16600 vs. 116600

[Peter.dench]

Hi all.


Sorry in advance for the rambling post, but really interested to hear peoples opinions of the two sea-dweller models mentioned in the title.

Just to be clear the following is absolutely NOT about current value, future value, or rarity.

I have a 16600 in my collection. I really appreciate the subtlety of the watch, the way that it seems to wear slightly smaller than current models, and that for a watch with a healthy depth rating that the case still manages to look slim.

The rest of the watches I own are all in the current line up, and consist of both the dress, and sports range.

Prior to picking up the 16600 I had an itch for a 116600. However, this wasnt until it was discontinued, and never really was able to get hands on and get a feel for it.

Would.love to hear views of people that may have owned both. Which did/do you prefer, and what makes you feel that way?

I will.admit to preferring the current bracelets and clasps to that of the 16600, but after that (and the obvious ceramic bezel) I'm a bit lost as to the other differences.

If it makes a difference, my watch is from the penultimate year of production. Not sure if that makes much of a difference, or if there were updates during the production run.

Whilst slightly off topic, and careful not to want to cause any offence, the current 126600 is not for me. My wrists couldnt carry it off.

[fskywalker]

I don’t have neither, but from those 2 would likely pick the SD4K as it has the ceramic bezel and newer style bracelet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Asumer]

I had the sd4k for a few days(ended up returning it), I was bothered by the thickness of the watch. Its an amazing watch, I just felt day in and day out it would bother me. As for which looks better I would say the sd4k any day. The bezel has a slightly different look than a ceramic sub and it felt like it wasn't pure black but had a slight hint of gunmetal to it. I loved the graduations on every minute, in addition having the matte black dial was also a plus vs. the subs glossy black dial. It to me felt like an absolute professionals tool. As for thickness comparisons the 16600 felt like a thicker watch, since you already have it and don't mind the sd4k shouldn't be an issue, i'd say you should go for it(the sd4k that is).

[SN13]

116600 vs 16600

Choose wisely.

[Chute]

I have the SD4K and always wanted a sea dweller instead of the Submariner. For some reason, I didn't like the cyclops on the Sub Date and the no date Sub made no sense when you could get a Sea Dweller without the cyclops and a date. This was all during pre-ceramic days.

When I was finally able to try on a 16600 I was unimpressed with the bracelet just as I was unimpressed with all Rolex stainless watches prior to the solid updated bracelets.

When the Deep Sea 166600 come out in 2008, I figured I would never get a Sea Dwellers since the DSSD was way to big for me.
So soon after I got the Ceramic GMT 116710LN and figured that would be my only Rolex. Somehow the cyclops didn't bother me anymore and the black look of the GMTIIc is just perfect for me in every way.

When the SD4k came out, I had to have it and got the first one from my AD in 2014.
IMHO, the GMTIIc is more comfortable, but the SD is just a way cooler watch. It's got blue lume, 40mm size, glide lock clasp, fully graduated bezel, matte dial, only available in stainless. To me, it is the best Rolex dive watch ever made. Yes, it's thick but the glide lock allows for the perfect fit so it doesn't bang around and gouge the back of your hand.

So, I would say go for it while you can. There are lots of 16600's (20yrs worth if you include the 16660) out there but only 2.5 years worth of 116600's.

[Peter.dench]

Originally Posted by Chute

I have the SD4K and always wanted a sea dweller instead of the Submariner. For some reason, I didn't like the cyclops on the Sub Date and the no date Sub made no sense when you could get a Sea Dweller without the cyclops and a date. This was all during pre-ceramic days.

When I was finally able to try on a 16600 I was unimpressed with the bracelet just as I was unimpressed with all Rolex stainless watches prior to the solid updated bracelets.

When the Deep Sea 166600 come out in 2008, I figured I would never get a Sea Dwellers since the DSSD was way to big for me.
So soon after I got the Ceramic GMT 116710LN and figured that would be my only Rolex. Somehow the cyclops didn't bother me anymore and the black look of the GMTIIc is just perfect for me in every way.

