Sea-Dweller 4000
Submariner C Date
Rolex Sea-Dweller 4000 & Submariner C
The weekend before last I spent a few hours chatting with a few friends about watches. One of the chaps was reasonably knowledgeable the other three less so; however, all were enthusiasts. One of them was in the process of buying his first Rolex and was discussing the merits of the Sea-Dweller 4000 vs the Sub C.
The conversation became quite animated when two of the guys began to argue that aesthetically, there really wasn't much difference between the two models. At first, I'd have been quick to dismiss this out of hand but it did start me pondering the topic. In our little watch-world bubble, we do focus on the minutiae; however, outside that, how many times have you heard reference to all black Rolex sports watches looking the same? Further to that, if I'm being completely honest, based purely on simple aesthetics, there are more similarities between the SD 4000 and Sub C than there are differences.
So, that brings me to my question (and the poll), what would you choose and why? Does the cyclops swing it one way or the other for you? Does the pressure release valve push your buy button? What is it that would make you lean one way or the other?...
Last edited by AM94; 10th June 2015 at 10:33. Reason: Cleaning up my 'pre-coffee' mistakes.
Neither one. Assuming the budget was available, I'd go for a DSSD and a two tone blue dial Sub (of any vintage as long as it was in good condition) or a platinum dial Yachtmaster.Originally Posted by AM94
Can you add a "None of the above" option to the poll? :-)
Yes me too, none of the above,
The sub for me looks like every other diver, there are so many lookalikes on the market. And although its a great watch, every man and his dog has a clone of some description.
I would go for a Millie or Ex11 from Rolex...........
So are you both agreeing that they look very similar or are you simply saying you don't like either when compared to other models in the current range?
SD-4000, as technically it is a better watch, and has the added bonus of a lovely tapered case to bracelet look, than the bloated Submariner-Date case with it's square lug 'step'
They do look similar in my opinion (although I recognise that there are significant technical differences) and I prefer other models in both the current and past product range.
In simple terms, relative to normal non-enthusiast watch lovers, I agree the SDc and SubC look very similar. I bypassed this 'issue' by having a SubC LV Hulk and a Deepsea. One black, one green, two obviously different looking watches.
Interestingly though as much as I love both watches and wear the Deepsea most, if one absolutely had to go - I'd keep the Hulk. No logic there whatsoever :-).
^^ That's what I would have written. The SDc has some lovely touches; the graduated bezel, matt dial, less 'fashiobale' case and titanium, HEV set it apart very nicely from a Sub Date.
However, the Hulk and blue YM are the princes of the range; they are actually distinctive, which is unusual for a Rolex.Had both, sold them to get something else, now have (very) small pangs of regret...
I voted SDc, because after considering the SubCs (black date and no date, I don't like the green of the Hulk) and the SDc it's the one I bought. I like stuff that's a little more unusual than mainstream, I prefer the tapered case shape, I love the technology of the extra depth rating/HEV plus the COMEX history of the model made it just that bit more interesting in my eyes.
To the average Joe, the SD isn't worth the extra money and they pass them by. I like that. I've only ever seen one SD on someone's wrist, but I've lost count of the number of subs...
To me the cases look identical.
They're not - the Sub is squarer:
I think this just underlines the OP's point.
Those shoulders are, as near as dammit, the same to 99.9% of the people. When I looked at a SD4000 in a shop, I thought they were the same as my Sub.
That's the point with this hobby though isn't it? The small details make all the difference to some people.....
300 metre water resistance is plenty for my bath (even at the taps end) so I would vote for the Submariner.
Stand back 5ft and it looks the same as a Fifty Fathoms, Seamaster and Steinhart Ocean One. It's all in the details.
When you look at them both together, the SDc is a much more 'traditional' Rolex case shape and size. Initially I didn't like that, now it makes a lot of sense to me.
