Reply With QuoteNice comparison pictures. I’m glad Rolex have now slightly refined the ceramic Sub.
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.
Nice comparison pictures. I’m glad Rolex have now slightly refined the ceramic Sub.
Both lovely watches - I think that Rolex got the case design spot on all those years ago.
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.
Lovely Gilt Sub , need to be seen in the flesh to appreciate , dials are on another level to anything else
both are so beautiful in their own way, i’d love to have both in my collection
I’ve never owned one of the ceramic subs, but having owned a few 5513’s 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 ‘unicorn’ glow about them but although they are clearly a ‘tough’ watch they always felt light and almost insubstantial on the wrist, even the 5 digit sea dwellers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
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.Originally Posted by MartynJC (UK)
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.
If anyone is interested in an amazing unpolished 1963 vintage Submariner check out Lunar Oyster for reference and pictures.
M
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.
I don’t think there’s any discernible difference in the size between 114060 and 124060, there’s YouTube videos showing precision measurements that show virtually no difference other than slimmer lugs on the newer version.
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
It's a nice evolution. I can appreciate both of them on their own merits. Lovely comparison pics. Thanks for posting.
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.
Agreed, never a company to look back only onwards and upwards.
They don’t need to milk the back catalogue for money unlike every other brand.
That’s because the current catalogue looks like the back catalogue with a touch of ceramic.
This inspired me to put these 2 side by side. It’s great evolution
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
decades apart and yet i’d happily wear and own either of these 2 beauties
Posting Permissions
