Anyone here regret SDC4000 purchase?

[bjavor]

I've got my first Rolex today, a BLNR. It's gorgeaus :) However I spent ages debating between that and the SubC. And in fact I have resolved to eventuelly get the SubC as well. Unless I somehow change my mind for the SD4K...

The thing is, I _really_ like the fact that the SubC has no date. I don't remember if I ever wanted to check the date on any watch and just love the simple, clean and symetric design of the SubC. But reading a lot of discussions like this one, I'm not getting unsure. A great many people seem to be very attracted to the SD... What's your take on the date breaking the symetry?

Also a date without a cyclops feels like a compromise to me. I love that the lack of cyclops makes the face cleaner, but then there's the date "ruining" things... :) It also seems to me that Rolex themselves might have thought that the date is not an important feature on this watch and that's why they did not inlcude the cyclops. But then why leave the date at all? Or, am I overanalysing/overreacting and the date is something one get's used to?

And on a secondary note: Unfortunately the shop I went to did not have an SD so I could not compare it to the Sub, but everybody seems to be hating on its lugs... Why? They did not look big to me at all in the shop. Also on every picture I've seen so far comparing the two watches the difference seemed at best negligable... Now, I'm coming from a 44mm Omega Dark Side of the Moon (love that too, btw) and the Rolex actually seems almost tiny in comparison to it. (While the Omega never felt too big on my wrist) Maybe that's why the Sub did not seem to bother me?

[MahdiyaDad]

I like that mine has a date without the Cyclops. When I glance at the time I read it just fine and the date window doesn't really ruin the symmetry, is it a compromise? Only if your eyesight needed the magnification to begin with. Otherwise, I'll take my chances on reading the date without.

I love the No date subs, except for the latest one. The lugs are the deal breaker, and all of the newer pieces with that same maxi case have put me off.

I came from 47mm and 44mm watches, and I have small wrists, so the SDc suits me fine in terms of diameter. The thickness some would say takes getting used to, and the ceramic NDC is flatter, but I felt even with the thickness the proportions are better.

You might want to wait until you can compare side by side both the watches. Photos seem negligible, but the devil is in the details, there's a reason why so many love their SDc and I think try it out for yourself to see if you fall into that category.

[MahdiyaDad]

sorry my post above was in reply to the post before that

Originally Posted by bjavor

I've got my first Rolex today, a BLNR. It's gorgeaus :) However I spent ages debating between that and the SubC. And in fact I have resolved to eventuelly get the SubC as well. Unless I somehow change my mind for the SD4K...

The thing is, I _really_ like the fact that the SubC has no date. I don't remember if I ever wanted to check the date on any watch and just love the simple, clean and symetric design of the SubC. But reading a lot of discussions like this one, I'm not getting unsure. A great many people seem to be very attracted to the SD... What's your take on the date breaking the symetry?

Also a date without a cyclops feels like a compromise to me. I love that the lack of cyclops makes the face cleaner, but then there's the date "ruining" things... :) It also seems to me that Rolex themselves might have thought that the date is not an important feature on this watch and that's why they did not inlcude the cyclops. But then why leave the date at all? Or, am I overanalysing/overreacting and the date is something one get's used to?

And on a secondary note: Unfortunately the shop I went to did not have an SD so I could not compare it to the Sub, but everybody seems to be hating on its lugs... Why? They did not look big to me at all in the shop. Also on every picture I've seen so far comparing the two watches the difference seemed at best negligable... Now, I'm coming from a 44mm Omega Dark Side of the Moon (love that too, btw) and the Rolex actually seems almost tiny in comparison to it. (While the Omega never felt too big on my wrist) Maybe that's why the Sub did not seem to bother me?

[belligero]

Originally Posted by bjavor

I've got my first Rolex today, a BLNR. It's gorgeaus :) However I spent ages debating between that and the SubC. And in fact I have resolved to eventuelly get the SubC as well. Unless I somehow change my mind for the SD4K...

The thing is, I _really_ like the fact that the SubC has no date. I don't remember if I ever wanted to check the date on any watch and just love the simple, clean and symetric design of the SubC. But reading a lot of discussions like this one, I'm not getting unsure. A great many people seem to be very attracted to the SD... What's your take on the date breaking the symetry?

Also a date without a cyclops feels like a compromise to me. I love that the lack of cyclops makes the face cleaner, but then there's the date "ruining" things... :) It also seems to me that Rolex themselves might have thought that the date is not an important feature on this watch and that's why they did not inlcude the cyclops. But then why leave the date at all? Or, am I overanalysing/overreacting and the date is something one get's used to?

And on a secondary note: Unfortunately the shop I went to did not have an SD so I could not compare it to the Sub, but everybody seems to be hating on its lugs... Why? They did not look big to me at all in the shop. Also on every picture I've seen so far comparing the two watches the difference seemed at best negligable... Now, I'm coming from a 44mm Omega Dark Side of the Moon (love that too, btw) and the Rolex actually seems almost tiny in comparison to it. (While the Omega never felt too big on my wrist) Maybe that's why the Sub did not seem to bother me?

I like your reasoning.

