Reply With QuoteI have a SD and a Sub LV, it's a tough choice which I have pondered recently. If push came to shove I would keep the LV and get an extra black bezel. If it was a normal 16610 or 14060, the SD would stay.
Seadweller
sub
First off , sorry if this has been done before.
So which one is the most desirable.
Seadweller or submariner.
It's not about which one is the better fit. I would like to know if you had to have one, which would it be. which one is the coolest ,or if you had both which one would you sell /keep if you had to.
I have a SD and a Sub LV, it's a tough choice which I have pondered recently. If push came to shove I would keep the LV and get an extra black bezel. If it was a normal 16610 or 14060, the SD would stay.
Is it only three weeks since the last Sub/SD poll? Doesn't time fly!
______
Jim.
Subdweller. Every time.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
Such a difficult choice. I've got both and thankful I can.
I've had 4 LV's before and it's a special watch.
The SD is such a workhorse of a watch and looks so good.... I'm wearing it now and love it !
Might just give the LV an outing now lol !
It's only a workhorse if you go saturation diving, otherwise it's the same as the sub, only with an unnecessary HEV.Originally Posted by Gastro
Interesting I also have had a SD for around 5y then thought that I needed a Sub also and ended up with an LV.
If I had to choose I would keep the green.
The SDDS is also growing on me though!
Non date sub. I prefer the dial, and it's more comfortable on the wrist.
Pedant.
I'm just trying to compare a thicker, bulkier more workhorse aesthetic to a slightly thinner, more blingy LV.
Both great watches.
In terms of bling, I think the SD wins because of its extra bulk.
Anyway, old discussion. The forum loves the SD, I don't. Except for the 1665, now there's a nice watch.
Cheers.
I love my SD but I have not tried a sub. When I get the chance I will buy one so I can compare as the view seems to be they wear differently.
Semantics surely ?
I wouldn't call it "semantics", it's an opinion. It's pretty much the exact same watch, except (IMO) the Sub's more comfortable, and you can actually read the date. I've often thought a date-free SD would be quite cool, but they never made one.
Personally, I would go for the Submariner. Not sure whether date or non date.
Exactly... Feisty little thing aren't you !
You appear to be in a minority and that irritates you. Good boy !
Are you attempting to patronise me? Why on earth would being in a minority irritate me?
Chill man !
I don't know you and vica versa. You were being a bit pedant about being a tool watch and the remainder of the posts are above.
Now stop trolling :)
Just an opinion, man. Not everyone worships the SD. I would suggest you are the one who needs to calm down.
I'm wearing my LV now and it looks great.
I agree though, date or no date does divide opinion.
Personally, waiting for years for a Daytona and realising how much I needed date function was a big anti-climax.
All my watches have date for that reason (except the seamaster moon - bought as a birth year watch).
I love both but sea dweller is the one for me don't why just when I look at the dweller I think what a watch lol
Near enough the same watch, apart from thre bulk. Voted for SeDweller though, as it don't have the dreaded cyclops.
It's not even close, SD every time.
or even better
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
The last three pics . Hmmm . Game, set,match.
Personally sea-dweller all the way. Its just a little more interesting!! but to be honest there both great watches. Tough decision!!
No date:
With date:
If you don't love the SD, perhaps another hobby is in store.;-)
Well, I have four Rolexes, three of them submariner variants, and have failed to select the SD on four separate occasions. Is this wrong? ;-)
The 1665 is fab, the 16600 just doesn't do anything for me at all.
Last edited by TheDude; 25th August 2012 at 22:57.
man up you bloody wimp.buy what you want not what others tell you is cool!
For extra annoyance, I also have a Yachtmaster. That's nicer than the modern SD as well. :-P
I'll concede the 16600 is better than the Deep Sea, but what isn't?
Sub. SD just too much of a lump. But I've got girls wrists.................
Well I think myself and Mr Dude are probably in a minority here in that the "forum darling" SD isn't our favourite Rolex, for me I'd take the more comfortable flatter caseback, larger dialed, lower profile Sub every time ... and if it's a plexi / matte dial 5513 so much the better
Interestingly the general public also though the same as I'd be surprised if the Sub didn't out sell the SD by multiples in the day, and that was when there was only approx Ł100 difference in the price IIRC.
That said, a 1665 with tropic 39 or even an early 16660 with a non WG dial is a different kettle of fish ... but then I do love the pre-WG dials.
