Welcome to our freshest arrangement, Two For Tuesday. Today, we’ll pit two of the watch world’s most mainstream watches against one another in a tussle to be Tuesday’s-boss. It’s the Rolex GMT 16710 versus the Submariner 14060M.
Yes, Two For Tuesday is another idea for us, yet it struck a chord when we were “spitballing” about new headings for the site. As the occupant watch nerd among my companions and associates, I’m as a rule their first stop for exhortation. Generally, individuals don’t get some information about a particular watch. They really get some information about a brand. Somebody will say something like, “I need an Omega .” Or, “I need a Rolex .” Amazingly, they’ll regularly reduce it down to two models that are fairly comparable (for example both are lively, both are formal, and so forth) Thus, we’re going to pre-empt a portion of these conversations by comparing and differentiating two watches that frequently end up on a similar shopping list. Also, we start with a genuine whopper of a residue up between the Rolex GMT 16710 and Submariner 14060M .
I picked the Rolex GMT 16710 and Submariner 14060M references several reasons. First and foremost, the two references exist as the last articulations inside their model lines of what I’d call “old Rolex”. Indeed, when these models finished creation, they were supplanted by unique versions with artistic bezels, non-stepped catches, and beefier cases and crowns. What’s more, along these lines, the two models before you today have taken off like a flash to fuel regarding prevalence among authorities. Presently, some of you may lift your hands and inquire as to why I chose a 14060M Submariner rather than a 16610 Date model. Great inquiry! My answer is that I don’t own a 16610. Likewise, I incline toward the less complex sans date model. Will we get to it?
Why Pair a Submariner and a GMT?
For some explanation, the Rolex GMT 16710 and Submariner 14060M go together like peas and carrots. On the off chance that you know — or knew — minimal about watches, it is not difficult to pick one versus the other dependent on feel alone. All things considered, they look incredibly similar. Both of these models check in with a 40mm impeccable case in that renowned Oyster case shape. Each highlights a turning bezel and their dials are even almost indistinguishable. Mercedes hand? Certifiable in the two cases. Crown watches? Check. However, there are contrasts in structure and capacity. Understanding these can have a significant effect to your decision.
The GMT Master II reference 16710
1954 was a major year for Rolex on the grounds that it presented both the GMT Master and the Submariner. Could you envision such an official statement today!? The GMT was expected to help the wearer track different time regions. With its turning 24-hour bezel and extra bolt tipped hand, the two pointers worked related to show time somewhere else. The bolt hand pivots at half speed versus the typical hour hand and that makes for a basic, however viable complication. Arriving in a far off country? You could essentially pivot the bidirectional bezel to demonstrate your new location’s time. Or then again, pivot to show home time and set the hour hand to nearby time.
But in 1983, the main GMT Master II was delivered as reference 16760. Some know this model as the “fat lady” on the grounds that type 3085 was a stout unit. The advancement this model carried is one that sticks with us today and that’s a free hour hand that “jumps” an hour with each crown contort. This makes a change in accordance with nearby time quick and simple. Also, once more, if the wearer wishes, they can turn the bezel to adjust to the little bolt and show home time. In 1989, the 16710 appeared with the slimmer 3185 type and it fundamentally revamped history.
The GMT 16710 was and still is greatly famous. Rolex gave us a decision as three unique bezels. We had dark, dark/red, and blue/red to pick between. Also, during specific periods, an Oyster or Jubilee could be picked. All through its run until 2007, it saw a few little changes. Eminently, penetrated haul openings left us, and stepped end joins progressed to strong. In any case, generally, the watch remained familiar.
You’re taking a gander at a 2005 F-Series GMT 16710 with “Pepsi” bezel and it’s a watch that I purchased in 2012. Incredibly, these watches were genuinely common on Chrono24 for about €5,000. I met the dealer vis-à-vis for the exchange and he clarified that he was offering the watch to finance a Deepsea Sea-Dweller. That, people, is a story for an alternate article. Interestingly, I purchased the GMT because I adored wearing my Submariner to such an extent. Like a regular individual who cross-shops the two models, I needed a GMT since it had a particularly solid family similarity to the jumper. All things considered, they are comparative, yet there are some major differences.
The GMT 16710 comes in with a similar 40mm case size as the Submariner. I have no clue about why a few destinations get down on the GMT with a 39mm case — it’s false. However, the watch is observably lighter than a Sub. It’s here that you get an appreciation for the slimmer case back and more slender sapphire gem. All things considered, with just 100 meters of water opposition, there’s no requirement for such cumbersome fortifications. What’s more, talking about smooth, the GMT packs a more modest flip-lock wristband — early models had a basic catch — that does not have a wetsuit augmentation and a lot more modest Twinlock crown.
In the looks office, the GMT really sparkles with its basic splendid tones in one or the other Pepsi or Coke appearance. It’s nutty how this scramble of shading makes a particularly unique look. All the more critically, on the grounds that the 16710 originates before artistic, the tones age and change after some time. I realize a few group scorn that, yet I like how a watch can develop with its proprietor. Also, despite the fact that I think picking the dark bezel 16710 is somewhat exhausting, the red bolt hand adds the perfect degree of contrast.
