![]() |
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
![]() |
#1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Real Name: Dave
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Watch: ♛ + Ω +
Posts: 601
|
![]()
I'm looking to the SeaDweller as 'daily beater'. Something special to wear anywhere while my more delicate vintage pieces relax on their winders. The 16600 was discontinued in 2008 after a 40+ year run, much to the dismay of Rolex fans. It was replaced with the Deep Sea SeaDweller (DSSD), a friggin' hulk of a watch at nearly 44mm and an insane depth rating of 12,800ft. There are a lot of fans of the DSSD, and if I didn't have such tiny wrists, I would certainly be one of them. For the rest of us, Rolex just introduced the new SeaDweller 4000, and I went to see it today.
![]() http://www.wristtimes.com/blog-1/201...r-4000-ceramic
__________________
My Watch Blog - http://www.wristtimes.com ![]() Collection: Rolex Sub NDc 114060 | Omega SMP 861 | Apple Watch SS |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Real Name: Andy
Location: East Midlands, UK
Watch: Patek and Rolex
Posts: 1,074
|
Not sure I would describe the new seadweller as very blingy and a watch covered in diamonds without using one
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southeast
Watch: Divers, GMT
Posts: 2,147
|
Thanks for the review but I really disagree with the bling part. I've had my new SD for about a month and it's not blingy at all. I've also had prob half a dozen of the last edition.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Real Name: Dennis
Location: Bay Area - 925
Posts: 40,018
|
Thanks for posting!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Real Name: Dave
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Watch: ♛ + Ω +
Posts: 601
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
My Watch Blog - http://www.wristtimes.com ![]() Collection: Rolex Sub NDc 114060 | Omega SMP 861 | Apple Watch SS |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southeast
Watch: Divers, GMT
Posts: 2,147
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Real Name: Kenny
Location: northern ireland
Watch: SDs, Subs & GMTs
Posts: 5,130
|
Whist I would accept that there is a bit more of a shine to the new SD when compared to the 16600, the new one could certainly not be described as bling. I have both and feel that Rolex were careful in their redesign and stopped short of making it too flash. Yes, it looks quite different from say a 1665 but that is understandable given the time difference. Rolex have placed all the latest technical advances into it and it has turned out as an excellent watch that I have little doubt will be popular with existing SD fans and new guys.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Bensalem, Pa
Posts: 638
|
I really like the new SD. It is beefier than the Sub but not the size of a cow like the Deep Sea. I got to try it on and I really liked he size and weight. It was definitely slight bigger and heavier than the Sub and still had a great balance to it. I really want this watch. Thanks for posting the review
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: PARIS
Watch: Vintage
Posts: 2,761
|
New SD is not a must have for me. Old version is nicer from far !
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Tags |
116600 , sd4000 , seadweller |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.