Reply With Quote
Judging from this photos it looks like the 126600 is already on its way out - in some it's not even fully in the picture. I know which one I would keep:
But - I do get pangs for a good 16660 example:
Let's see which one is more popular here.
I know we have fans of each.
16600 vs 116660 vs 116600 vs 126600
photo hosting
Judging from this photos it looks like the 126600 is already on its way out - in some it's not even fully in the picture. I know which one I would keep:
But - I do get pangs for a good 16660 example:
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 28th May 2017 at 00:15.
The 16600 for me, being the model which took a mainstream professional watch only as far as reasonable before the overweight and over-engineered ceramic bragging-bait was introduced.
I wear one 99% of the time.
H
The 16600 for me as well, true to the original SD design and a classic already that will be appreciated by future collectors as the last of the great SDs before the bulkier Ceramic generation took over.
I saw a SD4000 in the flesh for the first time a while back in a shop window under a famous clock in some historic city centre somewhere or other before the madness took over and it left me completely cold. It looked like a Lego watch and it's replacement is not much better with the cyclops.
Having owned a 1665 GW and DRSD I am firmly in the camp of that style of watch before things got big and shiny.
Looking at Martyn's pictures I would take that 16660 every day of the week.
Out of interest - just how many watches have you got Raj?
Last edited by Wallasey Runner; 28th May 2017 at 00:26.
My 16600 is my go-to watch as well. The OP did a good job of placing the watches in order of decreasing desirability (at least for me). The new 43mm version manages to somehow be a more akward looking design than the DSSD, and that takes some doing.Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton
Of course, my tastes are not the market so I'm sure plenty will like it.
16600- my all time favorite watch
It's just a matter of time...
Having owned three of these (not the newest one), I'd still say the 16600 reigns supreme. I'm a massive fan of the 116600 but the older model just feels right on the wrist. As Mr. Milton, I reckon it's on my wrist for most of the time.
The one I'd prefer over the 16600 is the matte triple 6.
Exactly my thoughts. Rolex got this one so proportionally correct while achieving its considerable WR with the least possible bulk, that it tends to make every other attempt look like an homage. Including Rolex's own subsequent models, imho.
I think the 126600 is quite artfully, but still unnecessarily beefed up, so I have to go with the 16600.
I can't help noticing the overwhelming consensus in the thread - I'm new-ish here, but I'm guessing one doesn't see that very often.
Six digits always give the consensus the vapours
16600 for me, prefer it to my Kermit, which was the watch I always wanted before getting the SD.
I'd like to play devils advocate here. I remember back in the mists of time before the SD4K was in production, there was a lot of chatter how the 16600 or simply SD say too high on the wrist with is relatively thick case and small case back diameter making it too top heavy and felt uncomfortable. I guess that's all forgotten.
We have a winner ^^^^^^^^
For me the 116600 is the one , the ceramic bezel and the date no cyclops is the perfect combination , small production run will make it rare too .
Seikoboy
The new SD43 for me, the date always seemed wrong without the cyclops, the size looks perfect with the red accents etc beautiful watch
The six digits get a battering as normal but to me they are far superior watches
16600 for me too. It's the only one I have owned and the only one I think about buying.
I did think about the 116600 and tried one on but that was before the hype!
Still awaiting the SD43 so cannot pass judgment
However I adore the warmth and feel of the 1665 on wrist
Love the SDC4000 such an overlooked under appreciated piece
But have to agree it's the 16600 that's my go to SD for regular use the dimensions are perfect and if you had to sell all and keep just 1 it would be hard fought between 16600 and 1665
Sadly although I appreciate the Deep Sea for its sheer Tech I don't have the wrists for it
Great pics nice to see a 43 alongside an SDC4000
There are quite a few posts from me on here singing the praise of the understated but massively capable 16600. I do, however love my ceramic SD and certainly didn't buy it as "bragging bait" - lack of Cyclops sends it under the "rollie radar" for most casual observers.
The clasp and bracelet did it for me - significantly better than the tinnier early offerings.
That said, l intend to acquire a 16600 not far down the line - they look great, are very comfortable and are the SD in its purest form.
I acquired a 16600 just a couple of months ago. It's a full set from 2006 and it is running at a very consistent plus 1 seconds a day. I've no experience of the three other models referred to in this thread so I'm not going to attempt to make any comparisons or draw any conclusions.
I'm just happy to have this one, a CWC RN diver (quartz and non-date) plus a couple of G Shocks. That doesn't amount to a collection but it suits me just fine.
The 16600 used to be my favourite Rolex and the one that got the most wrist time. Then the ceramic sports models came along. I just prefer the greater quality they offer and Sub LV usurped the SD. When I reduced my collection all older Rolexes went (except 16622) in favour of modern equivalents.
Along came the SD4k, and that had to join the stable. In every way a sympathetic update to its predecessor. It really is the epitome of update versus old in same way Subs,GMT, DJ and DD have all been updated and, in my eyes, improved to be more contemporary and better quality (and silly prices).
Some people don't like change and/or just like to choose old models of things e.g. houses, cars, clothes, furniture, art and that's what choice is all about.
Another vote for the 16600. Perfect size and proportions and very comfortable too. It just feels right in every way.
I do love my 16660, so would be the 16600 for me.
Haven't tried them all but the 16600 for me. If I spent more time with a 116600 I could potentially be persuaded by that though!
The 16600 for me is the absolute winner. The last real toolwatch Rolex which was an evolution and upgrade over the 1665.
