GMTII and SeaDweller Comparison

[sheldonsmith]

Hi All,

I finished my GMTII vs. SeaDweller Comparison. I have it posted at http://members.aol.com/sheldons4 . I would have posted it here but it was hard to include pictures as well as the other Rolex related items that I have.

I am still working on the photos (practice makes perfect) as well as some Dreamweaver tweaks that I am still learning.

Comments and suggestions appreciated.

Thanks,

-Sheldon

[astcell]

Considering these are the two I could not decide between, I like this review! Thanks!

But I thought the Sea Dweller did not have a Cyclops because pressure at depth would cause it to come off?

[mailman]

Excellent review Sheldon. Thanks for sharing it with us :cheers:

[padi56]

Excellent review Sheldon.

[mike]

Great job!!

[AJC]

Considering these are the two I could not decide between, I like this review! Thanks!

But I thought the Sea Dweller did not have a Cyclops because pressure at depth would cause it to come off?


Robert,

I've read as said in the review.:cheers:

Aaron

-------------------------------------

Sheldon,

Great work:thumbsup:

Aaron:cheers:

[JJ Irani]

Thanks for the excellent review, Sheldon! :thumbsup:

[colemanitis]

Great review. I'm a fan of both the GMT and the SD.

[sheldonsmith]

Many thanks for the comments. I made some edits to the site (fixed my typos, clarified some sections that were still blurry) and added some more to the Heuer/John Glen watch story (my 15 seconds of fame in IW).

-Sheldon

[Flyjet601]

Fantastic comparison.....

I am looking at the SD right now.


:cheers: :cheers:

[greenfan]

I have decided to buy the GMT 2, but your review is more than welcomed....

[Flyjet601]

I now own both of these fabulous time pieces. It was great to read the differences....:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Thanks
:cheers:

[President]

What's a cyclops?

[colemanitis]

What's a cyclops?
The date magnifier located on the crystal of Date models. The SD is the only Date model without the cyclopse.

[President]

Thanks.

[Incurable]

I recently had the same dilemma (if you want to call it that) as I went in to buy a GMT II and ended up being unexpectedly drawn towards the SD. The two watches definitely have different characteristics, each equally as compelling. The predominant differences I was forced to choose from boiled down to:

GMT II:
Only 100m pressure rating
Thinner and lighter wearing
Smaller crown, different aesthetics and less likely to imprint on back of hand
Busier bezel and face. The extra bezel markings, hand and cyclops all add up to an overall busier 'look'. Could also be interpreted as more 'sophisticated', depends on perspective.
Thinner, shorter, less obtrusive clasp. Follows the form and thickness of the band moreso than the SD. Overall effect is the band seems 'dressier' and less utilitarian. Overall, it impresses me as less robust than my 14060.

SeaDweller:
Heavy, robust watch. Feels authoritative on the wrist.
Unparalleled pressure rating. There's some instinctual feeling of gratification knowing that this watch can put up with environments unchallenged by other watches.
Classic simplicity, clean face and dial. No cyclops combined with more spartan bezel marking makes for a less distracting and more intuitive watch to read.
Slightly smaller looking dial. Though smaller, the unfettered look has a crisp, clean quality of its own.
Larger, more bulky clasp. The boxy, high profile clasp is somewhat inelegant looking but easily forgiven knowing its purpose and function.

In the end, I ended up getting the GMT II. My reasoning was that it would make a better 'everyday' watch based on its ergonomics. The SD, however, still weighs heavily on my mind. I recently sold a 14060, primarily because of its lack of date. I do, however, kind of miss some of the qualities shared with the SD. Weight and feeling of robustness in particular. Funny how the mind works. Somehow I connect the cost with tank-like qualities as though the two should go hand-in-hand. I miss the heavier, 'bulletproof' quality of my 14060. Somehow I'm not getting that subliminal gratification with the GMT II. Combined with the busier, less instinctive reading quality (my eyes aren't what they used to be) the SD still weighs on my mind. For those debating between the two, it's a tough decision. In my case, I can still go the other direction as I have a 30 day exchange policy at my AD. I'm heading out there today and... who knows what I'll be coming back with. Either way, you can't go wrong. They're both great, just different.

