
TRF Member #6699 (since September 2007)
sea-dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 01:54 AM   #7
warrior
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: massachusetts
Watch: Explorer
Posts: 1,644
Nce subs! Is there any difference at all between the 14060 and 14060M ( aside from the script and movement) ?

The 14060 seems to have a deeper dial ( i.e. space from the crystal to the dial)...is that the case? i do not necessarily say this from your pics...just from my personal observations of the two.


Quote:
Originally Posted by clarencek View Post
I purchased a 14060 (not a "M" model) and have been really surprised at the differences between my 14060M and my 16610 LV.

The case is thinner - I'd say at least by 1 mm. So it wears very nicely on the wrist.

The dial also looks smaller, maybe the bezel is thinner, but it overall looks like a smaller watch at least compared with my 16610.

The hands are thinner than my 16610.

Anyway, just thought I'd share my observations. I can now see why there are folks that like the older models. I have a feeling this 14060 will get a lot of wrist time.
warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 02:08 AM   #8
padi56
"TRF" Life Patron
 
padi56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Real Name: Peter
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng
Watch: ing you.
Posts: 52,117
There is no difference between the 14060 and the 14060M except for the slightly modded movement.The 14060M now has a full balance bridge and slightly larger balance wheel,basically its a Cal 3135 without the date complication.
__________________

ICom Pro3

All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only.

"The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever."
Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again.

www.mc0yad.club

Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder
padi56 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 02:13 AM   #9
warrior
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: massachusetts
Watch: Explorer
Posts: 1,644
\Oh yes...i was aware that the movement was different. When i quickly compared the two in person, however, I thought that the dial depth on the 14060 was greater that the 14060M ( I owned the latter). It definitely looked deeper to me and that surprised me b/c I thought that they were essentially the same except for the differences I mentioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by padi56 View Post
There is no difference between the 14060 and the 14060M except for the slightly modded movement.The 14060M now has a full balance bridge and slightly larger balance wheel,basically its a Cal 3135 without the date complication.
warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 02:22 AM   #10
Tools
TRF Moderator & 2024 Patron
 
Tools's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Real Name: Larry
Location: Mojave Desert
Watch: GMT's
Posts: 42,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrior View Post
\Oh yes...i was aware that the movement was different. When i quickly compared the two in person, however, I thought that the dial depth on the 14060 was greater that the 14060M ( I owned the latter). It definitely looked deeper to me and that surprised me b/c I thought that they were essentially the same except for the differences I mentioned.
They're identical, except for the movement..
__________________
(Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....)
NAWCC Member
Tools is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 02:25 AM   #11
warrior
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: massachusetts
Watch: Explorer
Posts: 1,644
thanks ...perhaps i was drunk at the time
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tools View Post
They're identical, except for the movement..
warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 02:31 AM   #12
clarencek
"TRF" Member
 
clarencek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by acce1999 View Post
Are you sure the case is thinner? This is news to me. Do you mind taking comparative shots? I am curious.
A
You know... from the pictures it's really hard to tell... but eyeing it it seems slimmer, but I don't have a fancy measuring tool to confirm this. :-/

My 14060 may also have been polished at some point... so maybe that's it?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_2704.jpg (48.5 KB, 4246 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_2705.jpg (64.2 KB, 4226 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_2706.jpg (57.9 KB, 4202 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_2710.jpg (57.4 KB, 4192 views)
clarencek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 03:17 AM   #13
usergiovi
"TRF" Member
 
usergiovi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: giorgio
Location: Italy
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 42
The only difference regards the movement.
usergiovi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 03:38 AM   #14
acce1999
"TRF" Member
 
acce1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: GMT+1
Posts: 2,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarencek View Post
You know... from the pictures it's really hard to tell... but eyeing it it seems slimmer, but I don't have a fancy measuring tool to confirm this. :-/

My 14060 may also have been polished at some point... so maybe that's it?
Thanks! That is a nice comparison. The 14060 is obviously not as thick as the 16610. I knew that, and others in the thread have said that the 14060 and the 14060M are identical (when it comes to the case). Perhaps yours is polished.

What I've learnt is that every case is unique, at least when it comes to the older style. I have seen 16610s, 14060s, 16570s, 16710s that all are unpolished but the size and dimension of the lugs differs slightly. Actually I have two fairly new 16570 where I can see an obvious difference in the shape of the lugs: They are given a manual final touch when produced in Geneva, so depending upon who does the last polishing, the lugs might differ. This is impossible to notice, unless you have two watches to compare.