F,Y,I. It's not a question about which one would I buy , as it would be a seadweller followed by a no date sub for me .
As both watches serve more or less the same purpose. I am really intrested in what is the one that come's out on top with the wis'es.
Yes I know the sub out sells the seadweller. But thats not the question.
Last edited by saturn5; 26th August 2012 at 08:57. Reason: error
I voted sub because I have the 2011 non date as I can't get on with the bubble so to speak. Saying that I do love the new DSSD but the 16600 is a classic
Always liked the seadweller over the sub. Although its size doesn't appeal to all.
I know it's against the grain, but I like the way a 5513 sits on the wrist better than an SD.
Impossible choice to rationalise I think - my feeling is that the sub (in both date and non-date variations) is more of a 'classic', and probably a safer bet if you are undecided, or if you want to wear it on every occasion. However, the SD is I feel more special/unique, but the extra bulk makes it more utilitarian (which is of course part of its appeal). Plus, the latter is perhaps a little more WIS for the non-saturation diver? Just my personal thoughts/preference of course ......
Its all psychological but when sitting next to a guy with a 16610 you'll feel you have the better watch when wearing a 16600. It was more expensive when new, has a higher depth-rating, a helium-valve and is more rare. All of this is useless in everyday-life but so is a $100.000,- Patek...
IMO the SD wears smaller than the Sub Date. Here on 6.75 wrist - hardly big. The dial is actually smaller on the SD.
Yes it is relatively thick, but by todays standards could even be called anemic. There is just something to the feel / finish of the SD that has always trumped the Sub (date of non-date) for me. So much so that 16610 and 14060 have both gone, and have both a 16660 and 16660.
I voted Seadweller. A few years ago when I was buying my first Rolex I had narrowed my choice down to a 14060 or a 16600. I actually went to buy a 14060 but couldn't find any, and ended up getting a 16600 which in the end I think was the right decision. I'd still love a 14060 for wearing when I'm not at work (or whenever I don't need to know the date).
Is there any real difference between a 16600 and a 16660. I fancy both but wondered what the difference wasIMO the SD wears smaller than the Sub Date. Here on 6.75 wrist - hardly big. The dial is actually smaller on the SD.
Yes it is relatively thick, but by todays standards could even be called anemic. There is just something to the feel / finish of the SD that has always trumped the Sub (date of non-date) for me. So much so that 16610 and 14060 have both gone, and have both a 16660 and 16660.
I'm with you with the red sub - that is stunning !
Cheers, man. <thumbs up>
Seadweller
I have 3 Dwellers, a 666, & 2 16600's, one of which I wear with a Rubber B Band,
3 totally different watches with individual looks.
I'ts all down to choice but I've voted " Dweller"
Don't really know which to vote for, as I prefer having a date, but don't get on with the bubble as mentioned by poster above. Much prefer the SD for this reason and also prefer it's shape. But have tried both on side by side and could never get away with the SD bulk.
hindsight tells me that my original post should have a had a smiley on the end, comes across a bit harsh otherwise, sorry about that.
of those two i'd go for the SD. if i ever do revisit the sub it certainly wont have a date.
i did once get my act together and go into a dealership to buy a sub, but i got it on my wrist and was totally underwhelmed.
possibly now i'd have a vintage explorer 1 in its place. and to be honest i prefer the yatchmaster to the sd as well.
I voted for the Sub with the 14060 / 5513 in mind.
Sub for me. I'm unlikely to buy either, but the SD has always seemed a bit puffed-up - in both senses.
SD all the way. It's way cooler.
Had an SD, sold it. I occasionally have a pang of regret as they are a lovely watch - although the loveliness is because they are the older style steel Rolex not because they have a useless HEV and level of water resistance.
My primary reason for selling the watch was that they are noticeably less comfortable than other models and there is an element of pointless Walter Mitty about them. They are a brilliant watch and absolutely fine if you really are a commercial saturation diver but if you are just an office worker and go scuba diving to 30M when you are on holiday then you may as well be dressing up in a Spiderman costume or drive a Nasa Moon Buggy to work. The Deepsea version is clearly the most silly, Walter Mitty watch in the Rolex line up and complete overkill even if you are a saturation diver - so I reserve the full force of my ridicule for that but the SD is still more than a little absurd. I would without the slightest hesitation choose the 16610 LV over an SD but prefer other models (and lets stop kidding ourselves - all are fine for basic recreational diving).
Posting Permissions