The DSSD is the most overengineered Rolex, and possibly one of the most extreme divers. However it wears too big to be a daily. The SD4k and the SD43 are just Rolex trying to increase sales...
Further to my first post :
The prominence of the bezel pip on ceramic versions is an obvious design flaw and they are, as predicted, often found to be dented and chipped.
The ceramic bezels can be scratched, cracked or otherwise damaged, and where the old aluminium inserts were a £40 consumable fitted in minutes the new ones require a circa £1,000 service and weeks out of your hands.
The RRP is now comparable with a bicolour / diamond Datejust rather than a higher end steel Datejust.
These three factors further support my contention that the modern Sea-Dwellers have deserted the very tool watch status with which so many of us fell in love.
H
16600 for me too.
Am slowly learning to appreciate the qualities of the 5 digit Rolexes having initially being seduced by the modern 6 digit versions.
That said, I really do fancy a James Cameron DSSD !
Fantastic collection. My preference is 16600. Or a Great White.
Nicely put.
DSSD for me. such a good looking thing which fits me perfectly.
T'other are too small for me although the newest SD43 looks close enough. it looks a lot slimmer though and I like the dimensions of the DSSD more.
question I have been meaning to ask, is there a difference between the clasps with the ceramic versions or do they all have the same as the DSSD? also, does the ceramic sub have the same clasp?
Yes, this is true for me. Whilst I like the 16600, a 16610 always sat better on my particular wrist and I prefer the proportions of the dial:bezel ratio on the 16610 too. The 16600 is still a great watch though.
Albeit that no Rolex is a tool watch any more. Just jewellery. Be it collectable (aka old) or new. Or for some an investment.
A Casio or a dive computer is a tool.
I used to use a 14060 as a tool and as values rose it became a piece of jewellery, and was replaced by a Casio. A tool is something you will willingly and contentedly abuse to its end and replace if/when it fails... IMO
So we are deluding ourselves by referring to SD as a tool. It's a hobbyist collectable or status symbol/piece of jewellery.
The two large ones look daft... entirely incongruous with their heritage
2nd from the right for me
I'm not altogether convinced, having met so many professional divers, very much men's men, who seem to have chosen to wear these trinkets you describe!
Somehow I don't expect to find many of them in D-Blues or SD43s...
H
I don't own any but always felt part of the dwellers identity was not having a cyclops. Bezel marking all the way round and the smaller of the two sizes so for me it would be the 2nd from the right (116600?)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just to counterbalance the groupthink slightly, the DSSD is the perfect Sea-Dweller for me, and, indeed, the one I bought. The 16600’s markers are too small for my taste, the SD4000 is too similar to the SubC, and the SD43 seems to have been inflated without keeping the proportions right.
I'm also going to say DSSD. Personally I think the sea dwellers have been too tall and so this is balanced much better on the DSSD. And the DSSD looks like its own watch as opposed to the other ceramics which seem like beefed up versions of the previous incarnations.
Though I would add - I am not a fan of ceramic for all the reasons that HM highlights in his post. One reason I've yet to try a Ceramic Rolex and unlikely to either (apart from the DSSD)
16600 (my favorite watch of all time), followed closely by the 116600. Don't much care for the other two.
Not ceramic and DSSD is too big for my wrist. That leaves only 1 option.
I agree with this , yes Rolex sports models are still based on being tool watches which were used in the past for timing , diving etc . But let's face the facts they are actually items of jewellery now and Rolex have acknowledged this by blinging them up a bit and I'm all for this . That's why I prefer the 6 digit models . I would never use my Daytona to time a race or wear my sd4k to dive and you'll find 99% or Rolex owners are like me .
Seikoboy
The dssd clasp is unique I'm pretty sure the 43mm uses a bigger version of the sub clasp.
Thanks for the responses.
I had an idea that 16600 might be the more popular one but the margin is surprising.
I like it too but not necessarily more than others. It has its own charms just like other iterations.
Ceramic bezel is a doubled aged sword. There are disadvantages as HM mentions but I think it improves the look and makes the bezel more scratch resistant. The newer clasps are leagues ahead as we all know.
For me there is no firm favorite-like all of them for different reasons.
As to the assertion that SD is no longer a tool watch, it is a tired old tale.
It is what you choose to wear it as. One thing it is not is a piece of jewelry or a trinket. It is a watch that can also act as an accessory.
16600 for me.
Last model before the overbloated monstrosities.
Ignore the one on the right.
Cheers,
Neil.
I disagree, the 1665 and 16600 were popular with commercial divers COMEX etc, I don't think the same can be said of the new models. They're fashion ware.
The same for me and for H's reasons too.
Different times,different choices.
Who uses a watch or for what purpose doesn't make it a tool watch.
It is the ability to withstand the rigors while providing lasting,trouble free performance.
I do accept that they are often a grooming accessory but it doesn't change the fact that they are very capable and durable watches.
People often get this simple fact mixed up-
Rolex were not considered tool watches because divers used them.
The divers used them because they were quality tool watches.
Overtime, more choices have become available, divers themselves have changed and diving has also somewhat changed.
Last edited by RAJEN; 28th May 2017 at 14:19.
I don't think anything I said was delusional, throwing insults isn't the best way to engage a member in debate. The fact is that those earlier models were issued...the new ones are not as far as I know.
Surely the fact that they were issued meant they were used simply because they were supplied and not chosen?
Posting Permissions