What I was curious about was if the 14060, just like the 16700, had a thinner case than its siblings 14060M/16710. The 16700 is 0.2 mm thinner than the 16710. Not much, but for a WIS like me such information is fun to collect.

Thanks again for taking your time to post the pictures. I do not have a 14060, but sure would like to have one.

My conclusion would be that the cases of the 14060, and 14060M are the same, but you have made the same observation as I, that there still are individual differencies.



Best,

A
acce1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 03:53 AM   #15
rfknauss
2024 Pledge Member
 
rfknauss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Richard
Location: Macungie, PA
Watch: 5513 Sub, LV Sub
Posts: 14,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarencek View Post

Anyway, just thought I'd share my observations. I can now see why there are folks that like the older models. I have a feeling this 14060 will get a lot of wrist time.
Beautiful subs! I love my new LV, but still wear my old 5513 sub at least once a week.
__________________


"Few things in life give man as great a pleasure as wearing a Rolex!"

TRF's "AFTER DARK" Bar & NightClub Patron
rfknauss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 03:53 AM   #16
Tools
TRF Moderator & 2024 Patron
 
Tools's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Real Name: Larry
Location: Mojave Desert
Watch: GMT's
Posts: 42,991
I think that the minor differences in a 14060 and a 14060M case may have to do with improvements in the robotic technology used in the 80's early 90's to finish the 14060 case, and the more recent improvements and manufacturing plant upgrades that are used on the 14060M..
__________________
(Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....)
NAWCC Member
Tools is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 January 2010, 04:28 AM   #17
acce1999
"TRF" Member
 
acce1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: GMT+1
Posts: 2,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tools View Post
I think that the minor differences in a 14060 and a 14060M case may have to do with improvements in the robotic technology used in the 80's early 90's to finish the 14060 case, and the more recent improvements and manufacturing plant upgrades that are used on the 14060M..
Perhaps. I've been thinking about this. I have been under the impression that the entire case was done by CNC machines, at least from the 90's and onwards, and the differencies notable on the lugs related to the wear of the tools used (new sharp tools cut deeper), so I asked a Rolex Watchmaker I know, and he told me that there is indeed a last polishing done by hand. At least on the older style models.

I might have misunderstood him, but I do not think so.

As can be seen on the Rolex web site, the polishing of the newer style cases, on the other hand seems to be completely automated.

This is perhaps a reason to phase out the older style models (in addition to changes in the market), but given the highly programmable CNC machines of today there shouldn't be any problems continuing to produce new, and old style cases in parallel. I hope Rolex do so.

Best,

A
acce1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 July 2010, 12:47 AM   #18
spfx5150
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: littlerock
Posts: 7
I just bought a 1996ish 14060 on Ebay yesterday, I cant wait to receive it, Very Excited.
spfx5150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 July 2010, 01:11 AM   #19
autofiend
"TRF" Member
 
autofiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 276
When I was in the market for my 14060M a few weeks back, I was surprised to notice that the older 14060s were going for about the same $ as the newer 14060Ms.

You'd think the newer movement model would be valued a little higher, but that is the magic of Rolex.
autofiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 July 2010, 05:52 AM   #20
MagedMS
"TRF" Member
 
MagedMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: Maged
Location: Egypt
Watch: SUBMARINER 114060
Posts: 514
Difference between 14060/16610

Quote:
Originally Posted by acce1999 View Post
Are you sure the case is thinner? This is news to me. Do you mind taking comparative shots? I am curious.

The dial is a millimeter smaller in diameter, if I remember correctly.

BTW: Congrats! A nice blend of submariners; the elegant green, the up to date COSC 14060M, and the well used older 14060.

Best,

A
Both cases (14060M / 16610) have the same thickness.. The difference is in the Bezel thickness.. The Bezel of the 16610 is thicker.. as shown in this picture.