Somehow the Submariner has acquired a standing of the go-anyplace, do-anything watch. I concur that it’s adaptable, however there’s essentially most likely that the GMT is the more complete watch. I’ve voyaged broadly with both of these pieces and, gives over, the GMT is the watch to beat. It can deal with pretty much any wearing movement that possibly I or 99% of individuals could toss at it. Besides, the different time region work is a complication that you can actually use. I mean genuinely, who truly thinks often about a Moon Phase?
I’ve taken the GMT to China, Singapore, and the USA on different occasions and it’s consistently valuable. Besides, regardless of its beautiful looks, the watch is additionally worthy in any setting. Also, in the event that I come back to the wearing part, I’ll momentarily harp on a point that I generally make with these late-model 16710s. The strong end interfaces sort of suck. They add genuine drag to-carry mm to the case and make the watch stiffer. It’s less rattly and more tasteful, yet it’s likewise less lenient and adaptable. That’s something I don’t love subsequent to being cooped up on a plane for 13 hours. Something else, it’s a fine watch with run of the mill Rolex completing and quality. Indeed, even the lume is extraordinary. All things considered, there’s little uncertainty that in the event that I had it to do over, I’d purchase a mid 16710 with stepped end links.
The Rolex Submariner 14060M
The Rolex Submariner is the enormous kahuna of sports watches. Individuals love the GMT and the Daytona, yet in the event that I needed to danger a speculation, I’d bet that the Sub is undeniably more well known on a worldwide scale. Today’s 14060M incidentally turns out to be the last old fashioned variation of the line and things changed drastically after its demise.
We referenced that the Submariner advanced toward the market back in 1954 simply like the GMT. Furthermore, since that time, it’s been the highest quality level for jump watches. Fault Sean Connery in Dr. No or our long term slide into easygoing quality, yet the Submariner has by one way or another transcended all others in fame and flexibility. It’s not traditionally lovely, yet it sort of is in being a definitive articulation of a modern item. There’s nothing unnecessary on it but then it has still has style.
That last sentence is somewhat of something odd to say in light of the fact that the Submariner looks quite a great deal like the GMT. So for what reason does it get all the credit? Is jumping more sentimental than the prospect of traveling or helming your own airplane? You’re revealing to me that Jacques Cousteau is more hunky than Chuck Yeager? Once more, I don’t know why this is, however the Sub is such a symbol that it could presumably remain all alone as a global money. Indeed garçon, I’d like four Submariners worth of your best vintage Bordeaux for my companions and I. Ha!
The Submariner 14060M was the remnant of a dying breed since it additionally contained an aluminum decorate inside its unidirectional bezel. In any case, in contrast to the GMT, Rolex had done almost no to its base model steel jumper in the years going before its exit. We’ll can’t be sure if this was the consequence of an unselfish curmudgeonly soul inside the perplexing company or if the firm didn’t consider it beneficial. All things considered, the Submariner Date was and is undeniably more mainstream. Whatever the case, the 14060M went out as it came (in 1999) and that implied non-maxi-dial, stepped end joins, Oyster wristband, monstrous stepped Fliplock with wetsuit expansion, and magnificent penetrated carry holes.
This rattly one turned into mine in late 2011 after a visit to an AD in Louisiana and I’ve never lamented the buy. It actually looks awesome and, sorry to my 14270 Explorer, I’d say that the 14060M Submariner positions as my best regular watch. Almost 10 years on, it’s matured like Clint Eastwood and that implies that it’s acquired character could in any case kick ass. It’s my #1 in and out watch for movement, going to supper, hitting the pool or the sea shore, and whatever else.
And here’s the thing, the Submariner 14060M is without a doubt less useful than the GMT. Yet, I actually like it better. Believe it or not, changing the GMT bounce hour feels somewhat modest, springy, and somewhat feeble to me. Loosening up that sounding on the Triplock crown on the Sub to set the time feels chief. What’s more, hearing the consoling one-two punch of the enormous Fliplock is an indication that it’s time to begin the day. For a jumper with 300 meters of water opposition, the watch wears neatly and comfortably. Here once more, those frequently insulted stepped end joins are sorcery for a more modest wrist like mine and similarly as useful for the greater people. Also, here’s the last point. I like the tone on the GMT, yet I really burrow indisputably the straightforward look of a Sub.
Making Your Choice
It’s difficult to turn out badly with either the Rolex GMT 16710 or Submariner 14060M. They’re both fantastic watches that are adequately current to take a relative beating unafraid of harming some obsolete development part or gambling water interruption. They’re unbelievably functional and, whenever done right, can be made all around great. Is worried that both of these watches have become amazingly costly. An alright 16710 goes around €8,000 yet this will be with some cleaning and without boxes and papers. Add €1,000 – 2,000 in addition to for something minty. A Submariner 14060M is somewhat more reasonable, however “4-liners” like you see here (otherwise known as Chronometer Certified) run in the €8,000 range and go up from that point in the event that you need an unpolished example with box and papers. Whichever you pick, at any rate take comfort that you’re purchasing something out of creation. All the more critically, they’re findable, dissimilar to the current models.
At the finish, all things considered, I figure you can tell that I am a Submariner 14060M individual. The competition isn’t even a tight one for me. In any case, that doesn’t imply that you should be. Cast your vote in our absolute initial Two For Tuesday survey and let us know which you’d pick. And keeping in mind that you’re at it, disclose to us why in the comments section.