Great review :thumbsup: Didn't mean to steal any one's thunder with my thoughts. Even reading all the good info on the two watches, until you go out and try them out side by side, all the non-verbal appeal doesn't hit home. It's kind of like body language... Pictures and text only tell part of the story. It's great we have all the choices we do... now if I could only afford them... :rolleyes:

[directioneng]

Thanks Sheldon. Great review.:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
You deserve a nice pix for that comparison.:cheers:

[SDman]

It was a cool review man...I am happy to say that I have best of both worlds.....

[davor]

great review :thumbsup:

[AdamB]

Just read your review, that is a really good, detailed review...thanks for taking the time.

[Nick Hacko]

The Seadweller is professional divers tool watch.
Wearing a Seadweller between 9-5 would make you look silly and strange, unless you wear your wetsuit and dive tanks to work too. Dressing etiquette: the more formal the occasion, the thinner the watch. In the most formal situations, a pocket watch - or no watch at all - should be worn. GMT II is smart but casual travellers watch,
or casual 'weekender'. It goes well with shirt and jeans but should never be worn with business suit (and the same apply to all variation of Submariner / Yachtmaster and Daytona models).

[Gedanken]

Nick, the execs in financial institutions, aerospace companies and government that I deal with on a daily basis have absolutely no problem wearing a watch the size of a Sea Dweller or a GMT with a suit. I'm aware of the "thin watch with a suit" guideline, but in this day and age I'd question its validity and I'm sure you would know that if fashion rules remained unchanged, only women would be wearing wrist watches and we blokes would have to rummage through our pockets whenever we wanted to know the time.

I don't believe there's any hard-and-fast rule in dressing with watches. In "Gentleman", fashion author Bernhard Roetzel acknowledges this lack of rule when he writes, "... flat, dainty watches look better worn with a dark suit, although many men put on big sports watches in order to create a deliberate contrast with the suit". The decision to go with or against bthe trend is an entirely individual choice. That said, I agree that a tux calls for a thin watch and that plastic and Super 150 simply do not mix.

On a side note, calling it "silly and strange" could understandably rub some of our members the wrong way, especially since not many of the forum members know you yet. I'd appreciate it if you to kindly dialled it back a bit.

[Nick Hacko]

"silly, strange and inappropriate" are the exact words used daily by my clients to describe overwhelming feeling when introduced to Seadweller. Especially if they wear suit. 90% love the "superwaterproofness" of SD but
would eventually settle for thinner 16610 Sub or 16710 GMT II.
If you only talk to other SD owners your view may be different.
And funny enough, those who like macho watches find SD too small.

[Incurable]

In a case like this, there is much in the eye of the beholder. I've seen countless posts containing pics of very proud owners with very small wrists wearing HUMONGOUS watches. To my eye, it looks ridiculous but... with cultural differences, differences of opinion and tastes as they are, I do not presume to pass judgement. Some watches are way too busy for me as well, yet many are sold to happy customers. I, for instance, find many of Rolex's new offerings this year very distasteful but... time will tell if they are successful or not. I choose to vote with my dollars. You are certainly free to have your own opinion, as is everyone but... that's where the buck stops. I might smile and say, 'nice' when confronted with a carbuncle watch but I draw the line when it comes to telling them so. After all, what purpose does it serve, really? Nothing good can come of it. As usual, JHMO...

[Rockrolex]

The Seadweller is professional divers tool watch.
Wearing a Seadweller between 9-5 would make you look silly and strange, unless you wear your wetsuit and dive tanks to work too. Dressing etiquette: the more formal the occasion, the thinner the watch. In the most formal situations, a pocket watch - or no watch at all - should be worn. GMT II is smart but casual travellers watch,
or casual 'weekender'. It goes well with shirt and jeans but should never be worn with business suit (and the same apply to all variation of Submariner / Yachtmaster and Daytona models).
I know you're in the business, Nick, but I think the "should never be worn" admonition is a bit strong. I have a Ted Baker black and white striped shirt with French cuffs that I wear with a business suit. My all black GMT-II goes perfectly with that look. With other shirt/suit combinations, I usually wear one of my TT DJs. With black tie, I strap on my YG DD. None of them are "thin" watches, certainly not as thin as my 1962 18K YG Corum dress watch. But since I got my Rollies, the Corum sits in the watch cabinet.