When the SD4k came out, I had to have it and got the first one from my AD in 2014.
IMHO, the GMTIIc is more comfortable, but the SD is just a way cooler watch. It's got blue lume, 40mm size, glide lock clasp, fully graduated bezel, matte dial, only available in stainless. To me, it is the best Rolex dive watch ever made. Yes, it's thick but the glide lock allows for the perfect fit so it doesn't bang around and gouge the back of your hand.

So, I would say go for it while you can. There are lots of 16600's (20yrs worth if you include the 16660) out there but only 2.5 years worth of 116600's.

Great review, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. I had conplelety forgotten about the glidelock, wish all my watches had it!

[padi56]

Well IMHO there is only one SD in the modern day Rolex watches and thats the 16600 last of the real Rolex tool watches. Below picture of my own working tool SD, bet its seen more use underwater and sometimes abuse that todays Rolex watches will see in ten lifetimes.

[Gerry62]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well IMHO there is only one SD in the modern day Rolex watches and thats the 16600 last of the real Rolex tool watches. Below picture of my own working tool SD, bet its seen more use underwater and sometimes abuse that todays Rolex watches will see in ten lifetimes.

16600T lifetime !

116600 ? a more fat and muscular 16600.
A perhaps more robust bracelet is not enough to make me change

and if I really want to change then I would choose .... Deepsea ...
but not even the Deepsea can replace a 16600
imho

[Jmbarrack]

I’ve owned both. I currently only still have the 16600. While I do think that the 116600 still is the best 6-digit ceramic diver Rolex ever made due to the case size, capabilities and matte dial, it was just never as comfortable as the 16600. Say what you will about the 5-digit bracelets but I’ll take them any day of the week over the new heavy Glidelocks.

There’s a beautiful balance of the 16600 being a slightly smaller case than the 16610 and no cyclops that’s makes it such a great watch.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter.dench]

General consensus seems to be the 5 digit model. Kind of handy then, seeing I havent seen any 6 digit examples in B&M shops in the UK.

[samuel019]

Not the best pic but I Love love both of my SD’s with the SDK having a slight edge. They wear totally different. The 16600 wears a good bit smaller. I Wear the SDK the most but the 16600 is just to classic to ever part with. Not to mention it was the first watch purchased with my wife.

[tquieng]

The seadweller ceramic will keep going up in value a lot since it was only made for 3 years.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by tquieng

The seadweller ceramic will keep going up in value a lot since it was only made for 3 years.

This is not always the case trouble today many see Rolex watches now as little more than £££$$$€€€ object things.

[Computantis]

16600 is an iconic watch for sure. I do agree with your thought of it being a little smaller in today's market. I personally love the super-oyster case and ceramic bezel of the 116600/116610. It is beefy, robust, shiny, elegant, and a tool watch all in-one. The luminescence is superior as well as overall legibility.

If I could add a 116600 to my collection, I'd be a very happy man. Take all that for what you will.

[Nauti]

16600 is a fabulous and iconic watch without doubt and I have had few..

However the 116600 for me really is the complete package it covers all the bases of the 16600 with the flush crystal and tool functionality..

but it has the previously mentioned extra rarity on its side and with he combination of fully 60 minute insert, satin dial, lovely blue lume, 120 click bezel and a fabulous bracelet with glide-lock i think give it the edge just...but it's a personal choice for each of us...

that said its a bit like having the choice of a dinner date with Denise Richards or Jennifer Aniston...I don't think either would dissapoint..

[iTreelex]

The 116600 might be more balanced due to the solid bracelet. The 16600 is a bit top heavy for me but still great. You can't really go wrong with either, the SD is one of the best, if not the best sport watch Rolex has to offer. I'm a bit biased but 116600 for me. I am hunting for a 2007+ 16600 though

[Cowley]

The 116600 would do

[TswaneNguni]

116600 ... its different .That's the allure .

