rolex 16610 vs 14060 | rolex submariner 16610 best years rolex 16610 vs 14060 14060 shows 2 lines on the bottom of the dial while the M shows 4 lines - a big visual difference that you have to decide on and live with daily. Yes, there is a "transitional" M that has only 2 lines that is, imho, the sweet spot and best of both worlds, but can be harder to find.
Whether you have leaks in your basement or cracks developing in your foundation, our team of Louisville concrete leveling and foundation repair experts can take on any challenge. We want to offer our experience and expertise to find a solution to your problem. Call us to reinforce your home today. Nick did an excellent job.
0 · rolex submariner ref 14060
1 · rolex submariner model 16610 price
2 · rolex submariner 16610 price
3 · rolex submariner 16610 best years
4 · rolex model 16610 release year
5 · rolex 16610 price chart
6 · rolex 16610 dimensions
7 · rolex 16610 blue bezel
Genuine reason for sale as I have just upgraded to a 2015 Fox Float X I can include some du bushes if required Cheers
rolex submariner ref 14060
I've heard that the 14060 is just a thinner watch than the later 16610 watches. Here's a thread that compares a 14060 vs a 16610 As a result, the 14060 would be my preferred choice. 16610 (date version) preferably 2002 k-serial. This model benefits from solid end .
I've heard that the 14060 is just a thinner watch than the later 16610 watches. Here's a thread that compares a 14060 vs a 16610 As a result, the 14060 would be my preferred choice.
michael kors wallet man
Here you can clearly see that the Bezel on the 16610 is thicker than the 14060 by comparing the undercut beneath the bezel grip surface: SubBezels.jpg Another difference is the machined ledge on the backside of the 16610 (right) for the fitment of an SEL bracelet. 16610 (date version) preferably 2002 k-serial. This model benefits from solid end links and has the full submariner look with the cyclops date window. 14060M (no date version) preferably the latest model before the new ceramic was brought in - so around 2011/2012. 14060 shows 2 lines on the bottom of the dial while the M shows 4 lines - a big visual difference that you have to decide on and live with daily. Yes, there is a "transitional" M that has only 2 lines that is, imho, the sweet spot and best of both worlds, but can be harder to find. I own a 14060M 2 liner Z serial, a 114060 and a 116610LN and I'm considering the idea of moving my 14060M for a new 124060. I love the 5 digit but the modern ones with glidelock clasp have perfect adjustment on my wrist, much better than the 5 digit.
16610 vs 14060: profile shots please! You can't be a Rolex fan if you've never had to personally debate buying a date Sub or a no date Sub. The No Date Sub has the classic proportions and esthetics. Apart from those changes, the Sub 14060M is the LAST current Rolex that has holes in the lugs, non solid endlinks and the old-style diver's extension link. The Sub Date uses the Cal. 3135 movt. (31 jewels).
I have a 6.5" wrist, give or take a 1/4" and have tried the 16610LV, the 14060 and the 116610 Sub-C. The Sub-C dominates the others in terms of its bracelet adjustment capability. The 16610 comes in second place with the 93250 bracelet being a bit more centered in terms of clasp. The 14060 is in third place with the 93150. The 16610 is sometimes called the last of the great pre-ceramics. The 14060 is a direct descendant of the 5513 and is as clean a look as you can get. There is nothing like wearing a classic.
I have the 114060. However I kind of have a hankering for a 14060 or 16610 on an Everest or Nato strap. I've heard that the 14060 is just a thinner watch than the later 16610 watches. Here's a thread that compares a 14060 vs a 16610 As a result, the 14060 would be my preferred choice. Here you can clearly see that the Bezel on the 16610 is thicker than the 14060 by comparing the undercut beneath the bezel grip surface: SubBezels.jpg Another difference is the machined ledge on the backside of the 16610 (right) for the fitment of an SEL bracelet. 16610 (date version) preferably 2002 k-serial. This model benefits from solid end links and has the full submariner look with the cyclops date window. 14060M (no date version) preferably the latest model before the new ceramic was brought in - so around 2011/2012.
14060 shows 2 lines on the bottom of the dial while the M shows 4 lines - a big visual difference that you have to decide on and live with daily. Yes, there is a "transitional" M that has only 2 lines that is, imho, the sweet spot and best of both worlds, but can be harder to find. I own a 14060M 2 liner Z serial, a 114060 and a 116610LN and I'm considering the idea of moving my 14060M for a new 124060. I love the 5 digit but the modern ones with glidelock clasp have perfect adjustment on my wrist, much better than the 5 digit.
16610 vs 14060: profile shots please! You can't be a Rolex fan if you've never had to personally debate buying a date Sub or a no date Sub. The No Date Sub has the classic proportions and esthetics.
Apart from those changes, the Sub 14060M is the LAST current Rolex that has holes in the lugs, non solid endlinks and the old-style diver's extension link. The Sub Date uses the Cal. 3135 movt. (31 jewels).
I have a 6.5" wrist, give or take a 1/4" and have tried the 16610LV, the 14060 and the 116610 Sub-C. The Sub-C dominates the others in terms of its bracelet adjustment capability. The 16610 comes in second place with the 93250 bracelet being a bit more centered in terms of clasp. The 14060 is in third place with the 93150. The 16610 is sometimes called the last of the great pre-ceramics. The 14060 is a direct descendant of the 5513 and is as clean a look as you can get. There is nothing like wearing a classic.
michael kors wallwts
Buy PART NUM 484329. FOX FLOAT X2 Factory Rear Shock - Metric, 230 x 57.5 mm, 2-Position Lever, Kashima Coat. The Award-Winning FLOAT X2 is full of features, delivering ultimate performance and control when the going gets rough.
rolex 16610 vs 14060|rolex submariner 16610 best years
