WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

21 - 40 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
For a brief while I owned a 14060M. The non-SEL didn’t bother me, nor the older bracelet relative to the newer versions on the ceramic models. Really liked the simplicity fo the 2-line model, and there was a luxury in wearing such a minimalist yet durable watch.

Perhaps my perfect version would be a holes case 2 line Sub, or a holes version 16610. To me if you’re going to go 5 digits you might as well add back the holes.

That probably doesn’t help you decide, but I also don’t think you can go wrong with the 5 digits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
It comes down to whether you like a date complication on your watch. I enjoy it and use it often, so I like the 16610. I’ve never owned that watch, but with my 16550, I did think the cyclops got in the way. My Tudor 58 is really clean and the symmetry is great. Honestly, I think it just goes down to practicality that aesthetics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,798 Posts
I love the simplicity of a not date sub, and am not a big cyclops fan, so that would be my vote. As far as lug holes, you can get a strap change tool that makes it a lot easier. Esslinger has some good options.
Capture.JPG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
After much research, I've now decided to get a 16610 2002 model as this benefits from lug holes, solid end links and no engraved rehaut.

This is the best balanced model based on my preferences of needing a date (as a daily watch) and changing the straps often.

I now see what people mean when they say that it is much more desirable without the engraved rehaut from pictures I have seen.

Thanks everyone for your wisdom


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,297 Posts
After much research, I've now decided to get a 16610 2002 model as this benefits from lug holes, solid end links and no engraved rehaut.

This is the best balanced model based on my preferences of needing a date (as a daily watch) and changing the straps often.

I now see what people mean when they say that it is much more desirable without the engraved rehaut from pictures I have seen.

Thanks everyone for your wisdom


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well done and that's a proper Sub!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #28
Still not decided!

Well - I think I have - 14060m late model.

Just trying to make sure of my choice by looking at countless wrist shot pics online and reading post after post on the topic.

I am stupidly obsessed....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
Nope - back to the latest, best condition 16610 I can find...

Final decision!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
Enjoy the thread as I have owned both a 16610 and 14060M. Sold the 16610. I have attached two random photos from eBay. Ignore the price as I was just looking for a photo comparison. If you stare at them for a moment you can see how the cyclops changes the dial. Whichever you like more is probably your preference.

Adjustments.jpg
IMG_3618.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
Throwing in another vote for the 14060M, if you reconsider. Symmetrical dial + lug holes + no engraved rehaut + your choice of 2-line or COSC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,397 Posts
Enjoy the thread as I have owned both a 16610 and 14060M. Sold the 16610. I have attached two random photos from eBay. Ignore the price as I was just looking for a photo comparison. If you stare at them for a moment you can see how the cyclops changes the dial. Whichever you like more is probably your preference.
Ooo... I dunno... the cyclops discussion is going to open a can of worms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,508 Posts
Both great watches.

I owned the 14060M, chronometer dial, and while I like the 16610, I find the 14060M more attractive.

However what doesn’t seem to have been mentioned here, and is especially true here in the UK, is that the 14060M chronometer dial fetches a decent premium over a 16610.

Whichever you pick will be a great watch, and to be honest I don’t think there is a wrong choice here. In actual fact if I was in the market for a Submariner, and I may be soon, I would definitely be tempted by the 16610 as it is seemingly the best value available in today’s market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
Both great watches.

I owned the 14060M, chronometer dial, and while I like the 16610, I find the 14060M more attractive.

However what doesn’t seem to have been mentioned here, and is especially true here in the UK, is that the 14060M chronometer dial fetches a decent premium over a 16610.

Whichever you pick will be a great watch, and to be honest I don’t think there is a wrong choice here. In actual fact if I was in the market for a Submariner, and I may be soon, I would definitely be tempted by the 16610 as it is seemingly the best value available in today’s market.
What's the going rate for a full set, late model 14060m vs 16610 in the UK at the moment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
My 114060 is actually the very first watch I've owned without a date complication and I wish I'd made this choice many watches ago. Perhaps unfortunate coincidence but it seemed that more often than not, I really wanted to see the exact time or position of the seconds hand when it was all directly beneath the "lens."

My wife has a very late DJ that is so attractive, but I find the cyclopes to be a larger aesthetic component of the watch than a functional one.

The Sub has a lot going on, aesthetically. YMMV, but the date complication is a bit much to carry there - unless - you really need to read the date (which hopefully, you also remembered to set within the last few weeks).

Great watches, all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
I purchased a Sea Dweller 16600 from 2007 - no holes, box, papers, etc. I thought it was a great idea to get the newest 16600 that I could reasonably afford.

BIG mistake. It is damn near impossible to get that thing off the bracelet. HUGE PITA, so it's pretty much stuck on the bracelet all of the time. Yeah, I think that two pronged tool pictured earlier will help. A lot of the cheap ones have problems with the tips breaking easily though. I found it helps to clamp the watch to hold it while trying to wrestle out those spring bars. Now I also have a holes case GMT and Bluesy Sub. They are an absolute dream to swap on and off the bracelet for leather straps and natos. I find that really helps to keep things interesting with my collection. A $6 nato or $30 leather strap is a lot cheaper than a new watch!

I personally really recommend that you stick with your original idea of a holes case. I personally would go for the 14060M and get the newest one that you can. As for the 14060M bracelet - I have seen some that are still in good shape and they are not bad. I have also seen some stretched all out and they are the absolute worst bracelet that I've seen. Here's a hint though - for $20 or so you can get a solid link (solid link, but hollow end link) bracelet off of Amazon. Swap the hollow end links from your Sub onto that bracelet and you've got a really rock solid combination. There are also quite a few options on Etsy that are not bad. Yeah, it's a $20 bracelet, but it's still worlds better than the OEM Rolex bracelet!!! You can even get Glidelock clasps. I'm not a purist when it comes to my watches though, especially the bracelets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
I have both a 14060M and a drilled lug 16610. It is a personal choice, but the NATO band option- for a tool watch for divers is a factor.
For those who have not really dug into the 14060/14060M references, please note "Last of the Best" by Paul Altieri under
the Bob's Watches heading with the article title. The 3130/3135 caliber movements are tough. It is an excellent article by a knowledgeable author. Starting 50 years
ago as a military diver, Rolex was the only really durable tool watch available. The prices were very affordable and "boutiques" were for
ladies garments. Times have changed but for us old salts, the Submariner is still an upscale tool watch.
 
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
Top