Despite owning a few Rolex models over the years I have little knowledge of Submariners. It all seems too much effort
I currently have an Explorer 1 and in the past I owned a Sub C (non date) for about 6 months but if truth be told I never bonded with the Sub (too square with fat lugs and I was not a massive fan of the glossy dial). However, the build quality was fantastic.
I don't like vintage watches so patina is not for me. Lately, however I have been thinking about a pre ceramic model Sub. Ideally as late as possible (2008 to 2011).
Can I ask for some advice on both the date and non date versions ? I appreciate that the bracelets are not as good as the SubC but I presume the quality is fine.
I don't have a large budget and I could only stretch to a Sub. My other option is hopefully a nice GS on bracelet and a Omega 2254.50.
I have owned both the 14060m in 2 liner and 4 liner format (both non date pre- Ceramic) and it is a great watch, the last of the classic Submariner models before the bulkier ceramics came in. Both versions are great Watches.
The 93150 bracelet is good. Sure the later bracelets are even better, but it is perfectly useable.
These watches ran until around 2011.
Thanks Ken. I think I prefer the date model from internet images.Originally Posted by Wallasey Runner
A nice 16600 might be an option ? Date but no cyclops and still available with prices starting with a 4.
Ceramic probably not worth twice that though.
Last edited by -Ally-; 23rd January 2018 at 21:28.
It's the age old cyclops/no cyclops debate with Subs.
I am struggling with the ceramic or not ceramic choice myself.
Do i go ceramic for the better bracelet or pre ceramic for smaller lugs and option to change to nato etc - I have a feeling my skinny wrist size will make the choice for me!
Another 14060m owner here (bought from SC here) at the back end of last year and it's basically not been off my wrist since. Simple choice for me, I went no date as I'm not a cyclops guy and I think a no-date is closer to the way the Sub' was originally intended (white gold bits and engraved rehaut aside!) and I went last gen as I dislike the case shape (lugs especially) on the new ceramics (even though the I really like the way the ceramic bezel reacts in light).
Yes the bracelet perhaps doesn't feel as substantial as you might expect for a watch costing what these do, but by the same token I really dislike bracelets on most watches and always swap out for leather or natos and this is the most comfortable watch bracelet I've ever owned so i've never considered changing it out for anything else. I'm sure the new glidelock is brilliant to get a perfect fit, but oddly this one arrived from a member here and had the perfect fit for me already - i've not had to tweak it even slightly.
I can't speak highly of it enough.
Despite owning a few Rolex models over the years I have little knowledge of Submariners. It all seems too much effort
I currently have an Explorer 1 and in the past I owned a Sub C (non date) for about 6 months but if truth be told I never bonded with the Sub (too square with fat lugs and I was not a massive fan of the glossy dial). However, the build quality was fantastic.
I don't like vintage watches so patina is not for me. Lately, however I have been thinking about a pre ceramic model Sub. Ideally as late as possible (2008 to 2011).
Can I ask for some advice on both the date and non date versions ? I appreciate that the bracelets are not as good as the SubC but I presume the quality is fine.
I don't have a large budget and I could only stretch to a Sub. My other option is hopefully a nice GS on bracelet and a Omega 2254.50.
Last edited by Ashtennisguru; 23rd January 2018 at 22:25.
I’ve owned a 14060 4 liner and 16610 Sub date. The bracelets aren’t as substantial as the current ines but once they’re snapped shut on the wrist they’re fine. They’re good quality and they last well.
What really annoyed me was the poor fit on 14060 bracelet, the last link ajoining the clasp on the 6 side is longer than the corresponding one on the 16610, and on a slim wrist that spoils the fit because the 6 side can’t be made short enough. The difference is only 3mm but for me it spoiled the watch and I ended up selling it. I subsequently bought a 16610 and that fitted fine. My wrists are 6.75 “ but very square, so I struggle with some watches.
The pre- ceramic models are slimmer, neater and far nicer in my opinion; judging by the prices they fetch plenty of folks agree!
I’ll never understand why Rolex messed about with the case and lugs, they spoiled a true classic.
Paul
Paul's summed it up quite succinctly there. Rolex made a mistake IMO with the fat case re-design, starting with the update to the GMT then the Sub. It's almost as if they acknowledged that faux pas when the SDc was launched that had decidedly trimmer profile lugs yet still chunkier than the classic 5 digit references. They then went off on another tangent when the revised 216570 was launched which had the kind-of classic profile but felt a 42mm case was required.
