Why I bought the SD. Review.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

As some of you know, I am a flipper! YES, I admit it!

The latest Rolex I have is the Sea-Dweller ("SD") that I have in fact had twice before.

I flipped my SS Sub Date to get it (more about it: http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=22111).

Now you may ask WHY did I flip my SS Sub Date?

Well, I have several reasons for doing so:

1) If you look at the picture below, you can see that the CYCLOPSof the Sub actually blurs BOTH the time AND the date when looking at the watch at an angle. Now, of course you can always twist your wrist, but I have to look at the date numerous times a day due to the nature of my work, and frankly I don't feel like being "forced" to twist my wrist all the time to see tell the date.
Also,the EXACT time is very important when I am doing my work. I cannot tell why because I work in the security business, but TIME is very important in my work.

Here the pic. Here you can see that it is almost 15 minutes past on the Sub, but what if it were 12 or 13 minutes past? Then you would have difficulty in telling what PRECISE time it is
And please tell me what date it is on the Sub on the pic!



2) Which leeds me to the AESTHETICS: IMHO, this blurred minute hand is NOT attractive. Also, the cyclops tends to collect dust! If you wipe the crystal with a cotton cloth, you would need to pay extra attention to the cyclops, since dust would collect there, and also grime
Besides that, the cyclops is NOT made of sapphire crystal but of mineral glass. The cyclops is an "extremity" on the otherwise flat sapphire crystal making it proned to get scratched.

3) Now we come to the POPULARITY of the SS Sub Date. IMHO, it still is THE iconic sport's Rolex but somehow the SS Sub Date has become a cliché (YES, I KNOW I will get kicks for calling it a "cliché!"). You see SS Sub Dates everywhere! But how often do you see an SD on a wrist??
That is another reason why I went for the SD: You don't see it everywhere!

4) The SD has been critised for being "top-heavy", meaning that the heavier case would tend to wabble about and basically be everywhere on you wrist than centered as it should be.
Now, admittedly you would need a 7½ " wrist to have the SD look good on you, but if you just SIZE the bracelet in the right way, the SD is in fact NOT "top-heavy"......on the contrary! I have noted that my SD sits bang on centrered ALL the time, and I sized it up so that I can slip a little finger under the clasp. It is a very comfy watch IMHO.

5) The SD is one of the TRUE tool watches that comes in steel ONLY. Now look at the "popular" Sub Date: Comes in steel, TT, YG, blue dial, black dial, serti, green bezel....well, I don't know, this is just MY opinion, but I think a "real" diver's watch should not come in all these "dressy" varieties.

6) The SD is the ONLY Rolex that has a date function but no cyclops. And that makes it easier to read (unless you have bad eyesight) and also makes for a much CLEANER look of the dial. Besides that, the SD is the ONLY Rolex that comes with an engraving on the case back ("ROLEX OYSTER - ORIGINAL GAS ESCAPE VALVE"). This makes the SD different than all other Rolex models.

7) The thicker case back makes the watch stand higher on the wrist, but has the advantage that it also prevent the crown from digging in your hand neck and also makes body perspiration harder to touch the case side at 9 when means LESS frequent cleanings by washing your Rolex.

8) Yes, you're right! WHO needs a watch that can withstand the pressure that is at 1,220 metres of depth?? Probably only professional divers. But what I like about the SD is the thought that it CAN withstand that pressure! It is "over-engineered", but still remains a very handsome, classical and different Rolex model. Peerless IMHO!

[worktolivelife]

From 4 onwards Bo, I'm with you all the way!!!!!!!!!! my favourite Rolex tool watch [ love daytonas but Imho don't see them as a true tool ]
sitting on the fence wether to get another just that thought in the back of my mind i just may like the upgrades if and when more and can't get my head round buying the same watch again! for more, this time round!

steve
[like the polished sides on the bracelet too on the SD]

[leopardprey]

If they would only make the SD with the larger hands with better lum. That is the down fall. The minute hand, which you need for timing fades out too quick, and could be a little thicker for visibility with a quick glance. If in the future they come out with a SD with a Thicker minute hand like on the SUB LV or New GMTs will re-buy one. Had a SD for about a month and flipped it. One think, due to the size, thought the SD fit great and looked great on a Leather Strap. Now of course if you have a Sub, you can always have the cyclops taken off if you like. For me actually like the Cyclops as easier to see the date, esp. on the new non-refelctive GMTs.

Will agree with SD, along with the Explorer series, are the proven "Tool" watches of the Rolex lineup. Last of a breed.

But we are all waiting for you to flip your SD and go back to a Sub again!! Since you seem to go back and forth between the two!!! (Maybe you should just buy both!! or get a GMT II)

Good Review!!!!!

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Thanks, Chad

BTW: Some say the SD looks SMALLER on the wrist than the Sub Date due to a smaller dial diametre of the SD (1 mm smaller) and the cyclops adds to a trick-of-eye increase of diametre.

Well, I don't know!

Compare the pics of my flipped SS Sub Date and my current SD wrist shots:




It doesn't look small to me.

[leopardprey]

When I had the SD, it definately lloked smaller. This was due to the Crystal being smaller and also the thicker case give the illusion. Size wise, I think it looks the best. Looks more like a 39mm watch than a 40mm watch. BO, try out the SD on a leather strap. You will be really suprised how well it looks and how comfortable it is. Personally, I got a much better fit with the SD on a Leather Strap.

[roadcarver]

I've had the privilege to try both at a coffee shop when I was meeting t buyer for my DateJust.

The Sub does look bigger (face), compared to the SD. However both still are easy to read the dials.

I have a 7.25" wrist and it fits well on my wrist, not that top heavy in my experience.

[Solar]

The SD has a slightly smaller dial. Nick Hako had posted some months ago that the actual measured diameter of the SD is smaller than the Sub by a millimeter or so if I recall......

I find that when I put my SD and my GMT II 16710 side by side, the GMT has a larger "face". This is due to the slightly larger diameter and relative positioning of the white gold surrounds. The Sub also has a larger face than the SD.

My SD is heavy, I beleive the heaviest of the Rolex line at 147 g, my GMT is 127 g, a whopping 20g difference which in a piece of wrist jewellery is immense. I do notice the added weight of the SD, but when I was choosing between the SD and the Sub, I liked the idea that the SD has the thicker bracelet links, the thicker crystal and case, the overall straight-out beefiness that makes it the deep sea king of the Rolex family.

I suppose the fact that the SD is a bit more rare appealed to me; as a friend said to me upon seeing my new SD, you see Subs often but rarely if ever do you see a SD.

As an interesting aside, a friend of mine was working a recent Scorpions concert in Eastern Ontario, and he was in a position to see the lead singer's watch, which he said was a SD. I asked if there was a cyclops, and he said nope, it was the SD. Go figure. Heavy Mettul prefers the SD!

Best of luck with your SD Bo!

Chris

[nimm12]

ah.... the good old Sea-Dweller 4000... first released to the world in 1971... the only reference in the entire Rolex Collection that can endure a mind-boggling pressure of 120atm. i cannot think of another watch that matches its classic timeless look and functional utility. i belong to the group that dont really like the look of a Cyclop on the Crystal. so all the more i love the look of the Sea-Dweller. the added thickness of the Sea-Dweller gives me a feel that i am paying good $ for good quality. everytime i put on my Sea-Dweller , i know i am wearing not only a Rolex , i am wearing a mini-museum telling the history of Man's Conquer of the Ocean

[watchfreak2003]

Hmm… the cyclops is not made of sapphire crystal on a contemporary Rolex??
Strange I’ve never made a single scratch on mine! (Several Subs and YM).

Can someone confirm this mineral glass theory?

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by watchfreak2003

Hmm… the cyclops is not made of sapphire crystal on a contemporary Rolex??
Strange I’ve never made a single scratch on mine! (Several Subs and YM).

Can someone confirm this mineral glass theory?

Just called my AD and he could not confirm that it is made of sapphire but also not that it is made of mineral glas.

However, I have had 10 Sub Dates and have scratched the cyclops on one of them. I brought it back the my other AD in Aarhus who told me that the cyclops is made of mineral glass.

[Seadweller]

Thanks for the great reveiw. I agree, I went for the SD for three main reasons.
1. No cyclops, never liked them.
2. The writing on the back.
3. I have never seen another SD on anyones wrist since I bought mine 3 years ago.
I have seen loads of Subs, mostly fakes but a few real ones.
I love being exclusive.

[2wheelseadweller]

I had the sea dweller but couldn't see the dang date so it made more sense to get the sub with the cyclops so I could actually use the date function. You are right about the minute hand being blurred around the 15th of the hour though.

