Reply With Quote1665.
Has nothing to with whether they are tool watches or jewelry.Originally Posted by dougair
Toolishness of a watch is defined by what use it can be put to.
Anyway, am not too fond of the 'tool watch' nomenclature.
If someone wants to make an argument that with the increase in popularity and prices , a lot of Rolex watches are being used differently,I will agree.
But being a tool watch to me is more about ability than purpose.
I have more industrial looking watches than Rolex but they say see the same use as Rolex.
1665.
I had to stare at the pics a while to make my mind up. The DSSD is too big and the cyclops on the SD43 does look stupid after all, despite the novelty red text. I really thought I'd plump for that one but in the end it's got to be the 16600 for me. Absolutely classic.
The classic 16600.
I think an overwhelming majority might choose it, were it be a choice in the original question.
A fantastic watch.
I agree with your sentiment. I find the 1mm smaller dial on the SD spoils the proportions somewhat for me and as a result mine doesnt get out too much. The Sub LV is the best of the 5 digit models for me. I dont see myself owning any of the fatter cased/ceramic models but I can see the appeal if you are 6ft+ with large wrists.
Cheers
Without a Doubt the 16600, If it's good enough for Theo Mavrostomos it's good enough for me
Good excuse to post another Ad I found in NG too!
I love the DSSD but think the SD43 is very nice aswel, although I haven't seen one in the flesh......or metal. Nice collection OP.
Anything busy these days reminds me of a gypsy fiesta. Simple dial with just one word of what is trying to say is enough for my liking. Furthermore its not a tool watch anymore but a luxury.
I have small wrist so anything feeling like a brick is not comfortable as time passes throught the day
Last edited by raptor; 28th May 2017 at 16:35.
Wise words...... Triple Six Matt for me, actually, anything with the good old aluminum inserts would do, anything from the days before Big and Shiny.
Sent from my MI MAX using Tapatalk
Reading the thread and watching it grow throughout the day got me thinking: providing they wanted to (let's say that market research confirmed the trend indicated in this thread), could Rolex revese their direction and begin to gradually de-bling its tool-watch lines? Of course, the prices would have to remain at the current level with the current level of steady rise, and the quality and attention to detail would remain the same, so it would only be a stylistic departure.
I have to say that I have a hard time imagining it myself. Thinking the differences between the "old Rolex" and "new Rolex" create no cognitive dissonance, but I seem to have been conditioned by their marketing to only expect Rolex to go in the direction of more bling, more precious metals, more bulk. It's as if Rolex has been trying to tell me that where they're at right now is where they have always meant to be, but somehow couldn't be before. I don't know if you can identify with my train of thought here, but I'd be interested in hearing how you see this.
Agreed. I have owned a 16660 a 16600, and 1665, and the only one I still have is my 1665 (Rail).
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
The 40mm ceramic SD was an attempt to "de-bling" (semi matte dial, not rediculous lugs), at least back to the 5 digit level. It was a huge failure and the cyclops dweller was the response. The market spoke clearly.
I'd happily own any of them but these pictures do prove just how out of place the cyclops is on the SD43.
I can accept the chunky DSSD since it is purposely an over engineered watch however find the new SD on steroids a bit over the top and dissapointed they also added the cyclops. I think they went a step too far away from the SD as we know it, however I guess they wanted to do something drastic to boost sales since pre brexit the SD-C was in every window due to the Sub being a cheaper and more popular option
I think they needed something to mark 50 th anniversary and wanted to give a nod to past without doing a reissue.
The new SD is a mix between a Sub and an SD.
Some may find that appealing while some may feel it ends up being neither.
I like it quite a bit and in many ways is perfect but I genuinely doubt if it is going to be a super huge seller.
Another version of SD might be round the corner to supercede it.
This afternoon I had time to kill on Oxford St, so I had a good browse in all the watch shop windows. By chance - or perhaps not - at Oxford Circus you start with H Samuel's - Seiko, Sekonda, Casio etc - and after a wander westward, you end up with Watches of Switzerland, one window of Rolex and one window of Patek.
After seeing Seikos and Sekondas and Tissots and Tags and Longines and Hamiltons and Tudors and Breitlings and more Breitlings and more Longines and Omegas, the Rolexes looked really dinky and petite - not only the dark-dialled Yachtmaster and the gold GMT, but even the Explorer II and DJ41 looked far from large after all those thousands of broad and thick watches. Whether forumdwellers like it or not, Rolex producing a 42mm+ watch with broad mainstream appeal merely puts them in line with the general market. Would the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would have come with a supersized Submariner have done them any good? By using the extra WR of the SD as an excuse for heft, Rolex have been able to fill that gap in their range, and have only had to sacrifice a poor seller that apparently isn't a patch on its five digit predecessor to achieve it.
^^^^
I am sure you had Bach's St. Mathew Passion playing in your mind as you were looking at the watches:-)
More like, You Can't Always Get What You Want
(Unwritten song: You Can't Even Get To Look At The Watch You Think You Might Want)
I am of like mind and also own a DSSD.
I think the dssd is THE watch to own if you have a large wrist. It's basically the only big sports watch with a technical reason for being that size.
Could I have the 16600 with the red script from the 126600?
If not then I'll go with the slimmer case of the 16600.
I think you are thinking of a DRSD
Has to be the 16600 for me as on my wrists the others are just trying a little too hard? Although all stunning bits of engineering it's always the classic for me!
Perfect size and perfect proportions!
Chris
Not surprisingly my vote is with the 116660, it is just so different from all the rest.
