closing tag is in template navbar
Time Factors Watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Hey - looking for comparisons and opinions re Sub C vs SD4000 vs 16600

  1. #1
    Master Qatar-wol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Doha, Qatar and Warwick, England
    Posts
    7,888

    Hey - looking for comparisons and opinions re Sub C vs SD4000 vs 16600

    Evenin', All. *bends legs like a vintage policeman, hat falls off*

    I'm doing my due diligence for the possible purchase of a SD4000 this summer. I've read W44NNE's excellent write-up, and I'm looking for pictures, informed opinions, comparing the SD4000 to either the older 16600 SeaDweller, or to the newer Submariner Ceramic.

    I've got a 16600, and don't wear it as much as I should. I'll never sell it - I bought it for my son when he was born - but the lume is weak, and I prefer slightly larger watches. I've tried the Sub C (i'm lucky - some of my students wear them, so I get to try!) but it felt a bit big and flashy.

    So, if you've experience, please feel free to chip in! Thanks in advance!

  2. #2
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    London-Islington
    Posts
    4,600
    For me I felt the SD4000 actually seemed to wear abit "smaller" than the Subc, most likely it is because of the Subc's rectangular case shape. The dial of the SD4000 is nice, but not as MATTE as it seems, tho not shiny. It does wear a touch "higher" than the older Seadweller but on the wrist is much better balanced than the 16600.

    One thing that bothers me is the bracelet attachment to the lugs. It is not flush....apart from that I think its a spectacular price but I would not buy at retail, which I believe is 6900?

  3. #3
    What exactly are you interested in?
    Looks, size or comparision pics?
    To me SD4000 is the ultimate watch in that size.
    Fully indexed ceramic bezel clinches it for me.

    Some feel it wears bigger than the 16600 but I really don't feel the difference.
    SubC obviously has less height.

  4. #4
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,476
    No comparison pictures as I've recently sold my 16600 (which I now regret, more of that later).

    SD4000 - in every measurable way a better watch than the 16600.
    Much better lume (blue), sits better on the (my) wrist, not as top-heavy, much better bracelet with micro-adjustment on-the-fly (genuinely useful).
    Good proportions, shoulders not too blocky, feels substantial but not too big, has more wrist presence than 16600.

    However, it is a little flashy because of the ceramic bezel, and I am much more protective of it than I ever was of my 16600, and not just because it's new. I also wish the dial was more matte. I don't care what anyone says, most of the time it appears to be gloss, and it would look so much nicer if it were matte.

    The 16600 is inferior in every measurable way to the SD4000, but it is definitely cooler IMHO. Has more the feel of a practical tool watch, something that was designed for it's purpose, and not to be an expensive item of jewellery. There's no getting away from that aspect of the SD4000.

    Both watches are excellent. I love my SD4000 but I wish I hadn't regarded it as a replacement for my 16600. If you can keep both (as I wish I'd done) then you're into a winner. They are sufficiently different from one another for that to be an valid option.

  5. #5
    Master Qatar-wol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Doha, Qatar and Warwick, England
    Posts
    7,888
    Thanks for the comments so far - I guess I'm looking for thoughts. I know about the endpieces not quite fitting the case, but I think I'm OK with that. The cost is eye-watering, but if I buy carefully, stock's as good as cash, isn't it?

    The lume of the maxi-dial and hands appeals, I think, as does the stocky nature of the watch. So I think I'm looking for opinions!

  6. #6
    Some pics.
    There is a slight wrinkle if any one can spot it.



  7. #7
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,476
    Aargh! Hair in the photo!!!

    (That was what you were referring to, right?)

  8. #8
    Grand Master MartynJC (UK)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nr London or Carvoeiro, Portugal
    Posts
    10,463
    Blog Entries
    20
    A Few pictorial comparisons:

    SubC and SD4000



    5513 GMTIIC SD16660



    Just for good measure a bit left field.



    As for thoughts and my opinion. Well. . . Let's just say out of that little lot only the SD16660 is still in my little collection. For me it is classy, timeless, a bulletproof movement and case, and for 40 you can get the bezel replaced. The SD4000 is kinda more a dress watch - well you did ask!

    Martyn
    Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 6th June 2016 at 18:51.

  9. #9
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    4,227
    Some pics from when I got my SDc, wears the same as the 16600 apart from the perceived step up in quality based on the bracelet and ceramic bezel. Maxi Matt dial basically means I never wear the 16600. I keep it due to a sentimental
    Attachment.

    http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...omparison-Pics



































    Last edited by BigD; 6th June 2016 at 19:46.

  10. #10
    Good pics BigD.

    I'd say the quality improvements re bezel and bracelet clasp are at least in part negated by the poor bracelet end piece to watch head fit. I also prefer the slimmer lugs / less bulky case shape of the 16600.

