Talk to me about the 16600

[joshviiv]

Gents and ladies,

Recent purchaser of an SD (16600) circa 1998, i bought it because it ticks a number of boxes for me;

- its not a submariner - i prefer something a little left of centre, something you'd assume is something but upon closer inspection, is something very different
- aluminium bezel
- last of the 40mm with aluminium bezel
- the epitome of rolex tool watches

Now i absolute love it, but i've noticed on the back of the surge in pricing on SS sports watches, the 16600 seems (relatively) forgotten. Im curious on all your thoughts on why that is, and what you see in the future for the humble 16600 :D

Cheers!

[0ptimus_1]

Great question. I'm in the same boat. I love the thickness and the size of the 16600. These pieces in my opinion are not as common as the sub 16610.

[Rashid.bk]

I love this watch, it was my first Rolex and I dearly regret selling it. Someday if funds allow I'd love to find a full set V serial to buy.

[drockadam]

They're so perfect. Probably the only other Rolex I'd buy!

[joshviiv]

it seems to tick all the boxes that would indicate a collectors dream - perhaps because the reference was produced for such a long time - 20 years?

[eightball76]

Theres something about the SDs that make them the unloved child. I have the SD4k and I'm surprised that they are relatively obtainable considering they were only made for a handful of years.
I was sitting next to someone on a flight who asked me if I was wearing a Sub as they were looking at purchasing one. Once I said it was actually a Sea-dweller they lost complete interest in the conversation.

[joshviiv]

Originally Posted by eightball76

Theres something about the SDs that make them the unloved child. I have the SD4k and I'm surprised that they are relatively obtainable considering they were only made for a handful of years.
I was sitting next to someone on a flight who asked me if I was wearing a Sub as they were looking at purchasing one. Once I said it was actually a Sea-dweller they lost complete interest in the conversation.

Have had a similar experience! Separates the men from the boys ;)

[mcnutwaffle]

A couple things that hold it back IMO: the name, which unlike Submariner, can sound a bit strange to non-fans. Also, the lack of cyclops. I like the no-cyclops appearance, but the cyclops is a Rolex icon.

[joshviiv]

I dont know if i agree with you entirely on the no cyclops thing - i agree it is a rolex icon - but we've seen the no date submariner skyrocket in popularity of late.

[Spectre38]

I absolutely love mine and figure that if push came to shove, my 5 digits would be the last to leave my hands. I am actually glad it's kind of off the radar.

[Kniazukay]

Originally Posted by joshviiv

it seems to tick all the boxes that would indicate a collectors dream - perhaps because the reference was produced for such a long time - 20 years?

Congrats on your new piece!! I am also a happy member of the 16600 club, tritium dial... I would say yes it's the long production run but I would also say I kind of disagree with it being forgotten. To my knowledge 16600's have been steadily climbing in value, slowly but surely. Which imo is the best way in the long run meaning the odds of it dropping all of a sudden seem slimmer than if it shot up all of a sudden.
I would say it's grown similarly to the subs of that time like the 14060. The more modern ceramic subs however, now those have shot up fast due to last years redesign I would think. Either way I think you're in good shape for the days ahead.

[Sandpit]

14060, 16610, 16710, 16600 - they're all (in my humble opinion) the last of the greats before there was a giant shift within the brand and I think they will be remembered fondly because of that.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the newer ceramics, far from it - they're just totally different watches in every sense (aside from the movements). However there are characteristics and a certain charm to these older pieces whilst the newer ones personally just leave me feeling a bit cold - despite how good they are. Maybe its the nostalgic side of me.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by joshviiv

Gents and ladies,

Recent purchaser of an SD (16600) circa 1998, i bought it because it ticks a number of boxes for me;

- its not a submariner - i prefer something a little left of centre, something you'd assume is something but upon closer inspection, is something very different
- aluminium bezel
- last of the 40mm with aluminium bezel
- the epitome of rolex tool watches

Now i absolute love it, but i've noticed on the back of the surge in pricing on SS sports watches, the 16600 seems (relatively) forgotten. Im curious on all your thoughts on why that is, and what you see in the future for the humble 16600 :D

Cheers!

The 16600 SD my favourite Rolex watch picture of my own personal working tool SD just over 20 years old now, it was used and many times abused for many years underwater as a real working tool with well over 600 hours underwater. And would expect this real working tool Rolex watch has seen more use that todays mainly pampered watches will see in ten lifetimes.