I prefer the sea dweller to the sub date, but only because of the extra technology inside and because of the cyclops which I really don't like. If I want a cyclops I'll buy a Steinhart
Sub C No-date every time. I couldn't justify the uplift in cost for the increased yet pointless water resistance and a date indicator that's wrong every other month.
I have a subc, my first Swiss watch and while I love it, for numerous reasons, were I to buy again, it would be the SD for me. However, I now find myself hankering after an 16600 seadweller, as well as rather than instead of my 116610.
Tough one, when I tried on the sea dweller 4000 and compared it to my sub-c I found the dial looked smaller. Apart from that I like everything about the new sea-dweller and I'm trying my hardest not to resist the urge to go for it!
They are extremely similar. I don't think the vast majority of people could tell them apart at a glance. Not surprising really, the SD started life as a Submariner.
If they were a similar price I'd say there's not much to choose between them. However, the SD is a good deal more expensive, and for me doesn't offer anything extra other than increased diving depth which I'll never use. If I wanted an expensive, deep-diving watch with a fully graduated bezel and a helium release valve, I'd get a Deepsea. No one is likely to mistake one of those for a Sub.
Unlike the previous incarnation, I find the new SD4000 more comfortable than the subc date which I also own. I played a game with my young daughter of spot the difference. To the casual observer ie the wife the sea-dwellers and subs all look the same (does help at times).
That's pretty much the same reason why I bought one. And I have to say and I've said it on here before, I absolutely love it.
One of things I love the most is the depth created by the Matt dial against the ceramic bezel.
Its a good point in mentioning the minutiae, because I suppose yes, to the uninitiated they do look the same, and DB9 nails it with the comments on the hulk.
I like the SubC case, I like the SDc case. The bubble is iconic, but so is a symmetrical dial in terms of a no date. If you can't do without the date, but hate the bubble then SDc. If you don't care about the date, get a base sub. That symmetry is something special. If the Cyclops is essential, but you need it to not just be another black sub, then Hulk.
Personally I wish they'd bring back 2 line dials...
As for the details, well.. to some it maybe same old same old, but I love the history of the models and what they mean. Industry standard? Boring? Mmm.. maybe from a certain pov.. but I think of them as timeless classics.
Edit: BTW i honestly can't choose
A lot of people think a 3 tone fender Stratocaster is boring and old fashioned. I think it's as classic and timeless as rayban aviators.
Some things are just cool by virtue of the fact they are what they are
Last edited by tekbow; 10th June 2015 at 16:05.
Totally agree with the comments to the effect that it is all down to the smallest detail that non-watch enthusiasts probably wouldn't notice.
I voted for the SD because I do not like the cyclops and personally like the full 60 min markers on the bezal insert.
Both will depreciate in value the minute you walk out of the AD - go vintage, nice watches and better at holding their values.
Got to the the SD4000. The case for one, and the smaller size - it's a smasher.
But, to the point everyone makes... to most people, including the wife, they're just the same, so why pay more (which is what the wife would say).
It took me a while to get a Ceramic Sub, in the form of a Hulk. But when the Sea-Dweller was released my mind was made up and the Hulk was flipped in order that I could acquire one. The SD wears really quite differently on the wrist, as many have said it's much more akin to the classic case shape despite this not being too clear in some photos. It's chunkier, a little taller and slimmer when viewed from above (the photos below may help). Value for money? Well, that's debatable as could be argued against the Subs too. But for me it's the best of the current Rolex sports watch range and the first (only?) Rolex I've justified buying brand-new. Curiously I do miss the cyclops sometimes when searching for the date - must be my age!
Ant
It's an interesting view and I suppose no-one (members of the public!) would really differentiate between the 3 models of this generation, let alone vintage ones.
Strangely I do rather like the SDc, but I just can't bring myself to justify the price; if I were going to spend £7k on a watch, it'd have to be a bit more 'special' IMO, I'm afraid a 3-hander with a date doesn't justify that. I know it's not easy to quantify such things, but then we're all a bit mad to be on here!