    The SD4000 is undoubtedly a great watch, but I'd not be parted with my 16600 to get one.
    Last edited by andy tims; 6th June 2016 at 20:27.
    Andy

    Wanted - Damasko DA38 or DC80 Green - not the black versions. Bell & Ross BR03-92 Nightlum

  11. #11
    Master Neely8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Where stercus accidit
    Posts
    1,822
    I've owned an SD4000 and a 'Hulk' and in both cases the thing that made me sell is the ceramic bezel. Way too shiny IMO.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Neely8 View Post
    I've owned an SD4000 and a 'Hulk' and in both cases the thing that made me sell is the ceramic bezel. Way too shiny IMO.

    This is exactly the reason they've never been in my sights to.

  13. #13
    I have had both the older sd and new sd 4000 and for me the sd 4000 is one of the best watches for me it's everything you need with the dial and ceramic bezel and the presence it has

  14. #14
    Grand Master MartynJC (UK)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nr London or Carvoeiro, Portugal
    Posts
    10,463
    Blog Entries
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by gazzafaegreenock View Post
    This is exactly the reason they've never been in my sights to.
    The Hulk is a chameleon! Sometimes matt sometimes gloss bezel. . .




  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    14,193
    Quote Originally Posted by MadeOfCheese View Post
    No comparison pictures as I've recently sold my 16600 (which I now regret, more of that later).

    SD4000 - in every measurable way a better watch than the 16600.
    Much better lume (blue), sits better on the (my) wrist, not as top-heavy, much better bracelet with micro-adjustment on-the-fly (genuinely useful).
    Good proportions, shoulders not too blocky, feels substantial but not too big, has more wrist presence than 16600.

    However, it is a little flashy because of the ceramic bezel, and I am much more protective of it than I ever was of my 16600, and not just because it's new. I also wish the dial was more matte. I don't care what anyone says, most of the time it appears to be gloss, and it would look so much nicer if it were matte.

    The 16600 is inferior in every measurable way to the SD4000, but it is definitely cooler IMHO. Has more the feel of a practical tool watch, something that was designed for it's purpose, and not to be an expensive item of jewellery. There's no getting away from that aspect of the SD4000.

    Both watches are excellent. I love my SD4000 but I wish I hadn't regarded it as a replacement for my 16600. If you can keep both (as I wish I'd done) then you're into a winner. They are sufficiently different from one another for that to be an valid option.
    While some of this is agreed (lume for example) my experience is a bit different. The 16600 is markedly more comfortable to wear than the SD4000. The weight feels better balanced to me. The bracelet isnt an issue but then Ive worn this style of bracelet for over 20 years so am happy enough with them and quite like their rugged toolish simplicity.

    Ceramic bezels are a retrograde step for me. I wear mine all the time and do not baby it. The bezel was replaced at last service because I had done the pip in but aside from that it was barely scratched.

    The 16600 remains the best watch Rolex ever made in my view. If you wanted another to add then Id go FOR a 16600 and a DSSD.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    14,193
    Quote Originally Posted by MartynJC (UK) View Post
    The Hulk is a chameleon! Sometimes matt sometimes gloss bezel. . .


    it so is. But dont forget the best bit which is not the bezel! The way the dial changes colour on the variations of light is quite mesmerising.

  17. #17
    Master Qatar-wol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Doha, Qatar and Warwick, England
    Posts
    7,888
    Thank you for the excellent comparisons and interesting thoughts, gents - I appreciate them. I must have been mulling it over in my sleep, but I can't help thinking that near on 7k for a steel watch is just gouging. I don't know - I'm a non-UK resident, so I could buy in the UK and claim back tax - that makes it a good deal. But still...

    I think I'm going to have to try one on, aren't i? Thanks again!

  18. #18
    Master
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,216
    One thing to bear in mind is your wrist size. I can't use the old bracelets as even with all links removed they're too big, so NATOs are my only option. The new ceramic watches have one less fixed link on the 6 o'clock side so they fit really well. Something to consider?


  19. #19
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Posts
    454
    I was also seduced by W44NNE's excellent write-up :-)

    I cant comment on the comparisons between the model's, but since I got one it's genuinely not been off my wrist..

    I would however, echo some of Josh's comments about the weight balance issue, the watch head is rather heavy and bulky and has a tenancy to slip and slide on the wrist even with careful adjustment (at least on my wrist anyway) and can cause a "crown rash" - I am sure Haywood will come along to give the definitive medical terminology for this :-)

    But on balance - I love it.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by andy tims View Post
    [...]I'd say the quality improvements re bezel and bracelet clasp are at least in part negated by the poor bracelet end piece to watch head fit.[...]
    Just a minor point of semantics: although you may not like its stepped design, the actual end-link-to-case fit is flawless. :P

  21. #21
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lincs.
    Posts
    1,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Qatar-wol View Post
    Thank you for the excellent comparisons and interesting thoughts, gents - I appreciate them. I must have been mulling it over in my sleep, but I can't help thinking that near on 7k for a steel watch is just gouging. I don't know - I'm a non-UK resident, so I could buy in the UK and claim back tax - that makes it a good deal. But still...

    I think I'm going to have to try one on, aren't i? Thanks again!
    I can't help with the comparisons for you but all I can say is I picked up my SD4000 yesterday.....7k or less just do it!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information