[Gedanken]

"silly, strange and inappropriate" are the exact words used daily by my clients to describe overwhelming feeling when introduced to Seadweller. Especially if they wear suit. 90% love the "superwaterproofness" of SD but
would eventually settle for thinner 16610 Sub or 16710 GMT II.
If you only talk to other SD owners your view may be different.
And funny enough, those who like macho watches find SD too small.

Well, Nick, if you do want to be a purist about it, you would know that prior to World War 1, the rule was that wristwatches were considered too delicate an item of apparel for men. If people wish to stick slavishly to fashion rules, they would not be wearing wrist watches at all and simply stick to pocket watches - they are in fact otherwise being inconsistent because they accept and reject the fluidity of fashion at the same time. Someone less charitable might call them hypocrites.

As for the size of the Sea Dweller, we have members here and in other forums who are members of special forces and other military units who like the SD just fine. It’s a matter of personal choice whether one chooses to listen to those who are actually macho, or those who simply want to look the part.

[colemanitis]

Wearing a Seadweller between 9-5 would make you look silly and strange, unless you wear your wetsuit and dive tanks to work too.
Some narrow minded thinking there. I rock my SD everyday at the office. :bartmoon:

[Lol-x]

And funny enough, those who like macho watches find SD too small.

"Those" who are they? Some of course, but all, I know this can't be so.

Jeff, I agree, I know one of the highest paid Q.C's. who wears his 1665 SD to the office every day, looks great, and he gets a lot of respect in his line of work, he wears (as he can afford to) some of the best business suits and clothing money can buy.
I personally find the SD comfortable with my business attire, never had anyone say a bad thing about it in those circumstances.

[Nick Hacko]

Does he wears divers flippers in court too?

he wears (as he can afford to) some of the best business suits and clothing money can buy

Money can buy most anything - what it cannot is good taste.
A Patek or Audemars - or even Jaeger LeCoultre would be far better / sophisticated choice for Q.C. then Seadweller.

Most Australian barristers wear Day-Date in 18K gold because this model is instantly recognized by their clients and colleagues. The President sends clear message: respect - my owner can afford me. This is the kind of barrister I would hire if I am desperate, not someone who wears Seadweller.

[trashboss]

Is this for real?
I wear my SD everyday and i usually wear a tie everyday too, your comments are ridicules SD can be worn with flip flops or a Tux and will comand respect while doing it!
Why the narrow mind? I do love my SD but i appreciate the entire Rolex line, i can find somthing special in all of them.

Great comparison by the way.

[Lol-x]

A Patek or Audemars - or even Jaeger LeCoultre would be far better / sophisticated choice for Q.C. then Seadweller.

Most Australian barristers wear Day-Date in 18K gold because this model is instantly recognized by their clients and colleagues. The President sends clear message: respect - my owner can afford me. This is the kind of barrister I would hire if I am desperate, not someone who wears Seadweller.

Can't see why a lawyer would fare any better with a JLC than a Timex.

Most Australian barristers don't wear a Rolex at all. Of the barristers in Australia known to me (several hundreds or more) hardly any wear a watch brand of distinction. Those that do wear a Rolex have the following models:
2 x ExplorerII (white dial).
3 x Date-Just
1 x 114270 Explorer (worn by a Q.C.)
1 x 1665 Sea-Dweller (worn by a Q.C.)
1 x Non-date Submariner (worn by a Q.C.)

Your guess that some barristers may wear Day-Dates because "they are instantly recognized by their clients and colleagues" :chuckle: I've never heard that before from any barrister, and I know why they wear because I've asked them.

It's extraordinary that you would judge the quality of a barrister to engage or not engage by the model or style of watch they wear. So a local Q.C. who wears a non-date Sub or another who wears a Sea-Dweller and who is reputed as one of the best in his profession wouldn't in your eyes be worthy? You choose your barrister by the style of what he wears? Give me strength.:chuckle:

[Gedanken]

Okay, this has now degenerated into plain silliness.