I used to pour over Rolex catalogues from the 90's and appreciate the fact that all the Professional models essentially utilised the same case design but with various detail changes to dial, complication, bezel design etc. Modern day Rolex Pro modes seem to be a bit of a hotch-potch of design cues that dilute the brand IMO (but I suspect this is more amongst WIS like us lot more than the general well-to-do watch buying public).
I've just traded a classic 16570 for a new 214270 and the new bracelet is a marked improvement in design and build quality. I wanted a Rolex with the classic lines and while the 39mm Explorer is seen as an unnecessary bloating of the 36mm by some, the new size suits me better whilst retaining that slim yet strong lug design of the legendary 5 digit rev models. Whenever I see the new Sub, I also see another watch I own, the Helson Shark Diver.
The aesthetic challenge of the current Sub range will always outweigh any improvements that the newer solid link bracelets may bring. Rolex really dropped a bollock there IMO. Buy the best 5 digit Sub you can now coz the prices are just gonna go one way ^^^.
My Z series 16610, one of the last without the branded rehaut, will be 10 years old in a couple of months. It's been to RSC once and came back as good as new. While I prefer wearing my Explorer day to day, mainly due to the lower height on my wrist and it being less obvious, the Sub is a solid classic. Nowadays I tend to save it for special occasions and as a treat to myself in the rotation. I prefer the older style case with the smaller, non-maxi hands and plots. The lume is rather feeble, not on account of its age, I just don't think Rolex's lume was ever any good at that time. The Explorer's (I bought in 2014) is better but still not as good as that on my Speedy and needless to say my Seikos.
As Paul has mentioned the bracelet is not as solid as modern versions but they have stood the test of time. There are no Easylinks etc. but there are enough adjustment points on the clasp to find a very good fit. Paperclips can also be pressed into service if your need is dire.
A final consideration is that for some there are too many Subs out there. So what, they are glorious.
Best of luck in your the hunt.
Last edited by dkpw; 24th January 2018 at 00:57. Reason: typos, typos!
Don’t worry about the 0.003mm fit on the newer/better bracelet. It’ll fit you nicely, try it. It fits the normal sized wrist.
I got rid of my 114060 because of the fat lugs, miss the bracelet but that’s all. Have a real hankering for a 14060. Someday soon I’ll scratch that itch.
Had a ceramic sub with date and the Lego blocky lugs did my head in. I really wanted to like it but it just didn’t appeal.
This is perfection however IMO:
Oh and while the glide-lock on ceramics is brilliant I still find the 14060m bracelet more comfortable too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by waser; 24th January 2018 at 02:11.
I would sum it up by saying that the ceramic models are streets ahead technically but from a visual POV, they are tasteless and yukky. They are just plain loud.
Mfb both the 16610 and 14060 are excellent choices. I think the later 140460m's are the ones to look out for but if you want a date then the 16610 is spot on.
Lots of people umm and aff about the bracelets. The newer ones are more advanced and solid, but the tuna can bracelets did an admirable job for years and are very comfortable without the additional weight.
I have to say they are definitely louder than their older counterparts but I personally wouldn't go as far as to say tasteless. In my experience I found that while the older models are certainly rock solid, to me they never felt that expensive in the hand - especially when you were to fondle a Seamaster of the same age in the other hand (Which just goes to show what good value the SM300 always is/was). I think the new models are significantly ahead in that subjective, hands-on way and it's what twisted my arm to dive in and buy one.
To the OP - don't think you will go far wrong with either pre-ceramic sub version and the 93150 bracelet has served the watch well for 30 odd years. I wouldn't expect you to have any problems with the bracelet unless you have particulary peculiar wrists ! Far prefer the pre-ceramic versions in terms of look and size. Its clearly a personal preference though one way or the other as replies to this thread demonstrate.
Agreed, and I also prefer the lighter and slimmer version of the bracelet for wearing.
Personally, I find that the 16610’s date display completes the watch, but either version is good. It’s just that Rolex’s distinctive magnifier and leaf-shutter-like instantaneous-change mechanism are so good that it’s a bit of a shame to forego the feature. Hearing that subtle ”snick” at midnight is always a pleasure.
