Sea-Dweller 4000: Why short production run?

[tpfaok]

Does any one know or have a theory of why the Sea-Dweller 4000 was only produced for 3 years?

[G'ed]

To make way for the 50th anniversary 126600?

[gwalker]

I don’t know but I feel like an idiot selling mine for $6800 last feb....
Up there with turning a new Sub Kermit for under $5k in 08 for a DSSD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scapegoat]

Its not selling well. Simple.

[gwalker]

Originally Posted by Scapegoat

Its not selling well. Simple.

Do you think? I’ve seen several in the $10k range selling. Maybe just to be kept and wait to prices to rise further.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tpfaok]

Originally Posted by G'ed

To make way for the 50th anniversary 126600?

It would have been interesting if the SD4000 was left in the lineup. Can then tell if upsize sells better after the furore for the red lettering has died down.

[JManuel]

Originally Posted by gwalker

I don’t know but I feel like an idiot selling mine for $6800 last feb....

Damn... really?

IMO they moved to larger case size so they can better diferentiate it from the submariner and also trends are going for bigger/larger watches, hence the 43mm and still same depth rating.

[00Seven]

Great watch, but it wasn't popular when new...just like most Sea-Dwellers. The general public has a tough time justifying the added cost above and beyond the regular Submariner.

[rmlovett1]

My theory...because it was to close in looks, size, etc... to the current black dial Sub, at a higher price= slow sales.

[69ways]

Originally Posted by Richris1

My theory...because it was to close in looks, size, etc... to the current black dial Sub, at a higher price= slow sales.

And lets not forget the cyclops
A big plus

[tpfaok]

Originally Posted by gwalker

I don’t know but I feel like an idiot selling mine for $6800 last feb....
Up there with turning a new Sub Kermit for under $5k in 08 for a DSSD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welcome me to the club if selling a nos m series lv and a nos 14060m to raise funds for a sd4000 makes me a chum.

[gwalker]

Originally Posted by tpfaok

Welcome me to the club if selling a nos m series lv and a nos 14060m to raise funds for a sd4000 makes me a chum.

We live and learn. My dad sold a Buick Grand National for $5k a long time ago, along with a 63 split window Vette trade for a 77 caddy, and worst buy of all was one of the original bat mobiles from the Adam West series that was a total BUST. We just have to make better deals than demo ones. He did buy an original GTO Judge in 74 and kept it for 10 years so I guess he did ok. Too bad he didn’t keep it until about 2015...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Etschell]

was not a big seller until they discontinued it.

i can understand why. it is not a sub and was not a dssd. the in between nature didnt offer much other than higher depth rating. there is a reason they scrapped it.

[gwalker]

Originally Posted by Etschell

was not a big seller until they discontinued it.

i can understand why. it is not a sub and was not a dssd. the in between nature didnt offer much other than higher depth rating. there is a reason they scrapped it.

I only paid $8k new. But boy when they stopped making it it shot through the roof.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Magwitch]

You think you made a mistake? I traded an early F serial LV flat 4 oval "O" toward another piece. Needless to say it was a YUGE blunder. Saving grace is that I learned and now will keep rather than do that.

In the mid 70's I put a piece (different hobby) up for consignment. The Mrs insisted that I buy it back. So I did. Cost me $50 to do so, IIRC. Still have it and it is now worth a lot more than I paid for it, being long since discontinued and still in demand. It stays with me. Piece was made in 1976 and is stamped "Made in the 200th Year of American Liberty." Yes it's a keeper.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by tpfaok

Does any one know or have a theory of why the Sea-Dweller 4000 was only produced for 3 years?

Yep.
The watch was a dog in the grand scheme of things for a number of reasons.
Rolex realized this despite an honest go at trying to re-invigorate it as a model in it's own right.
unfortunately it was wedged between the king of the divers(the DSSD) and the classic Sub of both variants at a price point that was difficult to justify when compared to the Sub.

It needed to be re-invented and the SD43 was born.
Now the DSSD is looking a little marginal due to the superb execution of the SD43.
Job well done Rolex

[jets]

Originally Posted by Magwitch

You think you made a mistake? I traded an early F serial LV flat 4 oval "O" toward another piece. Needless to say it was a YUGE blunder. Saving grace is that I learned and now will keep rather than do that.

Did the same but I don't care. Other ways to make money!

[Nikrnic]

Can't look back. I owned a lot of 63-67 Vettes, sure wish I had them or 1 back but I have the memories.

[Dusko.Popov]

Shorter than 3 years.

If you go back to sd4k posts from last December, folks, including me, were saying that their Authorized Dealers had already announced the discontinuation. My ad told me that in November, 2016. Some big Ny Authorized Dealers were telling clients in December that Rolex reps confirmed the discontinuation.