Nick, all due respect, I'm more than happy to recognise your expertise as a watchmaker because that's where you've well and truly earned your spurs. However, when you try to be Matlock, Rambo and Yves St Laurent all rolled into one, I just can't see anyone taking you seriously.

You claim that most barristers wear a Day-Date, would you care to back that up with numbers? After all, you seem to be presenting that as a fact, so the numbers ought to be readily available.

[TARDIS]

A wooden spoon for this thread

[Gedanken]

Hey, the first page was all right.

[mansion]

Nick is right.

I own a GMT2. I have not had the opportunity to wear it with a suit yet. I probably would combine the two, but I would be aware that I was committing a faux-pas.

The thing, chaps, is that breaking the rules is fine. But not being aware of the error is a sure sign of - how to put it? - lack of sophistication.

Being proud of one's ignorance is even worse. I'm sure the SeaDweller-wearing barrister is a guy who knots his tie with a double Windsor. (He probably picked up the habit from his clients.)

[Gedanken]

Nick is right.

I own a GMT2. I have not had the opportunity to wear it with a suit yet. I probably would combine the two, but I would be aware that I was committing a faux-pas.

The thing, chaps, is that breaking the rules is fine. But not being aware of the error is a sure sign of - how to put it? - lack of sophistication.

Being proud of one's ignorance is even worse. I'm sure the SeaDweller-wearing barrister is a guy who knots his tie with a double Windsor. (He probably picked up the habit from his clients.)
That's one helluva slippery slope you've gone down there, mansion. You start with the suggestion that someone's committed a faux pas and then gone down the assumption that one is proud of one's ignorance? Are you really, really REALLY sure that the barrister wears a Double Windsor? You'd look pretty foolish if he instead wore a double overhand, wouldn't you?

But not being aware of a lack of cogency is a sure sign of - how to put it? - lack of sophistication. Proudly combining that with wild assumptions is even worse.

Yes, you can choose to be one of the faceless masses that slavishly follows the rules and takes comfort and relief in the mere fact that you haven't committed an (shock horror) error. Alternatively, you can purposely and purposefully break the rules and scythe your way through the Gordian knot of mundanity. Just because you choose one path doesn't give you the licence in any way, shape or form to comment on the other.

[mansion]

That's one helluva slippery slope you've gone down there, mansion. You start with the suggestion that someone's committed a faux pas and then gone down the assumption that one is proud of one's ignorance? Are you really, really REALLY sure that the barrister wears a Double Windsor? You'd look pretty foolish if he instead wore a double overhand, wouldn't you?

But not being aware of a lack of cogency is a sure sign of - how to put it? - lack of sophistication. Proudly combining that with wild assumptions is even worse.

Yes, you can choose to be one of the faceless masses that slavishly follows the rules and takes comfort and relief in the mere fact that you haven't committed an (shock horror) error. Alternatively, you can purposely and purposefully break the rules and scythe your way through the Gordian knot of mundanity. Just because you choose one path doesn't give you the licence in any way, shape or form to comment on the other.


Gedanken,

Rhetoric, my dear boy, rhetoric!

I am all for breaking the mould of mundanity (I wear a boater to the office, for example, with the ribbon matching my shirt, and last week I wore combat trousers). Because I don't take things too seriously - obviously! - I also allow myself to make assumptions in order to make interesting points. But you are right: I should not have assumed that others think like me.

You and I are probably in agreement on this. I do hope you don't wear a brown suit though. Or wear brown shoes with grey trousers.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

"silly, strange and inappropriate" are the exact words used daily by my clients to describe overwhelming feeling when introduced to Seadweller. Especially if they wear suit. 90% love the "superwaterproofness" of SD but
would eventually settle for thinner 16610 Sub or 16710 GMT II.
If you only talk to other SD owners your view may be different.
And funny enough, those who like macho watches find SD too small.

:boring: Sorry...what were you saying? I was silly, strange and inappropriate to fall asleep in the middle of what you were saying :rofl:

[leopardprey]

Explorer II white face or black face for dress adn casual. PAM for sport and casual. LOL

Come on, this is getting silly. I have seen many top executives and lawyers wearing Subs with their suits and ties. Looks good. My brother works for the State Dept and wears an Omega SMP with his suit, he gets compliments with it. Also, did you not see the latest Bond movie, well he is wearing an Omega SMP (similiar in size to a GMT or Sub) with his Tux and looks OK.