SDc views remain as they were when the watch was released and before the hype and talked up values after confirmation of its demise. Very underwhelmed and even more so when I handled one.
16600 is lovely but for me I prefer the non date subs, 5513 and 14060 as these are proper Rolex diver DNA.
The new kid on the block looks a lovely piece but jury is out until I see it in the flesh.
Two weeks into DSSD ownership and I am just so impressed it is an absolutely fantastic watch. With the heat of recent days the gridlock is a godsend the micro adjustment is great.
The conceived bulk is just not an issue one bit and it wore fine on Friday with a suit and Hackett double button under the cuff.
Fantastic collection and enjoy.
Pitch
I love my DSSD, on the wait list for the new SD50/43. I will buy when I get the chance as I think from trying on that they are sufficiently different to justify (in my head at least) owning both at the same time (deep blue DSSD). I tried on a colleagues 166000 and whilst quite liking it there was no love. Admit to never having worn an SDc.
To precis, DSSD for now but watch this space.
Sent from my SM-G920F using TZ-UK mobile app
Last edited by Robsmck; 29th May 2017 at 10:35. Reason: Typo
Here's a grail for you "swiss" dial
https://www.jurawatches.co.uk/collec...-16600-pre-499
Have dealers managed to manufacture a market for "Swiss only" dials? If so, that's comical.
16600 for me, I got a perfect fit after removing a permanent link from the 6 o'clock side, it's now my favorite watch and hopefully the one I'll keep forever.
Can the link be replaced at a later date? Or does it end up being destroyed in the removal process?
I took it to local rolex approved watchmaker and he used a special tool to remove it, it can be replaced yes.
Thanks for that info smalltime. My wrists are large enough that the watch itself sits correctly, but the clasp I a good bit off-centre, but it is comfy none the less. Good to know I have the option should I want.
My Sea Dweller 16600 acquired from John (Oranges10)
Michael
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Last edited by Yorkshiremadmick; 29th May 2017 at 19:31. Reason: missed off model no
No problem mate, I was exactly the same. The off centre clasp really annoyed me. Was very happy to have it done, as I say it's perfect now for my 6.7 inch wrist.
16600 for me! I got mine a few months ago & always look forward to wearing it, I love it! It wears a little chunkier than past Subs, I've got ageing tritium dial, hands & pip and drilled lugs, plus I can get it wet (something I was reluctant to do with earlier models!).
Last edited by Paulie; 29th May 2017 at 21:24.
Nothing "grail" about a Swiss dial I'm afraid.
Cheers,
Neil.
This is how it seems to me.
And the cyclops is probably part of Rolex's "broad mainstream appeal" in the eyes of the mass watch buying public.
I have a 16600 and a 116600. If I had to choose one I'd choose the 116600. Better lume, better bezel action, better bracelet, 60 minutes bezel markers, maxi plots and I guess better bits in the movement.
I definitely see my 116600 as the better watch - by quite a long way - but l still think Ill get a 16600 down the line. Won't be looking for a safe queen - just an honest daily wearer.
I agree with this , also the ceramic bezel makes a huge difference , maxi dial too , has more wrist presence for sure over the 16600 , I love my SD4K
SeikoboyIMG_1378.JPG
That was the phrase used by Omegamanic when I got mine off here some time ago.hence I told him.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I have owned and worn a 16600 (my first Rolex, now sold) for several years, and recently bought a 116600.
From my perspective, the 16600 is the perfect Rolex. Beautifully proportioned, rugged, and looks cool as a cool thing. That said, to wear and own I personally much prefer the 116600. The new bracelet is absolutely spectacular, particularly with the glidelock clasp. The satin dial is stunning in person, as is the ceramic 60-min bezel, which is also unique to the ceramic SD. Overall I find it sits much better on the wrist, too (the bracelet definitely contributes to this).
No regrets on selling the 16600 - I just think the 116600 ticks more boxes for me at the moment, and sits much better in my collection!
I've had three 16600s, two 116600s, a 1665 and a 116660.
All I have left is the last 16600. It's a tritium dialled, well-loved old beater and it's exactly what I wanted in the end. I absolutely wear it as a tool watch, inasmuch as I will work on the car, do the gardening, clean out drains, swim etc while wearing it. I'll be doing some diving this summer and I expect to wear it for that too.
I loved all the other SDs that I've had, but ultimately got rid of them all for one reason or another:
The SD4000 just felt too shiny, and I didn't want to scratch it.
The 1665 didn't feel as special as I felt it should have for the money I had tied up in it, and I wouldn't even wear it while doing the washing up.
The DSSD was a spectacular unit, but it felt like a clown watch on my wrist.
After all that, my ultimate would be a matte dial 16660, beautiful and practical, but that gets more unlikely as time passes, so a tritium dial 16600 is the best version for me.
This thread has not really helped in the decision between a 16600 and a 116600.
Cracking thread though
I still have no idea what all the numbers mean. The only one I'd like to own is the DSSD.
Simon
That's the only question he never answers, Ken!
Simon
When you line them up like that, the 16600 is the prototypical icon. The SD4k, however, looks the most modern. Surprisingly, the SD43 looks like a cheap knockoff in comparison?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
The 126660 looks like someones cut part of the picture out
RIAC
This thread has not really helped in the decision between a 16600 and a 116600.
Cracking thread though
116600 ceramic for me, do it you won't regret it
I'd be happy with any of them (wonder if I can sell the wife) but it would be the DSSD if I had the choice.
Last edited by Toddy; 18th September 2017 at 20:59.
Posting Permissions
