New Seadweller 4000 a flop?

[mike]

I would not say a flop, but as reported in a recent test the price makes the Sub a better buy for the general public that is after the look.

Again, there is a difference between the general public and some that haunt watch forums.

[Mick P]

Originally Posted by Scholar

How is the SubC's bezel less blingy than the SD's? They both have the shiny ceramic and platinum letters.

The fully graduated bezel is actually a step in a toolish direction (such as you might see on an Omega PloProf or Seiko Tuna), although the fact that it was accompanied by ceramic and such kind of cancels that out.

I agree with you about the 5 digit references; I would simply say that the SubC is one of the worst offenders among the 6 digit ones.

Hi

I did not compare the Sub with the SD for bling, I just mentioned price.

I did, however, compare the ceramic SD and pre ceramic one for bling and the ceramic version is considerably more blingy.

Overall I prefer pre ceramic for nearly everything, so I may well be in a minority.

Regards

Mick

[Daytonaman799]

Idont think its a flop at all. Filling the same niche as the old Dweller. The old SD wasn't the biggest sport seller either. That went to the Sub and GMT. Cult status went to the Daytona and the SD was the tool watch for those who needed it like the divers at COMEX.

[Token74]

There is still a waiting list at my AD so not a flop as far as they're concerned!

The Sub will always be more popular because (a) it is arguably more iconic and (b) because it is the entry level Rolex dive watch.

I didn't have an issue with the price of the SD and I find it remarkable that people still think it is over-priced, especially when I never hear anyone complaining about the premium people pay for the LV over the standard Sub, which is just a colour change!

I bought the SD the day it came out because I far prefer the look of it to the Sub, I have never seen another in the wild, and I like the link to Comex.

Ever since it was released, there has been some negativity toward the SD from some Sub owners and I've never understood why. The same people who say how much they like the Milsub, have bashed the SD saying that the bezel looks too cluttered.

If people prefer the Sub, fair enough, everyone has different taste and the watches are surely different enough for everyone to have a preference. From my perspective, the less people that like the SD the better, it will remain rare (relative to the Sub) and a good talking point.

[andy66db]

Most ADs I pass by in London have a SD4K in the window; very rarely do you see a Black Sub Date and you never see a BLNR or a Steel Daytona. So one could surmise that the SDs aren't selling as well. Having said that, they don't stay in the window for long.

I have yet to see one in the wild (except mine of course).

[Racerdj]

Excellent picture!

Originally Posted by DCheeta

In addition to what Lee said, I will add that for me, personally, I love the slimmed down lugs (compared to the SubC), I like having the date with no cyclops, and I like the bezel markings reminiscent of the MilSub.

Or, more simply stated, because it looks like this:

[AK797]

Doubt it's a flop, I'm sure sales are in line with what Rolex was expecting, it's not a subc or BLNR, it's more an inbetweener.

[travisb]

Far from a flop. As Neil said, the Sub or GMT will always be more popular but there are MANY happy SD4k owners around here and I'm sure Rolex did not expect SD sales to be on par with the other models mentioned.

[Wllnv19]

Originally Posted by mike

I would not say a flop, but as reported in a recent test the price makes the Sub a better buy for the general public that is after the look.

Again, there is a difference between the general public and some that haunt watch forums.

Have to agree...

[GermanyMatt]

It's not a flop, but looks to be a slow seller as I constantly see it and the Explorer II in just about every major Euro airport I've been through in the past 3-4 months. Stainless Subs, GMTs, Daytonas, and DSSDs are very hard to find. I like the SD4K personally, but feel it is overpriced, and somewhat oddly positioned in the Rolex line-up. I really like the design though. It's a looker for sure.

[hchj]

The SD4k is used to fill a niche where ppl understand and appreciate the difference between a SD and a sub. Those ppl are not many, most of them are here probably.

[AbsolutelyROLEX!]

Ah I see guys, it is a very good looking watch I have to agree
I guess it is kind of an in between model.
I just base this on the slow sales of them and the drastic price drop that happened literally weeks after its inception
Thanks for everyones input btw, maybe this thread will stir up sales for it LOL!

[Jim Smyth]

Best looking one of the bunch IMO and will be my next purchase.

[Karbo]

Originally Posted by travisb

Far from a flop. As Neil said, the Sub or GMT will always be more popular but there are MANY happy SD4k owners around here and I'm sure Rolex did not expect SD sales to be on par with the other models mentioned.

this

[tcpx]

I was a little surprised with the pre owned pricing of the SD4000..

