16610 vs 14060M

[Sam]

As far as long term value, how do y'all think the no-date Sub (14060M) holds it's value as compared to the SS Sub (16610)? For some reason, I'm drawn to the clean no-date look. It's considerably cheaper but I wonder 10 years down the road if I'd be better off with the 16610.

[mamas]

clifton, hannes or one of the other guys is best to answer this, but from what i have seen on the second hand market, the date sub seems to be a much better investment than the non date sub in the vintage market. however there is no accounting for what may happen in future markets.. so who knows in 10 yrs.. also given that you are unlikley to make a whole lot of $$$ on either watch i would go for which yo prefer.. also the none date imho.
mamas

[clifton]

Since history tends to repeat itself, I would have to say that the Sub with date, will always be worth more than an equal aged Sub no date.

The only exception to this of course would be some type of specialty model like the 5512 (Chronometer grad) or the 5514 (Early HE valve) or 5517 (military variants).

In general, when someone thinks Rolex they think of the Submariner. When and if they go to buy, they want one with a date, thus explaining why the 16610 or not "in stock" when you look at your local dealer.

Even on a used market, you can see this trend as the Sub dates will demand a premium over the non date.


Of course all of this is just my opinion so it not worth that much.

[Sam]

Thanks Mamas. The other thing to consider is that I will most likely be buying either one pre-owned. So if the no-date depreciates more from the get go, that's a good thing for a 2nd hand buyer. It seems that you can get a 1-2 yr old 14060M for $2.7K while the same age 16610 is more in the $3.6K range.

[Sam]

clifton said:

Of course all of this is just my opinion so it not worth that much.

LOL! Your opinion is worth a LOT!

[clifton]

Mamas,
I would have to agree. In the vintage world the 5513/5512 do command a premium that keeps moving up-wards. Especially the ones for the early 60's and James Bond model (Ref. 5508).

The Sub/dates (1680) from the late 60's and 70's are still worth more than the 5513s, but that gap seems to closing quickly.

On the other hand the 5512 exceeds the 1680 in price, but that is mainly driven by the rarity.

[JJ]

Hey Sam,

If date is NOT an issue (as in my sister's case ), then the clean, symmetrical looks of the no-date Sub wins hands down!!

[Sam]

Thanks JJ! I'm beginning to think I need BOTH of them.

[JJ]

sam said:

Thanks JJ! I'm beginning to think I need BOTH of them.

No point really.

You already have the gorgeous black Exp-II with date. So which better way to compliment that beauty with none other than a no-date Sub?

[Sam]

JJ...those were my initial thoughts. I think an Explorer I & a Pepsi GMT II would fit nicely in there too.

[JJ]

sam said:

JJ...those were my initial thoughts. I think an Explorer I & a Pepsi GMT II would fit nicely in there too.

Well, if you really want to compliment that black Exp-II of yours then why not try something totally different.....like (once and for all) an SS/Pt. YM!!!

[Sam]

To be quite honest, I'm not a big Yachtmaster fan....no offense intended....just not my favorite Rolex.

[JJ]

sam said:

To be quite honest, I'm not a big Yachtmaster fan....no offense intended....just not my favorite Rolex.

Hmmmm.....you are a tough nut customer, aren't you?? ;D ;D ;D

[clifton]

sam said:

JJ...those were my initial thoughts. I think an Explorer I & a Pepsi GMT II would fit nicely in there too.

LoL...guys Sam has the "BUG". Bad news...

[Sam]

Yep....and I've heard there is no known treatment other than buying another Rolex!