Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
I am offering this post as a comparison with pictures. There are most assuredly better photos of these watches available elsewhere.
I have owned the Submariner for three years. By series letter it is a 2005 model with one service performed in 2011. I wear this watch at least twice as much as any of the other of my current collection of nine watches. It serves as my go to watch for any occasion.
I have had the Aquatimer for three days. Originally purchased in 2012, it has no service history. I feel confident that it can be worn for any occasion as well.
The dual crown of the Aquatimer is quite attractive to me. Sort of a modern compressor type look.
The lug holes of the no date are equally appealing to me.
I am drawn to somewhat dressy divers and both of these fill that aesthetic nicely.
The Aquatimer is industrial cool. But refined enough to look great with anything. The Sub is classic understatement that in my mind's eye is what a watch should look like.
Both are comfortable to wear for my 7.5 inch wrist. The IWC has the best link adjustment that I have ever encountered. The bracelet is a work of art and fits the style of the watch perfectly.
The Sub's bracelet is adequate at best. Not to anger any purist, but I replaced the OEM clasp with an aftermarket glide lock style clasp, and like the bracelet much better.
Neither will ever see more than the occasional swim in the lake, but I am more than confident that each could handle anything that I would put them through.
I have never timed either watch, but both seem very accurate. The Aquatimer has a date feature, which might be preferred by some. Unless the date feature detracts from the overall look of the dial, I have no problem with or without this feature.
Lume is about equal initially, but the Rolex lasts longer. Neither is particularly a torch.
Both are at the upper limits of my spending comfort level. For the ballers here these are entry level divers. To each his own, but I am proud to own both.
I have owned the Submariner for three years. By series letter it is a 2005 model with one service performed in 2011. I wear this watch at least twice as much as any of the other of my current collection of nine watches. It serves as my go to watch for any occasion.
I have had the Aquatimer for three days. Originally purchased in 2012, it has no service history. I feel confident that it can be worn for any occasion as well.
The dual crown of the Aquatimer is quite attractive to me. Sort of a modern compressor type look.
The lug holes of the no date are equally appealing to me.
I am drawn to somewhat dressy divers and both of these fill that aesthetic nicely.
The Aquatimer is industrial cool. But refined enough to look great with anything. The Sub is classic understatement that in my mind's eye is what a watch should look like.
Both are comfortable to wear for my 7.5 inch wrist. The IWC has the best link adjustment that I have ever encountered. The bracelet is a work of art and fits the style of the watch perfectly.
The Sub's bracelet is adequate at best. Not to anger any purist, but I replaced the OEM clasp with an aftermarket glide lock style clasp, and like the bracelet much better.
Neither will ever see more than the occasional swim in the lake, but I am more than confident that each could handle anything that I would put them through.
I have never timed either watch, but both seem very accurate. The Aquatimer has a date feature, which might be preferred by some. Unless the date feature detracts from the overall look of the dial, I have no problem with or without this feature.
Lume is about equal initially, but the Rolex lasts longer. Neither is particularly a torch.
Both are at the upper limits of my spending comfort level. For the ballers here these are entry level divers. To each his own, but I am proud to own both.
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
Testing to see if this is posting. My first lengthy iphone post.
- jeckyll
- Honorary Assistant Jr. Hall Monitor in Training
- Posts: 11924
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:11 pm
- Name: Björn
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
cool. I prefer the IWC
We all have the same enemy. The enemy is the tyranny of the dull mind. - - Tom Robbins
- Sidheguitarist
- Man of many calibers.
- Posts: 10406
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:16 pm
- Name: Michael
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
Man, I am–and have been–so into the idea of subs for so long that it's hard not to side with the proven classic.
That said and true: that IWC, with the internal bezel, is just bonus. I might actually have to go IWC on this as well, if I can bring myself to ignore historical precedence.
That said and true: that IWC, with the internal bezel, is just bonus. I might actually have to go IWC on this as well, if I can bring myself to ignore historical precedence.
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
I think I prefer the Rolex. Diversity, it's an old wooden ship.
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
Love them especially the iwc!!
