Thursday, November 1, 2012

Part 1 of 2: Review of the Rolex Submariner No Date (14060M/Cal. 3130)

Part 2 with opinions here

The Rolex Sub is probably the most popular single "nice" watch in the general population. Ironically, it's also the most common upscale beater watch. For those who don't know, a beater is just a whatever watch that is worn during activities where the owner fears damaging more expensive watches. One should also know that as of 2012, the 14060M has been discontinued in favor of the 114060, more on the differences below.

While I won't go into the history of the watch too much since Jake has it covered more than I ever could here:

http://rolexblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/part-7-rolex-submariner-through-time.html

All that needs to be said is that it was introduced in 1953 and has remained largely unchanged for the past 60 years. Another interesting bit is that it didn't break the 200 USD barrier until the later half of the 1960's.


A whopping 195 dollars!


The 14060M is preceded by the 14060, the difference being the 14060 has the older 3000 movement while the 14060M has the 3130 movement. Later iterations of the 3130 has the parachrom bleu hairspring.

The differences between the 3000 and 3130 movement are evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The 3130 has a free sprung variable inertia balance wheel with a Breguet overcoil hairspring that is secured by a full balance bridge while the 3000 has a variable inertial balance wheel with a flat hairspring fastened by a balance cock.


The 3000 movement

In theory the balance bridge is more shock resistent but I've never heard of watches breaking because the balance cock shifted. A more common cause for broken watches is broken balance staffs that the shock protection (KIF on both movements) seeks to reduce.

The exterior of the 14060 and 14060M are identical (although some may claim differences in minute details such as dial depth and even thickness). For those interested in the date version (16610), note that the non-date is 0.5 mm smaller in diameter and 1 mm thinner.





The specs for the 14060M that is the subject of this review are:
Dimensions: 39.5 mm x 11 mm
Lug Width: 20mm
One version only: Black dial, 904L stainless steel case and bracelet
Non-COSC, Superluminova dial (later versions are COSC while earlier versions have Tritium lume)
White gold indices.
Non solid end links and hollow middle links
Triplock crown
Fliplock bracelet made of stamped 904L steel.




The 3130 movement:
28.5 mm diameter (12 lignes)
6 mm thick
31 jewels
KIF shock protection
50 hour power reserve on one mainspring
Rolex winding system with no ball bearings

A thorough review and dissection of the 3135 movement (date version of the 3130) is here:




The newer 114060 has the same 3130 movement but with the parachrom bleu hairspring with solid end links and a machined solid clasp. It also has a ceramic bezel insert (as opposed to a painted aluminium one). It also has blue lume in place of the traditional green.


9 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Really informative review. Thank you.

    Out of interest what year is your 14060M from?

    Cheers, Don.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It was an F series which puts its production date as 2003.
    Thanks for your comment
    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, now the hunt begins for a mint one.

    I'm not the biggest fan of the new subs.

    Cheers, Don.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think many purists are a fan of the new Rolex professional watches. The maxi lugs are far too wide and they've killed the explorer I by making it 39mm too... I wish they had the older models' look with the newer bracelet.

    ReplyDelete
  6. hello I want to buy a watch found here seems pretty good, do not know to pick the help of everyone to the point.
    breitling

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Very nice and informative review. You're really dropping knowledge here. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete