Sub C vs Sea Dweller 16600

[zeuloa]

Originally Posted by drster

Sub c



SD:







I don't have side by side right now. The SD has a smaller, more jewel like feel compared to my Sub-c. They are different enough that I want both. Weight is similar. The SD bracelet is lighter of course. Both very comfortable for me to wear. And they both keep near perfect time, between -1 to +1 sec/day.

Love your pics. It would be great to see a side by side in this style.

[mlotus95]

great reading thread.

[landroverking]

Originally Posted by harrishc

SD Forever

Yes yes YES!!!!

[Paksent]

Great question and I've struggled with which was best for me as well. I ended up getting both eventually. Mine are both earlier (81' sub & 84' SD sorry for the poor pictures) but loving the option of both. My SD is my daily where my Sub goes in rotation with my GMT and Pam's.

Wear them and pass them along.
thanks!
Paul

[see.cee]

Originally Posted by gone-rolex-mad

X2

Anyone?

[see.cee]

Originally Posted by Eric88

Is it possible to swap the Sub-C bracelet over to the SD? I know people have proven it works for the regular Sub, but was not sure about the SD. Seems like a SD with the Sub-C glide lock would be a sweet combo.

x3. Please post pics from this combo.

[see.cee]

No one could post a pics from this combo?

[zSeaDweller]

Originally Posted by see.cee

No one could post a pics from this combo?

x4! My local AD indicated that Rolex designed the new bracelets so that they are not backward compatible with earlier models, but I have a hard time believing that it cannot be done.

[Bilk22]

I'd like to revive this older thread. I'm basically looking to purchase my first Rolex after all the years. I was never a fan of lug holes, and their existence always caused me to never pull the trigger. I have one watch with lug holes, a Tudor Prince. I do love that watch but try to ignore the holes that mar an otherwise beautifully sculpted case. OK let's get past the lug holes. I know they have a purpose, a heritage and fans. They're just not my preference.

In a similar quandary to the OP, I'm considering one of two watches - one no longer produced - the SD 16600 and the 114060. I understand the Sub c doesn't have a date, but a date isn't as much a requirement as is a clean looking dial with no cyclopes and a black bezel and dial.

The SD, ironically, is holding great value and some excellent offerings are fetching the same prices as a new Sub c no date. They are both priced within the range I want to stay.

If anyone can provide a side by side of these two watches, that would be great. Also opinions are requested and welcome.

[MP5]

Ironic that its holding value? I think its undervalued. and your hate of lugholes is a sin. :)

[Bilk22]

Originally Posted by MP5

Ironic that its holding value? I think its undervalued. and your hate of lugholes is a sin. :)

LOL did I fling two insults? Both were unintentional of course. Maybe ironic was the wrong word there. Probably should have said coincidentally is holding a value similar to the new Sub c :)

Hey I can't help it with the lug holes. I'm a designer of sorts - architect. I understand the ideal of form following function. But I have also through the years, seen many a scratched sub lug from a happy tool :) Paperclip maybe? LOL

Let's put it this way, I'm happy they're part of history :)

Now where are the pics?

[MP5]

I dont have a no date ceramic

[Bilk22]

Why not? No lug holes? :) I guess it's a good thing I didn't mention anything about a folded clasp or hollow links, huh? OK pony up the SD pics and maybe someone else can chip in the Sub C pics :)

PS I hope you know I'm just joking here. Maybe my sarcastic whit isn't coming across well on our internet connection. I understand all about the Rolex heritage and why things were as they were. However seeing the new Sub, specifically the changes they made to the bracelet, clasp, is what has me considering a Rolex again. The SD is a variant I admire because of what I stated above and that's why it too is under consideration. I know it has the older style bracelet, but it has the lines I like and a similar wrist presence - well I think it does.

[mizunoboy]

This combo for me

_DSC0350.jpg

[Aspirin]

Originally Posted by buddy13

Cos there aren't enough removable links on the 6 o'clock side ....same story on the 16610 I had and the 14060M I still own (notice the 'step' from the third to the fourth link...) where I removed one permanent link on this side of the bracelet. Now it sits quite nice and comfy...



The new bracelet is an improvement in every possible way...

I got the same problem with the same solution with you for my Explorer II 16570, the removable link on the 6 o'clock side is really not enough for small wrist, so this is the only way if want to fit the clasp in centre wrist. One more thing, the Sub's span of Glidelock clasp is too long for small wrist, hope Rolex make some improvement on it.