If you assume that the earliest of the early 116600 releases were on wrists in the early summer of 2014 (July or so), the production run was probably closer to 29-30 months.

Of course, no one knows for certain, but what I do know is this, my guy told me definitively and in no uncertain terms that, per his rep, the sd4k was discontinued and he would not receive any more nor could he order one. And that wasn’t in response to my interest in purchasing one. It wasn’t a “sell.” He didn’t have one at the time and hadn’t since September, 2016. That matches many other stories around that time on this forum where folks were saying their ad was done with sd4k and no more came thereafter.

L&b (not my normal Ad)in February of last year, in response to me calling around, said that they had 5 at their various store inventories but they didn’t expect any more after those were sold.

[Devildog]

I posted this on another thread and which may (or may not ) be relevant. My take is that it was always meant to be a short production run reference


It's pretty obvious that the 116600 was not a commercial success for Rolex. If it had been, it would not have been discontinued. It is, however, a fantastic watch.

My understanding of the 4 and 5 digit Sea Dwellers is that they were created in response to a demand for such equipment by commercial divers. As such I would argue that they may be considered Rolex's last proper professional tool watches.

So for me the big question is why did Rolex introduce the 116600?

The Deepsea took the pinnacle of engineering crown, and had been around for several years beforehand. The Sub and Sub Date covered off the more mainstream (and classic) Rolex divers market. There was no commercial need in 2014 for an HEV equipped mechanical diver's watch with a 4000ft depth rating. Rolex knew that the 16600 was not favoured by the general watch buyng public, most of which would pick the Sub over the SD all day long.

By process of elimination, one would have to summise that Rolex reintroduced the SD4k just because it could, because of the history and to appeal to the WIS who understoood the significance of the SD4K over the comparable Sub at any given time.

If you then consider that Rolex will probably have been planning the SD43 anniversary model for some considerable time prior to its introduction in 2017 (especially with the new movement, case size and bracelet) and accept that there was no benefit in having two 4,000ft Sea Dwellers on sale at the same time, it appears likely that the 116600 was always intended to be a limited (in terms of time) production run piece, made for the specialist WIS market who appreciated it for what it was and for its history.

In which case, and to answer the OP's question, not only was it not a flop, but it never could be a flop, for the simple reason that it was never meant to be a commercial succcess.

Of course I could be totally wrong on all of this, and only Rolex will really know

[Magwitch]

Well I still have my 16600 from 2004 which is worth more than I paid for it. I won't be selling that one, and even IF I did, it wouldn't be at a loss. And I won't be trading it at the dealer either.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by Devildog

I posted this on another thread and which may (or may not ) be relevant. My take is that it was always meant to be a short production run reference


It's pretty obvious that the 116600 was not a commercial success for Rolex. If it had been, it would not have been discontinued. It is, however, a fantastic watch.

My understanding of the 4 and 5 digit Sea Dwellers is that they were created in response to a demand for such equipment by commercial divers. As such I would argue that they may be considered Rolex's last proper professional tool watches.

So for me the big question is why did Rolex introduce the 116600?

The Deepsea took the pinnacle of engineering crown, and had been around for several years beforehand. The Sub and Sub Date covered off the more mainstream (and classic) Rolex divers market. There was no commercial need in 2014 for an HEV equipped mechanical diver's watch with a 4000ft depth rating. Rolex knew that the 16600 was not favoured by the general watch buyng public, most of which would pick the Sub over the SD all day long.

By process of elimination, one would have to summise that Rolex reintroduced the SD4k just because it could, because of the history and to appeal to the WIS who understoood the significance of the SD4K over the comparable Sub at any given time.

If you then consider that Rolex will probably have been planning the SD43 anniversary model for some considerable time prior to its introduction in 2017 (especially with the new movement, case size and bracelet) and accept that there was no benefit in having two 4,000ft Sea Dwellers on sale at the same time, it appears likely that the 116600 was always intended to be a limited (in terms of time) production run piece, made for the specialist WIS market who appreciated it for what it was and for its history.

In which case, and to answer the OP's question, not only was it not a flop, but it never could be a flop, for the simple reason that it was never meant to be a commercial succcess.

Of course I could be totally wrong on all of this, and only Rolex will really know

I think you nailed it perfectly.

The 5 digits SD is the last reference used by the COMEX and as a recreational diver, my heart goes to this one.

The 116600 would have been perfect with normal end-links but any SeaDweller are aimed to a very narrow range of buyers.

The Deepsea attract(ed) those who want a BIG watch. They could also go the Panerai or Breitling route if not for the love of Rolex.

I still don't understand the replacement of the 116600 by the new incorrectly named sead dweller.

I truly think there was a bad design choice period at Rolex that gave us:
- DJ2
- 39mm Explorer 1 with short hands
- Too large Explorer 2
- bad end links on 116600
- too large and cycloped SD

Hope this will end soon.