[7enderbender]

I was debating the same thing. Opted for a 16600 because that’s the watch that had been on my list for a long time. The 116600 was interesting to me for the wristband/clasp. But I don’t like the dial with the oversized markers and blue lume. Same with the ceramic and busier looking bezel and maxi case - not my thing. So “rareness” and “investment” considerations aside (I don’t care since I never sell anything like this), the classic 16600 was the clear winner for me. It’s a 2006 Z series so not a maintenance/servicing/original part nightmare at this point. No holes, which I also like better.
The reason I wanted a Sea Dweller over any other Rolex in the first place is it’s relative subtlety with date but no cyclops, proportions, etc. Modern, but still classic proportions unlike pretty much everything that came after. (I have to say though I do like that new 36mm Explorer even with the blue lume).

[kctt]

I don't know if you will go wrong with either. I don't have the SD4K but I have the 16600. I don't feel I'm missing out anything. I love my 16600 for it's charm. It wears smaller than modern references which suits me better. I like the aluminium bezel insert in that it's not shiny and glossy.

Disclaimer: I do have modern Subs, maybe that's the reason?

[Jackie Daytona]

I have a 16600 and for me it’s about the perfect diver/deep sea diving sort of watch. The 4K is nice and all, but for me personally the kind of smaller wearable nature of the 16600 just gives it a certain level of charm while still so close to the original sub and SD’s. It fees more linear I guess you may say in my opinion to its roots and it’s kind of the apex of that original SD line.

[Tyler_Durden_8]

Just picked up a 116600. I had the same debate about whether to go with 16600 or SD4K.

I've played with both and in the end, 4K won out. I just like the updated features better. Simple as that. It is like the newly overhauled E-Type or Bel Air with disc brakes, fuel injection engine and all other modern safety features/creature comforts. It just drives better than the original car but yet retained the original form that got us mesmerized.

[Spiff]

A lot has been said already.
In my opinion, the 16600 is a super 16610 without a cyclop and extra thickness. You get the thin lugs with diagonal deep brush that I like a lot. However, I believe that this is not enough different from a 16610 (same bezel, hands, dial, bracelet, ...) to justify buying one instead of a more comfortable 16610 unless you despise the cyclop.

The 116600 is not comparable to anything else in the Rolex diver production. To me this is the ultimate 40mm dive watch from the brand. I would probably not pair a 16600 and 116600, I would probably go for a 14060/16610 and a 116600.

[wjed]

I prefer 116600

[gr33n]

One is the evolution of the other, but the two of them are iconic tool watches.
The main difference, the most visible one, is the bezel:

- non fully graduated aluminium
vs
- fully graduated ceramic

The ceramic hasn't got real downsides in my opinion. A bit brighter, but it is quite pleasant. I would prefer, consequently, the - infamous - underwhelmed - most evolved of the two - and so well balanced - SD4k.
"The ultimate 40mm dive watch from the brand" as said above by Spiff, it is also my opinion.

[MickCollins1916]

I am nuts about both. In fact, my purchase of the SD4K inspired my purchase of my first 16600.

If I had to slim down to one, the SD4K would be it. It’s been my favorite watch I’ve ever owned or tried since the first moment I put it on.

I’d describe it as substantial, but not heavy, and the solid bracelet with glidelock balances it out nicely, at least for me. Supremely comfortable and I prefer not to have a cyclops if I have a choice. The satin dial is outstanding.

With that said, the 16600 and its tried and true bracelet is no slouch. With it’s rounded caseback, it sits perfectly on my wrist. I’m crazy about it as well. I got rid of the first one I had in part because it had luminova on the dial and my current one’s got dead tritium on it. I enjoy wearing it.

[Bearxj86]

I personally prefer the 16600 slightly but I think I would actually go for the 116600 for the glidelock/stronger bracelet and the ceramic bezel. After 10/20 years of wear, the 16600 will be beat up but the 116600 will be going strong.

[subx]

16600 for the win, all day, every day, by a country mile

[jay_kay]

I recently sold my 16600 as my 116600 was getting all the wear and for me it is my preference.





Maybe I am a modern convert, the sturdier bracelet and feel.

[Spiff]