{"id":26471,"date":"2021-01-26T17:14:05","date_gmt":"2021-01-26T17:14:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.horbiter.com\/rolex-submariner-no-date-114060\/"},"modified":"2025-09-19T19:46:27","modified_gmt":"2025-09-19T17:46:27","slug":"rolex-submariner-no-date-114060-cerachrom-bezel-watch-hands-on","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.horbiter.com\/en\/rolex-submariner-no-date-114060-cerachrom-bezel-watch-hands-on\/","title":{"rendered":"The Rolex Submariner No Date 114060 watch hands-on"},"content":{"rendered":"

I\u2019ve always been known for not buying a wristwatch exclusively for its resale value. Nowadays, it\u2019s so common to include a new watch into an investment portfolio, that love for watchmaking is gradually losing credibility; there\u2019s a growing bunch of people who are not driven by passion when looking for their new watch.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, I do respect those who buy one as a status symbol; after all, we\u2019re not all watch geeks: our new watch often is a means to prove we have achieved (or aim to achieve) a higher social status. This behavior is prevalent across Italy than anywhere else, and three brands, mainly, rule.<\/p>\n

\"rolex<\/p>\n

How does my choice of purchasing (and reviewing) a Rolex Submariner No Date 114060<\/strong> with Cerachrom<\/strong> ceramic bezel fit into this context? The one you see pictured in here is not any Sub, but my only Rolex watch<\/strong>, if we exclude a vintage Rolex Milgauss<\/strong> that I inherited from my grandfather.<\/p>\n

Did I surrender, and started to buy watches for the sake of safely investing my money, or should I be still considered as a watch aficionado? I did ask myself that question, and I thought I had to share my vision and thoughts with you all, and why did I choose this specific reference, the 114060<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Also, from an editorial perspective, I believe I have written about almost any modern Rolex<\/strong> sports watch, but the Rolex Submariner<\/strong>, the pillar of the Geneva-based manufacturer.<\/p>\n

\"rolex<\/p>\n

Soon before a Sky<\/strong>\u2013Dweller<\/strong><\/a> or a Yacht<\/strong>\u2013Master<\/strong> 2<\/strong><\/a> eventually hit the market, and the folks began to ask for a Rolex Daytona<\/strong><\/a>, Rolex Pepsi<\/strong>, Rolex Batman<\/strong> or whatsoever, impatiently, the Rolex Submariner<\/strong> was the favorite choice to those approaching Rolex<\/strong>: it is simple, sporty, classy and designed for diving, yet not too big, showcasing the sturdiness Rolex<\/strong> is known for.<\/p>\n

When I was a child, it was an Italian baby boomer\u2019s top choice. During the 1990<\/strong>s, when we were moving from our currency to the euro, a Rolex Submariner<\/strong> was a great deal, and, thirty years later or so, it still is.<\/p>\n

Its history is intermingled with the highly sought-after GMT<\/strong>s; the truth is that the latter would perhaps not even exist if the Submariner<\/strong> had not ever existed. The Rolex Submariner<\/strong> is, today, a hot-piece once again, given, also, a GMT Master 2<\/strong>\u2018s limited availability.<\/p>\n

\"rolex<\/p>\n

If we list all the sports watches belonging to the under-ten-thousand euro price range, the Rolex Submariner No Date 114060<\/strong> has no competition.<\/p>\n

Its awareness is so powerful that most people consider it not solely the reference diver, but the first one ever conceived, without knowing at all the first-ever commercially distributed diving watch was the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms<\/strong><\/a>, such a different piece in terms of product, brand, and production volumes.<\/p>\n

The Oyster<\/strong> case and the Triplock<\/strong> system have no doubt represented a significant innovation in sports watchmaking during the twentieth century, and Rolex<\/strong> not only understood how relevant it is to design and build every part in-house, but they also got how important is to communicate every single innovation, before anybody else, accurately.<\/p>\n

Why did I choose the Rolex Submariner 114060 No Date?<\/h2>\n

I was eager to own my first Rolex<\/strong> watch, and the Submariner No Date<\/strong> embodies the no-frills modern sports diving watch.<\/p>\n

The primary reason for buying a 114060<\/strong> rather than a 116610LN<\/strong>, is it has no date and no magnifying glass at all: the one-thousand price gap between the two is something I hardly understand; I also believe the Sub No Date<\/strong> is way sleeker and more faithful to an original diver\u2019s watch.<\/p>\n

As I write this post, if you\u2019re looking into buying a Submariner No Date 114060<\/strong>, be aware you have to apply to a (growing) waiting list.<\/p>\n

\"rolex<\/p>\n

Vice versa, the Submariner 116610LN<\/strong> is usually in stock at your nearest Rolex<\/strong> retailer: it is an interesting trend and case study indeed. From up-close, a 114060<\/strong> is not superbly finished; it is rather perfectly executed.<\/p>\n