The MSRP of the SD4K is higher than the BLNR, yet the BLNR is slightly edging the SD4K in the prices that it is being sold

[simongpaez]

Originally Posted by whysleep

I recently bought the sd4000, I believe it to be the most attractive dive watch Rolex makes. But for normal folks who just wants a Rolex dive watch won't be able to tell the difference between a regular sub.

+1, I love mine, I think it is perfect

[watchwatcher]

I would def say not a "flop"; maybe a "niche".

[rmurphy]

Originally Posted by liuk3

Well, right or wrong, I consider the DSSD and the SD4K variants of the Sub, likely because they are all "diver" watches in the Rolex lineup. The Sub to me is the grand-daddy pre-cursor of them. Dunno what's odd about that.



I just like hearing people's thought processes in choosing one model over another if it is able to be articulated. It's all subjective and personal.

This pretty much sums up how I feel. I love my Sub .... And as I always say : Lug holes for this guy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trailblazer]

SD has always been my poison. Love my Pre-ceramic and ceramic SDs

[kilyung]

I like flops then.

[KBM]

Well, for me it was the solution

[liuk3]

Originally Posted by Yorky

I chose the SD4K over the Sub because I prefer to have a date but do not like the cyclops or the shape of the current Sub. I also like the fact that you see less of them around - and if that correlates with them being a sales flop (if indeed that's true), then great!

That's kind of how I felt about my DSSD. I just didn't want a watch that everyone I knew had.

[Watchgeek5000]

I love the sea dweller most of all the Rolex sport models, but I have to admit years ago when I started getting into Rolex if I saw someone wearing a Sea dweller or ANYTHING else besides a Sub, my immediate impression was they went to buy a Sub but the dealer only had the other ones. Now a sea dweller would be my first choice!

[godowning]

I like options and variety (albeit with an affinity for Rolex dive watches) which is why I own all three, the Sub C, SD4k and DSSD.

[swils8610]

It's more of a niche watch. Not a flop at all. I bought mine become of the lugs. I don't like the lugs on the maxi case Sub. Many non WIS buy a Sub because it's a Sub. Many non WIS have no ideas what a Sea Dweller is. I personally also like the thicker case it has. Not a flop in my eyes.

[beer]

Originally Posted by Trailblazer

And the point of this thread is?

at a guess, to discuss what the title and OP refers to

if you were looking for day date pics or to discuss bracelet comparisons you're in the wrong thread

[DCheeta]

Originally Posted by liuk3

Well, right or wrong, I consider the DSSD and the SD4K variants of the Sub, likely because they are all "diver" watches in the Rolex lineup. The Sub to me is the grand-daddy pre-cursor of them. Dunno what's odd about that.

I just like hearing people's thought processes in choosing one model over another if it is able to be articulated. It's all subjective and personal.

I agree. I consider the SD and the DSSD to be specialized variants of the Submariner. After all, the original SD did say Submariner on the dial.

I think most Rolex owners have only one, and if a person is to have only one Rolex it is far more likely to be a Sub. Hell, I had two Subs in my collection before I added a SD. As many have pointed out, it's more of a niche watch.

And I love your question. It's exactly these kinds of discussions that make TRF interesting. Why do people choose one model over another, especially when they seem similar on the surface and there is such a price disparity? Definitely worth talking about.

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by DCheeta

In addition to what Lee said, I will add that for me, personally, I love the slimmed down lugs (compared to the SubC), I like having the date with no cyclops, and I like the bezel markings reminiscent of the MilSub.

Or, more simply stated, because it looks like this:

Very nice. Very nice indeed

[beer]

yep no cyclops mag problems on this watch

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by swils8610

It's more of a niche watch. Not a flop at all. I bought mine become of the lugs. I don't like the lugs on the maxi case Sub. Many non WIS buy a Sub because it's a Sub. Many non WIS have no ideas what a Sea Dweller is. I personally also like the thicker case it has. Not a flop in my eyes.

Yeah, that's kind of the odd thing about the SD4000, which is probably the only current Rolex sports watch that I'd consider buying. It's supposedly slotted in-between the Sub and DSSD, but, in some ways, it wears smaller than the Sub, because of the Sub's case shape.

Even though I personally wouldn't like it, it may have made more sense for Rolex, from a sales perspective, to make the SD4000 42mm...although I certainly would have complained about it.