As much as I like some aspects of the Sea-Dweller, I think the Submariner is the better watch for anyone who's not doing saturation dives below 300 m on heliox. It's slimmer, wears better, and the lugs — though I'd prefer they were more like the Sea-Dweller's — are still just fine.

As much as I love the plexi-esque raised crystal's profile, the somewhat awkward date display with its amputated Cyclops is the probably main reason I'm just not warming up to the watch as much as I'd hoped. If you're already having doubts about it, then there is no doubt.

The Submariner design just works better on the wrist.

[Gasoil4ever]

Originally Posted by J!m

Honestly the only modern Rolex that interests me at all, except maybe a DJ-II.

This.

[Malbolge]

If the thickness doesnt put you off, the shorter lugs and you really need the date, I cant imagine what would be a reason not to get it. I dont like the tiny date window and most of all how fat it is compared to the sub. I wear my watch with everything - suit, tshirts, etc. So on that angle, SD was not for me, but I find it nice alternative. In reality its not much different, just chunkier and less common. the last bit is huge advantage imho.

[joejoe1225]

SDC - 4000 is one of the Best!!!

[Lordofrolex]

I think the DSSD is an amazing watch. Just a little big for an everyday watch. The sub is a classic and you can wear it everyday. No problem.

[busytimmy]

Double post

[busytimmy]

Enjoying mine more and more. My GMT C is a better daily watch since I wear business attire, however the SDc is proving very useful on weekends, particularly now in the warmer weather where I am choosing to wear it over my BLNR with short sleeves (less flashy and overall a more precise fit).




Comparing the SD4k to the SubC is easy: I prefer the more classic on wrist look of the Sea-Dweller. The shorter lugs contribute here and the case back bubble sort of makes the watch fit better on my wrist (compared to the flatter SubC).

[whysleep]

I love how the deep sea and the sea dweller look... It gets better with age. I dont regret it.

[sheldonsmith]

Gawd no.... Had a DSSD but flipped for a SD4000. I would have purchased the SD4000 initially if it were released when I purchased the DSSD.

No regrets at all.

Sheldon




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[B737]

I loved the idea of a new version of the iconic SD. I never got it to sit comfortable on my wrist though... I ended up trading it for a BLNR and its instant love...

[Pmt2]

The SD has a special feel to it. It's a solid and classy piece. It feels like everybody has a sub these days. The SD is more exclusive in my honest opinion.

[xlarge]

I have had mine for more than two years now and every single morning I can't wait to put it on. No regrets whatsoever.

[Foxglove]

Not for one second. I love the SDc4K and do not see myself ever flipping it. It's consistently on my wrist and is very comfortable. And glidelock = amazing.

[watchwatcher]

Head to head, I've always preferred the sub.

But, having said that...I bought a DSSD this year and have just loved it. Really bought it for the D-Blue dial, but, the tick marks going all the way around the bezel, the no cyclops date window...these things have really grown on me.

I guess, bottom line, I would say if you like the SD better, than by all means, do the flip. I think best case scenario would be to own both, but, if that's not an option, then a man's got to do what a man's got to do...

[porschedude]

I don't think you could go wrong with either choice, I could see owning both of them in the same collection but I couldn't let my sub go for one.

[RogerF]

I just ordered one yesterday. I have had a love affair with my 16600 since 2003. Recently I've contemplated selling the 5 digit for a new Ceramic model. In the end I said, heck you only live once and my stupid friend kept showing me his new 116600 and I broke down and ordered one. The watch's subtle differences over the Sub C date makes it something special.

Right now I'm actually thinking of paying for it and taking delivery in Feb and having this 4000 ft diver as a gift to myself for my 40th.

[cht]

I regretted my purchase since it had the new gloss dial....couldn't get over it, liked the old satin one better so sold it.

[Trailblazer]

Love my SD4

[orynni]

Still contemplating flipping my sub for a SDC. Just wanted to know if anyone had any negative feedback on the watch. Most on the forum give very positive reviews which is great, but wanted to hear from the other side. Thanks in advance.

[masyv6]

Both are good. Just try them on side-by-side. They are similar but slightly different pieces. Decide which one appeals to you

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by RogerF

Right now I'm actually thinking of paying for it and taking delivery in Feb and having this 4000 ft diver as a gift to myself for my 40th.

Good idea!

But...... Can you hold for 4-5 months?

[drgoro]

I never got along with it, I got rid of it pretty quickly. It was like a chick that ticked all the right boxes, but still had something you couldn't quite put a finger on that made it a no go.

[Bond77]

Rolex should just make the date window the same size and shape as the opposite rectangular marker, and center the date numbers. Date function + symmetry = WIN

[WAK4]

Nope, no regrets. Grabbed it as soon as it landed at my AD and have not looked back.

It's my "not going anywhere, if you see it listed for sale I am in financial trouble" watch.

[TK-710]

The OP asked this question a year ago. I wonder what the decision was.

[TK-710]

Originally Posted by cht

I regretted my purchase since it had the new gloss dial....couldn't get over it, liked the old satin one better so sold it.

[41sub]

Originally Posted by JES77

The OP asked this question a year ago. I wonder what the decision was.

I did flip my black subc date for the SDC and it was a great decision. I love everything about the watch especially the more tapered lugs. I do own a 116610LV, so it is a nice change of pace from that watch. No regrets at all.