No doubt, it is the best industrially produced luxury watch, in terms of both quality and overall experience, in the benchmark. The bezel is a masterpiece: not only did Rolex<\/strong> patent the Cerachrom<\/strong> inlay, but it also introduced ceramics made bezels, in the industry.<\/p>\n

Ratcheting is as smooth as it is precise, unparalleled unless you opt for a Tudor Pelagos<\/strong>, that belongs to the same Luxury Group.<\/p>\n

The grooves across the outer ring feature a perfect spacing between each other: they are not too wide as on some professional diving watches nor too thin as on a Skin Diver<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The Rolex Submariner and the Voice Of Customer: it is as reliable as it is not precise (they claim).<\/h2>\n

Two are the leading topics when talking Rolex<\/strong> watches with your peers or friends: the first is that they are not as precise as the brand declares, even so after the Rolex Submariner<\/strong> has become a Superlative Chronometer officially certified watch<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

I have no proof and never tested it against an Omega Master Chronometer<\/strong> or a Grand Seiko Spring Drive<\/strong>, that can easily outperform not just a Rolex<\/strong> watch, but any competitor. The second one has to do with \u201cproduct reliability\u201d<\/em>: according to many (owners and repairers, especially), a Rolex<\/strong> watch\u2019s reliability is unequaled.<\/p>\n

\"rolex<\/p>\n

This very last sentence, unless you compare a Submariner<\/strong> against the likes of any other contender, sounds too optimistic, and not fact-based.<\/p>\n

We are dealing with a simple wristwatch powered by the less complicated mechanical movement available, that has undergone a continuous improvement process over the last fifty years or so: should we expect any quality issue on here?<\/p>\n

As far as my own Submariner<\/strong> No Date<\/strong> 114060<\/strong> concerns, it\u2019s too early to talk precision rate and reliability, I got mine at the end of July, and I\u2019m using it with extreme care.<\/p>\n

The Rolex caliber 3130.<\/h2>\n

Product robustness brings the conversation to talking about the Rolex caliber 3130<\/strong>. With a 48-hour maximum power reserve, it is close to being phased out, I presume; it is outdated in comparison to the state-of-the-art Rolex<\/strong> calibers that run for slightly more than seventy hours.<\/p>\n

Also, it looks poorly refined too. I think Rolex<\/strong> is \u201cbrave\u201d<\/em> in showing it as a stand-alone piece on their official website, or high confidence instead. Finally, it proves how the average Rolex<\/strong> buyer is not caring at what ticks inside his or her Rolex<\/strong> watch, at all.<\/p>\n

\"rolex<\/p>\n

With the METAS<\/strong> certification changing the game, Rolex<\/strong> decided to switch to an in-house certification process carried out on the entire watch, thus overcoming the COSC certificate<\/strong>\u2018s well known technical obsolescence.<\/p>\n

As that\u2019s the case with a Patek Philippe<\/strong>\u2018s Seal, there is no evidence nor further details regarding which tests are executed to guarantee a +\/- 2 seconds per day accuracy, but I have no doubt it works.<\/p>\n

If I\u2019m looking for superior precision, I buy a Grand Seiko Spring Drive<\/strong>. Period. However, it seems Rolex<\/strong> has, again, turned a letdown into added value for the customer.<\/p>\n

Perfect proportions and superior comfort. Plus, the \u201clegendary\u201d resale value.<\/h2>\n

It looks bizarre to introduce the term \u201cperfect fit\u201d when it comes to a wristwatch, it is not a bespoke garment, after all. No other sports watch wears and wraps around your wrist as a Submariner does, in this price range, that\u2019s a matter of fact. No pinching at all is also guaranteed.<\/p>\n

The Oyster<\/strong> bracelet is a feast for the eyes, and superior engineering ensures excellent comfort. Keep also in mind it is rare to find a 40mm<\/strong> large sports watch, today.<\/p>\n

\"rolex<\/p>\n

Let me sum up with the Submariner No Date 114060<\/strong>\u2018s resale value: sticker price is close to breaking, according to rumors, the \u20ac 7<\/strong>,000<\/strong> threshold anytime soon in the first quarter of 2020<\/strong>. It nevertheless will keep representing the best value luxury watch your money can buy.<\/p>\n

From a buyer\u2019s perspective, it is the best Rolex<\/strong> sports watch that you can ever take, and the one that guarantees a 19<\/strong>% mark-up as soon as you step off the authorized dealer.<\/p>\n

Something that most people take into account when investing 7<\/strong>,000<\/strong> euros, and look forward to reselling it after a year or two. Even though, as that\u2019s my case, I look forward to enjoying it for a very long time instead.<\/p>\n