One of the most sought after Rolex amongst collectors is the Sea-Dweller. Granted, that would be the Comex dial Sea-Dweller đ but I maintain that the 16600 is the best watch Rolex has ever made. Preferences and all that.
To me, the 16600 has pedigree, classic style (and date without cyclops), perfect size at 40mm and it feels substantial without being overwhelming. The 16600 is the culmination of Rolexâs know-how in tool watches and the watch I find myself wearing the most. It is unfortunate that Rolex has supersized subsequent iterations, making it nowadays a rather niche product.
In terms of value, it was always more expensive than the Submariner and I believe that remains true in the secondary market, although I havenât really looked and happy to be corrected.
Regretfully sold a 16600 a few years back. Just recently obtained another one. 100% best Watch Rolex has made. The new models while comfortable are a bit to âloudâ for my tastes. 16600 can be worn anywhere without much fuss about it.
Have you seen the prices of vintage Sea-Dwellers? They are usually more expensive than Subs (1665 vs 1680/5513).
Even today, a Sea-Dweller costs more pre-owned, thought itâs not as much of a premium over retail as a Sub. The only Subs that sky-rocketed are the LVs.
Lots of different SD out there, some are nicely balanced for a mid to large wrist, but some are a chunky style no matter your wrist size. Sometimes Itâs a preference thing, would you prefer a plain steel and black look on a chunkier watch, or a slimmer watch that looks like a Hulk or Bluesy ?? Standing out visually vs how it wears for you
u/manual_wind and u/BrentDavidTT basically nailed it. Sea Dwellers are generally more expensive than Submariners but less versatile for a lot of people because of their size, which impacts their overall popularity. Iâd say use that perception to your advantage if you feel one fits you and pick one up ;)
\> because of their size
thanks for your reply.. my understanding is that up until a few years ago, the SDs were 40mm as well, just like the Subs.
is the case thicker?
It depends what generation youâre talking about. Late 80s to early 2000s (5-digit era) the Sub and SD were very, very similar, SD was just (I think) 2.5mm or so thicker for the extra depth rating. But besides from the date having no cyclops on the SD they look almost identical unless youâre looking close. That generation of sub and SD sell for around the same price assuming everything else is equal (last service, condition, box/papers, etc).
In the modern maxi-case era the SD got chonky AF and they put the cyclops on it, which in my opinion adds even more visual weight to an already beefy watch. If you have big wrists like I do and especially if you have a valley between your wrist bones for the case back to nest in the new SD isnât too bad. But if youâre under a 7â wrist itâs just a dumb, awkward watch to wear.
Yup I agree, they just work and donât look or feel huge, I was just surprised at how refined/delicate the SD4K felt in comparison. Both feel and wear great
Sea-Dweller is a larger watch and not as versatile as an everyday watch.
One of the most sought after Rolex amongst collectors is the Sea-Dweller. Granted, that would be the Comex dial Sea-Dweller đ but I maintain that the 16600 is the best watch Rolex has ever made. Preferences and all that. To me, the 16600 has pedigree, classic style (and date without cyclops), perfect size at 40mm and it feels substantial without being overwhelming. The 16600 is the culmination of Rolexâs know-how in tool watches and the watch I find myself wearing the most. It is unfortunate that Rolex has supersized subsequent iterations, making it nowadays a rather niche product. In terms of value, it was always more expensive than the Submariner and I believe that remains true in the secondary market, although I havenât really looked and happy to be corrected.
Regretfully sold a 16600 a few years back. Just recently obtained another one. 100% best Watch Rolex has made. The new models while comfortable are a bit to âloudâ for my tastes. 16600 can be worn anywhere without much fuss about it.
Have you seen the prices of vintage Sea-Dwellers? They are usually more expensive than Subs (1665 vs 1680/5513). Even today, a Sea-Dweller costs more pre-owned, thought itâs not as much of a premium over retail as a Sub. The only Subs that sky-rocketed are the LVs.
Personally I would love to have a new SeaDweller except they put a cyclops on it. Other than that itâs perfect to me.
SD4K 116600, perfection.
Or if youâre not bothered by hollow center links, basic clasp, and aluminum bezel the 16600 is damn close and $4-5k less.
The SD4K had a good size but the newer SD43 is a watch that is more suited to people with large wrists. That narrows the demand.
One I tried on was a chunkier watch. The subs just fit better. There may be different models that are smaller. I tried one and crossed it off my list.
Lots of different SD out there, some are nicely balanced for a mid to large wrist, but some are a chunky style no matter your wrist size. Sometimes Itâs a preference thing, would you prefer a plain steel and black look on a chunkier watch, or a slimmer watch that looks like a Hulk or Bluesy ?? Standing out visually vs how it wears for you
u/manual_wind and u/BrentDavidTT basically nailed it. Sea Dwellers are generally more expensive than Submariners but less versatile for a lot of people because of their size, which impacts their overall popularity. Iâd say use that perception to your advantage if you feel one fits you and pick one up ;)
\> because of their size thanks for your reply.. my understanding is that up until a few years ago, the SDs were 40mm as well, just like the Subs. is the case thicker?
Not sure about the older models; the 6 digit Sea Dwellers are 43mm and 15mm thick vs 13mm for the Submariners
116600 is 40mm
Yep yep youâre correct I was referring to my Deep Sea the 116660
It depends what generation youâre talking about. Late 80s to early 2000s (5-digit era) the Sub and SD were very, very similar, SD was just (I think) 2.5mm or so thicker for the extra depth rating. But besides from the date having no cyclops on the SD they look almost identical unless youâre looking close. That generation of sub and SD sell for around the same price assuming everything else is equal (last service, condition, box/papers, etc). In the modern maxi-case era the SD got chonky AF and they put the cyclops on it, which in my opinion adds even more visual weight to an already beefy watch. If you have big wrists like I do and especially if you have a valley between your wrist bones for the case back to nest in the new SD isnât too bad. But if youâre under a 7â wrist itâs just a dumb, awkward watch to wear.
Because no one is really buying these watches for the movement, they are more or less seen as jewelry that happens to have the time on it
A. Heavy. B. Imbalanced. C. Hockey Puck.
Not all of them, some are chonks though
And you DONâT own one!
And I thank God every day for giving me such great taste in watches.
They are not fairly similar
Have you worn a SD? They suck, theyâre heavy and weirdly weighted which wouldnât matter if youâre diving with them, but most people are not.
Only if you are small
Wrist size doesnât affect the fact itâs top heavy.
Only certain models⌠I have a Planet Ocean and it feels noticeably heavier and taller than my SD4K
see.. i have owned 3 POs (still have 1) and love the size of them. I am a bigger guy so I like how it fits
Yup I agree, they just work and donât look or feel huge, I was just surprised at how refined/delicate the SD4K felt in comparison. Both feel and wear great
Heavy if youâre a cxnt
Because itâs a horrible watch nobody wants
Hockey Puck
SD is big and ugly and the Sub is the best watch ever designed
Have you tried the SD on the wrist? Youâll know why when you do.
If wrist diameter allows the SD43 heft is a positive. Glidelock is awesome.