When I was in the Military, when in dress uniform (which is fancier than most bussiness suits) you would see a lot of Rolex Subs, GMTs, SD and a lot of other large dive watches ebing worn. I at the time had a large Blue and Red Seiko dive watch I always wore.

I think what is appealing with the SS Sub and SD is that it goes good with all attire.

[Gedanken]

Gedanken,

Rhetoric, my dear boy, rhetoric!

I am all for breaking the mould of mundanity (I wear a boater to the office, for example, with the ribbon matching my shirt, and last week I wore combat trousers). Because I don't take things too seriously - obviously! - I also allow myself to make assumptions in order to make interesting points. But you are right: I should not have assumed that others think like me.

You and I are probably in agreement on this. I do hope you don't wear a brown suit though. Or wear brown shoes with grey trousers.
Ah well, rhetoric does increase the propensity for painting oneself into a corner.

Nonetheless, we are in agreement. While khaki is acceptable, brown has never really been my colour. Vis-à-vis daily accoutrement, as Steve would know when we meet up for lunch, my choices run along the following lines:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Gedanken/SDcombo1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Gedanken/Tudorcombo1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Gedanken/DJcombo1.jpg

[mansion]

Gedanken!

Nice ties, nice knots! I approve - I might even agree to lunch with you. Don't overdo the pocket 'chief though (oops - I cannot say that can I?).

By the way, the red tie is very lawyerly.

[Gedanken]

Thank you, thank you! I'm partial to the Half Windsor myself. I just realised that I'd written "double overhand" instead in my previous post - that what i get for posting on a military forum at the same time as this one! :chuckle:

Odd thing about the red tie: Steve's the lawyer - I'm a psychologist! :chuckle:

I like my pocket squares - it's one of the easiest ways to dress up a suit. Besides, when the boss man's got a wardrobe full of Brioni and all you've got is Hugo Boss, every bit counts. Still and all, I've bene trying to talk him into trading the Omega for a Rolex. :chuckle:

As for lunch, anytime, my good man! :cheers:

[mansion]

Here's mine.

5545

5546

[ADISMO]

Gedanken, nice suit combos. Seems like the black SD would go well with black suit and dark or silver ties. And dittos on the SD and Pam's going splendidly with suits.

The man is key to the essence, or purpose, of the watch. Not the suit. A black SD, especially coupled with black or black pinstripe suit tells the observer to beware his behavior and mind his tongue lest a reflexive snap of the wearer render him unconscious. SD is a ballsy, manly look. But I wouldnt wear it with anything except black or gray. Def not navy. A white sportcoat may work as well, but thats too 007 cliche.

I've worn a gold plated Panerai Pam 140 replica (gasp!) with a black leather strap on a black pinstripe suit. The massive gold watch contrasted against the black strap, suit, blue shirt, and white satin tie like a gold plated AK47. Now that is manly class. I've never had more questions about a watch in my life.

Silly dainty looking watches just arent in my vocabulary. I'm in military service as well.

[Ronnie Rolex]

Great review. I really appreciate that your wrist size is the same as mine so the comfort of wearing the GMT was duly noted. Definitely my next watch.

[fquiroga]

this is my first answer to a message in this forum, excuse-me fauts, my first reference to a rolex was a GMT of a friend in the club, he uses on the pool, sauna, paddle court...and each year he chances de bezel becauses it becomes ROSE (the red part, of cours) with de clorus of the pool, so...I bought a SD

thanks a lot sheldon, all the others diferences between this two watches will confirm my opinion and de purchase I made

[Julian,Sea Dweller]

Some Greek mythological creature with one eye

[royce]

Fantastic reviews from both sheldon and incurable. originally i was not interested in the gmt ii, but after reading the reviews, i am even more indecisive as to my purchase. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

all the same, thanks for adding to the wealth of knowledge on this forum

[chris_nor_cal]

Nice Shirt/Tie/Watch Combos!!!

[directioneng]

I now own both of these fabulous time pieces. It was great to read the differences....:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Thanks
:cheers:

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[frostie]

great review but the pictures are a bit small