Sent from my Nokia Lumia Icon
Sent from my Nokia Lumia Icon
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
Very nice, Joe. I do enjoy hearing everyone's impressions. Between those two, I do believe the IWC brings more to the table in line with my taste, but they're a great pair.
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
Nice write up, thanks.
"Men are ruled by toys"
Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon Bonaparte
- rain_maker
- Posts: 2493
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:55 pm
- Name: Fred
- Location: NW of Boston
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
Great write up and comparison pics.
Two classics - Possibly my favorite offering from ea company.
Two classics - Possibly my favorite offering from ea company.
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
Nice write up....I like them both
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
Love both of those and they both cover a lot of ground. The Sub holds a special place in my heart so I would lean towards that one in a matchup but the IWC ain't no slouch either.
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
I agree about the favorites from each company. As far as classics - it usually takes me so long to make up my mind and convince myself to buy that the watches I want are "classic" by that point.rain_maker wrote:Great write up and comparison pics.
Two classics - Possibly my favorite offering from ea company.
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
Two classics; one icon. It's hard to compete overall with what is widely regarded as the quintessential iconic dive watch of the 20th century: the Submariner.
only accurate watches are interesting
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
I have found that I am most happy with "one watch" type watches. I continue to search for the elusive one watch for everything and both of these are strong contenders in my opinion.smalls wrote:Love both of those and they both cover a lot of ground. The Sub holds a special place in my heart so I would lean towards that one in a matchup but the IWC ain't no slouch either.
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
I agree. I was concerned that the IWC would be too big and bulky, never having even tried one on before. I was pleasantly surprised. The IWC is bigger, but not oversized by any standard. It sits flatly on the wrist and is very close to the same weight.matt.wu wrote:Very nice, Joe. I do enjoy hearing everyone's impressions. Between those two, I do believe the IWC brings more to the table in line with my taste, but they're a great pair.
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
Anchorman would agree - my collection is very diverse - if stainless steel, black dialed divers with bracelets are diverse.Torrid wrote:I think I prefer the Rolex. Diversity, it's an old wooden ship.
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
The internal bezel is the shiznit! It has some kind of ball bearing system that clicks once and locks. Very cool, indeed.Sidheguitarist wrote:Man, I am–and have been–so into the idea of subs for so long that it's hard not to side with the proven classic.
That said and true: that IWC, with the internal bezel, is just bonus. I might actually have to go IWC on this as well, if I can bring myself to ignore historical precedence.
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
Very nice - I'd be happy to own either one.
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
Great looking IWC.
"It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever."
David St. Hubbins
David St. Hubbins
-
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:46 pm
- Name: Josh
- Location: Maryland
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
The new Glidelock clasp is great, but Rolex still has a long way to go until there bracelets are comparable to some of the other brands competing at their price point (IWC, Blancpain, etc)
Josh
Josh
Josh
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
I disagree with this. I think they're all a wash now.Minordamage wrote:The new Glidelock clasp is great, but Rolex still has a long way to go until there bracelets are comparable to some of the other brands competing at their price point (IWC, Blancpain, etc)
Josh
- toxicavenger
- President Tranny
- Posts: 48115
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:25 am
- Name: HeadDIK
- Location: Colorado Springs
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
The Sub is classic but the IWC is more refined imo. Both serve a different purpose imo. Congrats
Website: http://smallwhitestubbies.com/
-
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:46 pm
- Name: Josh
- Location: Maryland
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
The only thing that is awash is Rolex with bracelet envy.matt.wu wrote:I disagree with this. I think they're all a wash now.Minordamage wrote:The new Glidelock clasp is great, but Rolex still has a long way to go until there bracelets are comparable to some of the other brands competing at their price point (IWC, Blancpain, etc)
Josh
Josh
Josh
-
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:46 pm
- Name: Josh
- Location: Maryland
Re: Rolex Sub 14060M vs IWC 3548-05
No doubttoxicavenger wrote:The Sub is classic but the IWC is more refined imo. Both serve a different purpose imo. Congrats
Josh
Josh
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 285 guests