Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum - View Single Post - Subs 16610 and 14060 (M).. Some Comparisons..

ac001 · 23 July 2010, 11:21 PM

Larry: I echo the other Forum members in commending your post. Very valuable information. I was at an AD and we compared the ND and Date Submariner and he tried to tell me that there was no difference between the two styles in terms of size. I have a small wrist and the difference in size between the two made the ND Sub a better choice for me. But I did not want the COSC model because the dial appears a bit busy. The non-COSC model is a more classic and clean look (IMO). Which is why I also disagree with Anipit. There is no need to get pejorative with which Submariner is real. I like Springbar's assessment:
"The aesthetic and historical appeal of the no-date Sub shares the singleness-of-purpose and beautiful utilitarian quality that made its predecessor, the 5513, the quintessential Rolex "tool" watch." Pefectly stated.

23 July 2010, 11:21 PM	#41
ac001 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2008 Real Name: Alan Location: Maryland Watch: 14060M Posts: 164	Larry: I echo the other Forum members in commending your post. Very valuable information. I was at an AD and we compared the ND and Date Submariner and he tried to tell me that there was no difference between the two styles in terms of size. I have a small wrist and the difference in size between the two made the ND Sub a better choice for me. But I did not want the COSC model because the dial appears a bit busy. The non-COSC model is a more classic and clean look (IMO). Which is why I also disagree with Anipit. There is no need to get pejorative with which Submariner is real. I like Springbar's assessment: "The aesthetic and historical appeal of the no-date Sub shares the singleness-of-purpose and beautiful utilitarian quality that made its predecessor, the 5513, the quintessential Rolex "tool" watch." Pefectly stated.