[strafer_kid]

I have been fortunate to have had a number of 16600s pass through my hands over the years and still have one (P serial 2007) as per the attached photo. It’s a really great watch that appears however to be outshone by its Sub cousin. Possibly the lack of cyclops as someone has mentioned (though that could perhaps be addressed?) or maybe because it does tend to “wear” rather top heavy for some? In any event it remains a superb watch and can still be picked up at fairly competitive prices. Would highly recommend it!”

[jay_kay]

The 16600 was for a long time my favourite reference. I loved my Tritium dialled 90's watch.



Now at the same time I owned my 214270 Explorer I and ultimately the more solid bracelet and overall feel of a modern SS Rolex made me sell it and buy another 116600. Not something I will ever look back on. The SD4K is a marvel. I love it.

[1William]

A nice watch.

[Computantis]

I think much like you mentioned OP it is the perfect tool watch, the Sub’s quirky bodybuilder brother with a different haircut.

It was one of the watches that solidified my interest in tool watches many years ago and I too will try to acquire one for similar reasons one day.

[accountank2000]

They're great watches, my first rolex too.

It has a bit of 'personality' by being top-heavy ; love the lack of cyclops ; the downside compared to references produced in the last decade is the bracelet which is comfortable but doesn't have that on-the-fly adjustability (though you can adjust it if you have a spare cocktail stick).

I traded it up as a part-exchange for a Daytona which I'll be keeping indefinitely - but at some point a 16600 (or 116600) might well come back into the collection.

[Jackie Daytona]

Love my 16600. Definitely one of my favorites as well. Personally I love all the things that separate it from a Sub and give it its own unique personality, not only because they are different, but I genuinely like the features and the fact it’s such a tool watch compared to others in the line. I think it’s one of the best Rolexes made

[SN13]

16600 is better than any other 5 digit dive watch.

The only thing I liked more than the 16600 is the 116600, which is why I own that instead of a sub.

[cascavel]

The height of the case and top heavy behavior make the 16600 less wearable for most people who would choose between the 16600 and the 16610. For collectors, the lack of variations over the 20 year production period makes the 16600 uninteresting.
A lot of 16600s get traded for more desirable Rolexes, as accountank2000 did.
That said, for people who appreciate a real tool watch that was purpose made and is indestructible by most measures, the 16600 is an apex watch, not a silly revival of a failed design. The fact that it's unappreciated by the hoi polloi makes it that much sweeter.

[yalex]

It is an old school, unapologetic tool watch and never intended to be a fashion statement. That makes it very special in today’s world.

[Jmbarrack]

The 16600 is the gem of the 5 digit diving collection. Even though the case is thicker, the watch wears smaller because it’s half a mm smaller in diameter than the Submariner date. The older hollow bracelets also helps with the heft of the watch head.

Couple this with the fact that it’s the only Rolex that came with a toolkit. It’s a winner all the way around.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[101031-28]

Excellent choice, OP! The Sea-Dweller is the first Rolex professional I fell in love with back in 1988. At the time I could not afford it, so after saving money for over a year, my parents 'helped' (pretty much bought LOL) me buy a 5513 in 1989. Sold it in 1994 to buy the 16600. Over the years I have owned many. Sold some to purchase other models but it is the one reference I always come back to. It is rugged without being over the top and to me, the ultimate diver's watch. Glad I still own a few.

[rmwill]

Love my Swiss Only.

[Ssunnylee24]

I felt...
small dial and sat high.

but I was coming from an Explorer, 214270.

[Goodwill63]

Perfect Rolex watch for me. I’ve seen one in the wild other than mine and loved how it looked on that gentleman. He was from Italy visiting nyc and we had a nice conversation about our SD’s. Mine is a Z serial in mint condition. Love how the crystal sits proud compared to sub.

[nigelUK]

Love the 16600. The only watch that springs to mind that I regret letting go of ..

That little bit of extra something. Maybe the tiny extra heft, the thick crystal, the engraved caseback, lack of cyclops ... I don't know and I have no idea why it hasn't become as pricey as some other 5 digits. Haven't looked for a long time but is it still same used price as 14060, 16610 ? ... I would take the 16600 all day long.

[7enderbender]

Finally bought one also. It’s one of only three Rolexes I would ever seriously consider. The others being a 36mm Explorer and a Milgauss.

[sillo]

I think a lot of people just go for the sub since it's the standard. The SD is a little more special to me for that reason and has always been a lower production watch when compared to the sub.