|
|
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
23 October 2009, 11:22 PM
|
#1 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The Moon
Posts: 1,238
|
Bathroom Reading: Found a mistake in a popular SD article
One benefit of reading a magazine in the bathroom --- I think I found a mistake .....Here are the pics of the magazine and the article that was published in it.
The mistake is this: The author refers to the SUB DATE as being the YOUNGER sister of the SD ..... Sub came first so I do not know how the SUB DATE becomes the younger sister ... May be he meant "smaller" sister? you think it is also a mistake?? I have underlined in red the author's statements .... thanks, |
|
|
|
23 October 2009, 11:35 PM
|
#2 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Annapolis, MD
Watch: Sea-Dweller 16600
Posts: 5,081
|
I'm surprised WT even printed that article.
|
|
|
|
|
24 October 2009, 12:00 AM
|
#3 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: Mr. H
Location: Dallas
Watch: them for me!
Posts: 7,180
|
Actually they have republished the same article a few times. I have it on two other Watch Time issues.
__________________
WATCHES ARE THE NEW CURRENCY!/ MEMBER 27491/OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED OLD TIMER /AP OWNERS CLUB MEMBER Instagram @watchcollectinglifestyle 
|
|
|
|
|
24 October 2009, 12:41 AM
|
#4 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: in my house...
Posts: 5,524
|
If the younger is the sub-date.. then the older (made before the sub date) is the regular sub.. so what is the mistake.?
__________________
Cheers, Eduardo Be a WIS not a WUSS... and remove all the stickers..  
|
|
|
|
|
24 October 2009, 01:01 AM
|
#5 |
|
TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron
Join Date: May 2007
Real Name: Larry
Location: Mojave Desert
Watch: GMT's
Posts: 43,146
|
The Sea Dweller started out as a modified 5513 in the early 1960's with their "Patent Pending" Sea Dweller in collaboration with COMEX and installation of a helium valve...
The Sub Date didn't come along until 1967 with the introduction of the 1680, so I suppose that the SD did pre-date the Sub Date by about a year or so..........
__________________
(Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member |
|
|
|
|
24 October 2009, 01:08 AM
|
#6 | |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Jib
Location: SJ, California
Watch: sun dial
Posts: 8,189
|
Quote:
 Seriously, the Sub ND predated the SD, but I think the Sub Date came after.
__________________
F 14000 AirKing black F 16710 GMT Pepsi F 16570 Explorer II white T 16600 SD D 16610 LV "fine quality is remembered long after the pain of spending money" -Steve Mulholland |
|
|
|
|
|
24 October 2009, 01:09 AM
|
#7 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Jib
Location: SJ, California
Watch: sun dial
Posts: 8,189
|
Oops! Didn't see Larry' response
 
__________________
F 14000 AirKing black F 16710 GMT Pepsi F 16570 Explorer II white T 16600 SD D 16610 LV "fine quality is remembered long after the pain of spending money" -Steve Mulholland |
|
|
|
|
24 October 2009, 01:25 AM
|
#8 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The Moon
Posts: 1,238
|
oh really? The subdate did come after the SD? If that's true,
then I got my facts wrong ... and the author is correct afterall ... My appologies ... |
|
|
|
|
24 October 2009, 01:26 AM
|
#9 | |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: John
Location: Washington
Watch: 16710, 16610, DJ
Posts: 7,329
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 October 2009, 01:32 AM
|
#10 | |
|
TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron
Join Date: May 2007
Real Name: Larry
Location: Mojave Desert
Watch: GMT's
Posts: 43,146
|
Quote:
The 1665, which is the SD as we know it today, came out in about '77, so it was 10 years after the introduction of the 1680 Sub Date.. The famous Double Reds, which said "Sea Dweller Submariner" came out in ~71, still 4 years after the 1680.. Most people forget about the early non-date COMEX "Sea Dwellers" which are Subs with HEV's ... Heck, hardly anybody has ever seen one...... 
__________________
(Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member |
|
|
|
|
|
24 October 2009, 08:10 AM
|
#11 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: Rick
Location: At what TIME?!!!
Watch: the SKY tonite!
Posts: 3,225
|
Quote:
Due to the thickness of the crystal, the cyclops would have to be double in size to be effective. |
|
|
|
|
|
24 October 2009, 09:01 AM
|
#12 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Real Name: Paul
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 14,578
|
This is the earliest actual SeaDweller pic I can find and it supposedly dates to 1967. One of the "prototypes".
 Any pics of earlier examples? |
|
|
|
|
24 October 2009, 09:14 AM
|
#13 |
|
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Mexico
Watch: 116710 BLNR
Posts: 34,355
|
I would argue with the assertion that the primary difference between the Sub Date and the Sea Dweller is the cyclops.
I would be more likely to cite the difference in depth rating or the helium escape valve. The cyclops is hardly more than a cosmetic attachment. |
|
|
|
|
24 October 2009, 10:41 AM
|
#14 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 557
|
I don't think the main difference is the cyclops magnification window, It is the Helium Escape Valve that was patented.
|
|
|
|
|
24 October 2009, 10:42 AM
|
#15 | |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 557
|
Quote:
That was my opinion, also. |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.
Linear Mode