Prepares for a flaming...
I am one of the lucky ones in the sense that I hate one eyed giants.....so no dilemma for me.....(if I could afford it)......why let that stop me!
I own a hulk and a 1998 16600 seadweller so I m really hoping that when I eventually do try on the sd4000 I really don't like it... Although I have a feeling that's not going to be the case!
I tried on an SDC at an AD at the weekend, as well as a GMT. I am myself debating a BLNR, Subc or SDc to buy shortly. I've not seen a BLNR in the metal so can't really comment but I know I prefer the cyclops-less SDc, and the rest of the tech is a a neat feature (not that I'd come close to needing anything close to what it can do!) but it's just enough of a price premium to really consider if it's worth it!
Also think carefully about whether you really want to buy a new watch at retail, and take the massive depreciation hit. Used is obviously much better value (you can buy a mint used SDc for less than a new Sub) and moreover, if you decide later that you're not bonding with it, you can move it on for basically no loss and try something else. Buying new means, once you've got it, you're more or less stuck with it.
I really wanted to like the SDc but found it small compared to my subC, and I've got tiny 6" wrists.
I think I'm one of the few that actually prefers the block case.
I've picked up a blnr in contrast to the subC and because of the colour they are different to wear. I sold a subC LV to make way. Mind you I put a new subC bracelet to get the perfect fit and lose the pcl.
I can see the OPs dilemma / question. The two are similar from a far, but to wear and enjoy they are quite different.
Probably end up being one of those occasions where you have to try both for a period of time to see one suits you best
Andy
I'm being really careful over my decision (got till December, give or take) because it's for a special occasion (30th) and thus want to get it right first time because I have no intention of ever selling it. So yes I wholeheartedly agree second hand is much better value/choice, but this time I want it to be mine, all mine and won't suffer any depreciation so to speak. Other than that, yeah I agree second hand is fantastic for getting round a few watches.
I own the old SD, the Hulk and the SDc. My quandary is the opposite, trying to decide which to sell. I prefer the cleaner look of the SD, but I do find the new SDc a little thick for my liking (my wrist is 6.75''). A little less thick would be my perfect watch (so, slightly less WR and less thickness, and maybe 1-2mm bigger diameter, would be perfect for me).
So, bear in mind that the new SDc may be slightly less comfortable on your wrist than the LVc and the 16600 (sitting higher than the Sub and 26g heavier than the 16600).
I totally understand that. With a vintage watch, you want the history. With a new watch, you want to be the history.
And with a purchase like that, lists of pros and cons don't really help, because it needs to be a love thing. You don't fall in love with a spreadsheet. You need - I can't think of a less creepy way to say this - skin-to-skin contact.
I changed my mind completely about which Rolex I had to have once I started trying them on in shops. I knew when I'd found the right one because I felt a deep reluctance to take it off!
That's what happened to me.
Went to try the new Pelagos and ended up trying a blnr as they had one there. Once it was on I was lost
Seadweller all the way for me.
For some reason I would want the Sub in its older form for some reason....I see that as the staple design and the seadweller the one to evolve. Silly I know but hey.
I would say the same for the explorer also before they made it larger with maxi dial etc.
Sounds like you should buy a Sub
Oh and to those concerned about the £6900 UK price, buy a brand new grey import here in the UK for £1000 less:
http://www.iconicwatches.co.uk/rolex...er-116600.html
Sea Dweller. I really like it, that's all.
Having owned a non date sub c for over a year I bumped into a friend wearing a SD 4000. IMO (only, don't jump down my throat or say how wrong i am) it looked instantly different. It wore much bigger on the wrist due to the increase in the thickness of the watch and the crystal.
Tried both. Bought the SDCc. Rationale: don't like the cyclops and preferred the heft of the SDc. Also like the fully indexed bezel. Still quite fancy a Sub though, perfect for the weekends when I don't care what the date is...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
