closing tag is in template navbar
Time Factors Watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Rolex Comparison of two Submariners 1962 gilt and 2019 ceramic chromalight 114060

  1. #1
    Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    sometimes Suomi.........
    Posts
    2,132
    Blog Entries
    2

    Rolex Comparison of two Submariners 1962 gilt and 2019 ceramic chromalight 114060

    One of the first Submariners with crown guards and one of the last, with sixty odd years between them. A 1962 gilt dial chapter ring, silver print with exclamation mark dial , pointed crown guards, factory chamfers, long 5 bezel insert on a 1962 oyster 7206 rivet bracelet. Side by side with a 2019 chromalight Maxi dial, super case, ceramic bezel on an oyster glidelock bracelet.
    The DNA is obvious and looks to have gone full circle in regards to case design with the newest model.

    Enjoy.

    restaurants near carolina beach




    sawmill grill oxford pa



    With a funky cool grandson 16610 LV


    With beefy great grandson 116600 SD


    Enjoy your weekend,
    Mike
    Last edited by milwatch126; 20th March 2021 at 08:22.

  2. #2
    Nice comparison pictures. Iím glad Rolex have now slightly refined the ceramic Sub.

  3. #3
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    2,161
    Blog Entries
    1
    Both lovely watches - I think that Rolex got the case design spot on all those years ago.

  4. #4
    Grand Master MartynJC (UK)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Surrey, UK. OdiŠxere or somewhere in-between
    Posts
    10,173
    Blog Entries
    20
    If it was any other company they'd be making a 1962 re-issue but with a 3230 movement and aged patina in SuperLuminova. But can't see it happening?
    Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 20th March 2021 at 19:02.

  5. #5
    Journeyman Rubymac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Kirkcaldy scotland
    Posts
    124
    Lovely Gilt Sub , need to be seen in the flesh to appreciate , dials are on another level to anything else

  6. #6
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Location
    london
    Posts
    91
    both are so beautiful in their own way, iíd love to have both in my collection

  7. #7
    Iíve never owned one of the ceramic subs, but having owned a few 5513ís and plenty of 5 digit models I imagine that - although they look similar - the newer one feels dramatically heavier and heftier all round? - I know the old Rolex models have a bit of a Ďunicorní glow about them but although they are clearly a Ďtoughí watch they always felt light and almost insubstantial on the wrist, even the 5 digit sea dwellers.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Master 50kopek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Hague, Netherlands
    Posts
    1,041
    Interesting comparison. IMO the 1962 one looks much better proportioned. The new one seems overly wide and blocky around the lugs. The 1962 one is just great in all aspects.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by MartynJC (UK) View Post
    If it was any other company they'd be making a 1962 re-issue but with a 3230 movement and aged patina in SuperLuminova. But can't see it happening?
    Thatd be a tacky move. I think rolex really know what they are doing with their small incremental changes... rather than, for instance, the Omega approach - cheapening a ranges image with far too many variants and re-issues in "limited" (but still made in vast numbers) edition, fake-aged models.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ellsy_79 View Post
    both are so beautiful in their own way, i’d love to have both in my collection
    For me thats the right way to see it. The 1962 model has some lovely proportions, but cannot be said to be anywhere near the 114060 in terms of fit and finish. Especially where the bracelet and clasp are concerned. The 114060 has moved with the modern tastes in terms of size and shape, which is not to everyones taste but the moves forward in quality are clear to see.

    What does remain, however, is the similarity between the two despite over half a century having passed. As the OP said, the DNA is, again, clear for all to see.

    I just wish rolex hadnt recently moved to 41mm... I thought they had it right at 40... but, that said, 40mm submariners arent exactly hard to get hold of, and arent likely to be anytime soon.

  11. #11
    Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    sometimes Suomi.........
    Posts
    2,132
    Blog Entries
    2
    If anyone is interested in an amazing unpolished 1963 vintage Submariner check out Lunar Oyster for reference and pictures.

    M

  12. #12
    Craftsman jonasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    645
    They just need to sort out the crown guards in the next update and they are back on track again :-)

    Seriously I think Rolex has done an excellent job making the Sub the icon it is by sticking to incremental changes. The obvious comparison is the 911.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Umbongo View Post

    I just wish rolex hadnt recently moved to 41mm... I thought they had it right at 40... but, that said, 40mm submariners arent exactly hard to get hold of, and arent likely to be anytime soon.
    I donít think thereís any discernible difference in the size between 114060 and 124060, thereís YouTube videos showing precision measurements that show virtually no difference other than slimmer lugs on the newer version.

  14. #14
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    430
    The bezel width on the latest two models went from (I believe) 40.22mm to 40.53mm, hardly a massive difference.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    Master paneristi372's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Barrowford
    Posts
    2,429
    It's a nice evolution. I can appreciate both of them on their own merits. Lovely comparison pics. Thanks for posting.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisparker View Post
    I donít think thereís any discernible difference in the size between 114060 and 124060, thereís YouTube videos showing precision measurements that show virtually no difference other than slimmer lugs on the newer version.
    I have to hold to two I own side by side to figure out which is which or look for the AR difference. Most people complaining haven't seen both side by side.

  17. #17
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    1,439
    Quote Originally Posted by MartynJC (UK) View Post
    If it was any other company they'd be making a 1962 re-issue but with a 3230 movement and aged patina in SuperLuminova. But can't see it happening?
    Agreed, never a company to look back only onwards and upwards.

  18. #18
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    3,044
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Gomers View Post
    Agreed, never a company to look back only onwards and upwards.
    They donít need to milk the back catalogue for money unlike every other brand.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Montello View Post
    They donít need to milk the back catalogue for money unlike every other brand.
    Thatís because the current catalogue looks like the back catalogue with a touch of ceramic.

  20. #20
    Master
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    West Yorkshire, England
    Posts
    1,751
    This inspired me to put these 2 side by side. Itís great evolution




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  21. #21
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Location
    london
    Posts
    91
    decades apart and yet iíd happily wear and own either of these 2 beauties

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information