Reply With QuoteI bloody love that watch!!! Please stop making me miss it so much Martyn...I have to make do with what I've got nowOriginally Posted by MartynJC (UK)
This one for me
Looks like there is a relatively common theme here, it'd be the dweller for me too if I had to choose!
I bloody love that watch!!! Please stop making me miss it so much Martyn...I have to make do with what I've got nowThis one for me
I've said SD, but if the choice was for what I'd wear, it would have to be the Sub as the SD was just too clunky on my wrist.
As a collection piece and for the wrist of someone else, SD wins though!
Not a lot of Sub love here! I’m exaggerating of course but in your comparison pictures I really do prefer the SD. The square lugs of the sub just seem too angular and and spoil the ‘flow’ of the watch. The SD just looks more comfortable on your wrist, seems more understated and dare I say it....classier?
I know I could go and do some research but would anyone who knows the dimensions of these watches off the top of their head mind posting them for mine and other non Rolex owners benefit?
Ceramic sub 114060 - 40mm wide (measured diagonally), 48mm long, 12.5mm thick, lugs 20mm.
Seadweller 16600 - 40mm wide, 48mm long, 14.5mm thick, lugs 20mm.
It's the wider lugs and crown guard that beef up the ceramic sub case and make it look bigger than the SD.
Just read this thread and for me the Seadweller takes it just on looks. Its the lugs that just look more........ streamlined and smooth.... is the only way I can sum it up. Gives the watch better proportions for my eyes.
All totally subjective obviously!!
Which all doesn't help as I'm after an Explorer 2 Polar next................perhaps.....oh dear watches can be so much fun and so much...........fun!!
Thank you 👍
Since this thread began I’ve bought a 16600 and while it’s a fantastic watch it does wear a bit small on a big wrist so I think for me it would be the Sub but having said that I can’t bear to sell the 16600 as it really is a perfectly proportioned watch and a true classic.
You quote both lugs at 20mm, do you know what size at the bottom end?
The 16600 SD is a beast.Not so keen on the modern itineration of the submariner.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Ceramic sub is 27mm ish.
Haven't got one to measure but I reckon the SD will be around 24
I vote modern sub. Neither are exactly neat under the cuff so as casual Watch I’d take the subs beefy exterior over the SDs gurth.
I’d take either tho, if you’re feeling Christmassy..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If it was only one or the other, I’d go for the 16600 first.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
For me, ceramic Sub but no date. I find them more comfortable than the SD and I enjoy the solidity of the updated bracelet and clasp. That said, I always envy the stepped crystal of the SD. I'd probably choose the SD over a ceramic Sub Date, but maybe not over an LVc. The bizarre mind of a watch-fancier eh?
Is the SD really practical under a shirt cuff, I can imagine it snagging all the time which would be a real PITA.
If I am wearing a suit with a cuffed shirt I tend to opt for the 39mm explorer which has a smooth bezel.
Yes fits fine under a cuff.
An update: it seems the classic SD has won the battle of my heart and I'm enjoying wearing it much more than the Sub-c...so much so that I'll be trying to put the glidelock clasp from the sub-c on the SD bracelet as soon as I get the chance
Good choice. It's a real classic.
Has to be a Sub for me as well. Again I like the cyclops unlike so many.
Sub for me aswell!!
Always been a fan of the cyclops and it’s a little more understated than the SD.
Sub is also for me the one diver I have been able to wear comfortably on a daily basis!
Chris
Ps it’s a really hard life your leading with gh we kind of decisions😂
Hooray for the 5 digit! I just prefer the proportions to the new cases (but like me I bet you keep wanting to scratch that ceramic itch....)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by rgwarden; 12th December 2017 at 08:29.
5 digits are magical, you still get that breath of adventure long past out of those and they feel less synthetic than new counterparts
16600 does have some real charm to it, but the modern Sub C really is an engineering marvel.
What do you see as an engineering marvel about the new SubC?
Don't get me wrong, I like them a lot but the 1200m SD's moved dive watches on at the time. The Sub is bigger and quarter of the depth rating, and I personally prefer the aluminium inserts.
It's just a matter of time...
Only thing I like about the modern incarnation is the glidelock and blue lume.. the upgrades to the movement are a bit meh to me.
Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
Glidlock is about the only thing that is a real engineering improvement and I do love that (hence why I'm planning to take it off my sub-c and put it on the SD).
The movement upgrades are incremental, the lume/maxi dial are just modern incarnations (not really engineering improvements).
The ceramic is a decent upgrade on the durability front, though very subjective as to aesthetics/feel and not particularly a "marvel" of engineering - Omega's liquidmetal technology is more impressive, as is the BLNR's twin-color cerachrome fusion.
I disagree Chris, nothing screams ROLEX like the cyclops. The SD and the 16600 in particular is far more understated.
After trying several 5 digit references I decided they were not for me, no criticisms here just not my cup of tea
The SubC is a great watch on the wrist with a good balance of comfort and wrist presence, I was never a fan of the cyclops until I tried one and I am now converted! In fact the SD's date without now looks wrong to me and has a homage look to it
The SubC date is pretty much my perfect watch, in green it IS my perfect watch :)
Lookswise, there's no comparison in my books. For me the SD is a perfect archetype for a sports watch. Visually, it gets everything right: the proportions are perfect, the absence of the Cyclops lends clarity and elegance, the aluminium bezel avoids unwanted bling and there’s no sign of the catastrophic lugs/bracelet interface of the modern cases. In comparison, the modern Sub is a mess. It just looks to be trying too hard, albeit its negatives are much less apparent in the flesh than they appear in some, including these, photos.Thought I'll stoke the fire on a Monday morning with these promised side by side photos....comments welcome
That said, I’ve owned both the SD in question as well as the old style (TT) Sub and I’m firmly in the camp of those who found the SD difficult to wear and my criticisms are nothing new. On the wrist, it sat too high, primarily I think due to its convex base. The case felt too heavy compared to the bracelet and it spent its life flopping around my (17cm) wrist until I flipped it for the Sub. In comparison, the Sub’s case, being lighter, thinner and wider felt infinitely more comfortable.
A mess? Really?
Well. I did admit it wasn't so bad in the flesh ;)
So....my classic 5 digit SD got a bit of an upgrade today...can you see what it is?
I borrowed it from the SubC
It's an awesome combo
Well done that man, my 5 digit Sub with GMT brushed clasp says hello. A 6 digit clasp on a 5 digit watch is just the perfect combo.So....my classic 5 digit SD got a bit of an upgrade today...can you see what it is?
I borrowed it from the SubC
It's an awesome combo
It leaves me with a 6 digit GMT bracelet in the drawer with not much to do though!
SD, there is no comparison.
Really?
It's just the latest iteration of what was originally an engineering success.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I do love it so much charm
Looking good. Is that a glidelock or easylink clasp?So....my classic 5 digit SD got a bit of an upgrade today...can you see what it is?
I borrowed it from the SubC
It's an awesome combo
Glidelock, from my SubC...but @robbyman has me wondering whether an easylink clasp from an Exp1 might be better?
Mine on the Glidelock. Bought it like this and it’s pretty much perfect.
Posting Permissions