Ah yes but clean dial symmery and purity. Yadda ;)
Slimmer drilled lugs, aluminium bezel, any wonder vintage prices are so strong.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Both is my solution to this dilemma :)
Absolutely.
But it's important to remember that when it comes to selecting a wristwatch, it's not about what you want, but what the self-appointed internet experts tell you to want. ;)
I WILL FIGHT YOU BELLIGERO.
I don't think you can go far wrong with any of them really.
For sure; there isn't a single model of Submariner that I'd turn down. :)
Totally agree and this what I wanted..............a 16800 'transition'.
^
Yummy.
Excellent choiceTotally agree and this what I wanted..............a 16800 'transition'.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
And looks fantastic without a cyclops :)
Mike Wood has a nice early 16800 due in.
http://www.theoldwatchshop.com/rolex.html
I have small 6.5" wrists and I find the pre ceramic bracelet hard to keep the watch in position on the wrist - Keeps slipping cos the clasp is not nicely seated in the middle of the wrist below. If you can picture what I mean...
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Certainly does
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Sacrilege! :O
Once you learn to embrace that lovely lens, it's the watches with an unmagnified date that start looking a bit deficient.
Yes, that’s a common issue. Fortunately, it's possible to remove a permanent link to get a better fit, as many have done.
I much prefer it without. I've got a rolex with cyclops and I just don't like how it distorts the hands and dial, hides the date at most angles, and straight on, just makes the date comically large.
Fair enough; to each his own. It's a lovely watch either way.
Strangely, those are the very same things that I miss when I wear my Sea-Dweller, which is probably why the watch has always left me a bit cold compared to my Sub. For me, the asymmetry and quirkiness (as well as the nice big date to counterbalance the 9 o'clock marker) are exactly what I like about the Cyclops. :)
Completely agree!
Rattly bracelets, stamped clasps and hollow end links should stay in the past.
Compared to what?
To the five series.
I don't know much about Rolex watches, but that's a cracking picture.Had a ceramic sub with date and the Lego blocky lugs did my head in. I really wanted to like it but it just didn’t appeal.
This is perfection however IMO:
Oh and while the glide-lock on ceramics is brilliant I still find the 14060m bracelet more comfortable too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks everyone for the responses. Having a think
All these 14060/M comments on bracelets make me worry mine could fit better lol.
That said, I bought mine just after the fat lug version came out & whilst I loved the bracelet of the ceramic, the classic still won me over & remains one of my best purchases.
Whatever you decide, you will love it, enjoy the research and ultimately the decision & ownership.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I know you don't like vintage, however the 16800 and 168000 are great watches and can still be found at reasonable money.
I have a 16800 (1982) and still use it for diving. They are that good.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
People still dive with them...I cover mine with a sleeve when it rains lol. Not even my seikos go near water, I know...I know!
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I actually took my SeaDweller into a swimming pool. Was very glad of the 1218.5m of depth I had in the locker.
Of course. I would dive in my 68 5513 because it recently passed pressure testing. These watches were designed to get wet. Your job is to make sure they are serviced correctly and to enjoy wearing them.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
That is an irreversible move that I am resisting against
I love my 16710 GMT but the big complaint I have is the poor lume and the small lume plots, which makes it hard to read after a few hours in the dark. It has made me wonder about trading my 16710 for an Omega 2234 SMP GMT, and my SMP 2264 for a Sub or SD with the Maxi hands and plots. Does anyone have any experience of comparing the lume on the later models with the maxi hands against the older sapphire / WG markers against the classic matte dial and acrylic models?
Lume (tritium) will be dead on anything pre year 2000, i.e all tritium models. Might get a short burst if stimulated by a light source, but in effect no use in the dark. Safe to say lume effect on new ceramic models will be better than that on post year 2000 models - newer lume and bigger hands/plots.
Given that many daren't take them near water, I'm surprised to hear that some take them out the box at night
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
How about the older acrylic models with a modern matte SL service dial - eg 1665, 5512, 1680, vs the 16600 / 16610 / 16710 sapphire / WG plots?
Safe to assume better than those with original trit dials, but probably still pretty poor. I would prefer an original trit dial 1665/5513/1680 over a service dial version even if the original doesn't work in the dark................lume performance has never been much of a consideration for me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
