The differences can certainly be clearly seen in these close-up, close-together comparison pics. But damn the CF is good! In everyday circumstances or standalone photos, it really would be hard to tell the rep insert from gen. Thanks for the photos oascom, very worthy addition to the study of Sub-C rep evolution.
The 16610 is a nicer Sub tho.
Well sure I can see very tiny indiscrepancies but unless you have them on your own desk to compare in reality, it's very hard to tell from these pictures. I keep hearing "objective" but it sounds a little biased towards the ZZF to me, which is okay. We are all a little biased.
I like my own 14060M Sub. I didn’t buy my 14060M Sub because it was the best watch. It’s not. I bought it because I believe it’s the best Submariner that Rolex ever made.
On the wrist, it feels like a vintage piece from the 50s or 60s thanks to the lack of a date window, svelte case, and jangly hollow bracelet. But it also has a glossy, refined dial finish and superluminova, making it more elegant and useful than vintage models. And it predates Rolex’s change to chunkier cases with shiny ceramic bezels—changes I don’t personally care for. If I was going to spend my money on a Submariner to own and wear, the 14060M model was the only model for me, so I put my money where my mouth was and sourced my perfect watch. In my mind, it’s the only reference still true to the model’s roots while simultaneously being a culmination of the model’s evolution. In that way, I view the 14060M as a tribute to the lineage of the Submariner itself.