[Reference: The Rolex Reference Library: http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=112776] Post by Larry.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg SubBezels.jpg (48.2 KB, 3930 views)
__________________
ROLEX SUBMARINER-114060/116610 LN/116613 LB
ROLEX DEEPSEA-116660/116660 DBL/SD43-126600
ROLEX GMT II C-116710 LN/EXPLORER II-216570 BK
ROLEX DAYTONA-116503 BLABR
ROLEX MILLGAUSS-116400 GV
MagedMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 July 2011, 03:33 PM   #21
Juggernaut
"TRF" Member
 
Juggernaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 901
Ok, I know about the difference between 14060 vs 14060M, but what about the different dials (one with the "superlative chronometer officially certified" and one without)... Does this signify differences in production date?
Juggernaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 July 2011, 03:50 PM   #22
sleddog
TRF Moderator & 2024 Patron
 
sleddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Real Name: Rob
Location: Nearby.
Posts: 24,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juggernaut View Post
Ok, I know about the difference between 14060 vs 14060M, but what about the different dials (one with the "superlative chronometer officially certified" and one without)... Does this signify differences in production date?
The COSC (4 line) dial came in with the middle of the Z production run....along with the engraved rehalt!
Before that it was the 2 line dial...


__________________
He who wears a Rolex is always on time, even when late!!

TRF's "After Dark" Bar & Nightclub Patron-Founding Member..
sleddog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 July 2011, 09:04 PM   #23
ExpII
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Real Name: chris
Location: Boston, MA
Watch: Milgauss, PAM 359
Posts: 390
I have one as well and it should get ample wrist time when it comes back from the Ridley Spa. I noticed it wears smaller than my Milgauss despite the bezel.
ExpII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 July 2011, 09:13 PM   #24
ddnyc77
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: nyc
Posts: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagedMS View Post
Both cases (14060M / 16610) have the same thickness.. The difference is in the Bezel thickness.. The Bezel of the 16610 is thicker.. as shown in this picture.

[Reference: The Rolex Reference Library: http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=112776] Post by Larry.
I think if you read Larry's post carefully you will notice that although the diameter of the 16610 and the 14060M is the same, the height of the case is different, I also recall that the only interchangeable parts between the 14060M and the 16610 is the hands and the crown.

Other than that and this is jut my opinioin as I have a D serial 16610 LV and a Z serial 2 line 14060M, my LV gets a lot of wrist time and personally I think the 14060M is a great watch I just wish it had the large markers and fat hands which is what I really enjoy on the LV.
ddnyc77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 July 2011, 09:55 PM   #25
Passionata
"TRF" Member
 
Passionata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: N/A
Watch: the girls
Posts: 7,095
Switched from LV to this baby,what a clean design!Therefore nice to keep watches at the bank,always make me smile when i rotateImageUploadedByTapatalk1310558138.156565.jpg
__________________
Best
George

"Also remember that feet don't get fat and a watch will always speak volumes." Robert Johnston
---------------------
*new*https://youtu.be/EljAF-uddhE *new *

http://youtu.be/ZmpLoO1Q8eQ
IG @passionata1
Passionata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14 July 2011, 12:17 AM   #26
James Gould
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 16
had an SD 16600 for 8 years - loved it - changed it for a GMT IIC as fancied a change - it's just not me and want to sell it and go back to an SD but might go for a non-COSC Sub ND 14060 - so clean and balanced, a real classic - the 5512 had a date but the 5513 didn't - the ND is the 'real' Sub although the 16610 has become a classic in its own right - however, might go for a late BNIB 14060M COSC before the production run ends which might not be too far away - tempted by a GMT II 16710 - 3186 but the Subs and SDs are my favourites. Enjoy!!
James Gould is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14 July 2011, 12:51 AM   #27
al_bongo
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 444
The 5512 did not have a date. The 5512 was COSC certified while the 5513 was not.
al_bongo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14 July 2011, 01:20 AM   #28
Michael M.
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Posts: 8,391
Very nice collection!!! I really like the 16610, and the 14060!!!
Michael M. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14 July 2011, 02:00 AM   #29
James Gould
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 16
I always get the 5512 and the 5513 mixed up - which one had the date and which was ND?
James Gould is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14 July 2011, 03:16 AM   #30
Passionata
"TRF" Member
 
Passionata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: N/A
Watch: the girls
Posts: 7,095
Both are ND versions,the difference is that 5512 was cosc
__________________
Best
George

"Also remember that feet don't get fat and a watch will always speak volumes." Robert Johnston
---------------------
*new*https://youtu.be/EljAF-uddhE *new *

http://youtu.be/ZmpLoO1Q8eQ
IG @passionata1
Passionata is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

Bobs Watches

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

DavidSW Watches

Coronet


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.