[Bama]

Bo,
I am shocked that you got rid of your Sub, but you put a lot of effort into that review and I enjoyed reading it and understand the points you were trying make. It gave me something else to think about. You are right about not seeing a SD very often. I saw a guy wearing a SD the other day at Quiznos (local sandwich shop) and was quite surprised to see it. I see the Sub much more frequently and this was the first time I had seen someone wearing the SD in person. The thickness of it made it look much more substantial in person. How does it feel wearing it daily compared to the Sub? Do you anticipate any changes to the basic design of the SD or expect it to pretty much remain the same? If you're happy then I'm happy. I hope you enjoy it and it serves you well.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by Bama

Bo,
I am shocked that you got rid of your Sub, but you put a lot of effort into that review and I enjoyed reading it and understand the points you were trying make. It gave me something else to think about. You are right about not seeing a SD very often. I saw a guy wearing a SD the other day at Quiznos (local sandwich shop) and was quite surprised to see it. I see the Sub much more frequently and this was the first time I had seen someone wearing the SD in person. The thickness of it made it look much more substantial in person. How does it feel wearing it daily compared to the Sub? Do you anticipate any changes to the basic design of the SD or expect it to pretty much remain the same? If you're happy then I'm happy. I hope you enjoy it and it serves you well.

Hi,

it's funny, but my SD stay MUCH better put on my wrist than the Sub Date did. It is a PERFECT fit, very comfy, and I even sometimes am in doubt if I have the SD on or not
I am very glad to have the SD back on my wrist again and wouldn't go for a Sub Date again. Been there, done that, AND bought the T-shirt

About changing the SD: Beats me! No one knows but Rolex what will happen, but my GUESS is that Rolex will NOT change it all all. Maybe it will get the "ROLEXROLEX" chapter ring branding, but that is all it will get IMHO.



BTW: another thing I like about the SD is the THICK crystal (4 mm thick so I was told!) that stands a bit heigh on the case. Gives it that "old-fashioned" look that I really like. The crystal does not stand out as much as the Sub 1680 but STILL stands out MORE than other other Rolex watch.

[watchfreak2003]

Originally Posted by Spacedweller

Just called my AD and he could not confirm that it is made of sapphire but also not that it is made of mineral glas.

However, I have had 10 Sub Dates and have scratched the cyclops on one of them. I brought it back the my other AD in Aarhus who told me that the cyclops is made of mineral glass.

Maybe Jocke knows?
I’m 99,7% sure it’s sapphire!

[SPACE-DWELLER]

I found a nice test of the SD:

SEA-DWELLER TEST! CLICK!

[SSD]

Bo,

In case I haven't yet offered congradulations on your SD, here they are! I'll stay with my Sub, but you have to have the watch that makes you feel the best, both in appearance and while sitting on your wrist. I really enjoyed the review and photos, BTW.

My wife's doctor has each, and they look very similar until they are near one another. Then the differences really stand out! No wonder the SD has such a high depth rating. I like the thicker bezel, too. Goes well with the taller crystal.

Many years of good health wih the new SD! Do you ever see yourself having both at the same time?

[Downing]

Great review of a great watch!

I too am not a cyclops fan, but I have to acknowledge they do make the date easier to read and that's becoming more of an issue for me as I get older. In any case, it would be fine with me if the SD didn't even have a date function but it's not a big deal either way.

I think I remember reading in one of my Rolex books that the cyclops are made of the same synthetic sapphire as the crystal.

As far as the SD's popularity in comparison to Subs, there may not be as many of them out in the wild but there sure are a lot of SD owners on the Forum. I'm not sure what that says about the SD or us.

I've gotten so used to the weight and bulk of my SD that now all other watches feel light and look small in much the same way I considered other dogs when I had a Great Dane.

I'm thinking of adding an extra link to my bracelet for more flexibility with the fit. I'm maxed out now and sometimes it still feels a little tight. I guess I must have big wrists since so many others have found the SD bracelet to be too big.

IMHO, the SD is a very handsome tool watch that looks good in every social setting.

[Blue Bull]

Its got height,its got weight,its got date without cyclops,the crown does not dig into the skin,its unique .... and mine will only be gone when the black ss Daytona arrives

[watchfreak2003]

Originally Posted by Downing

I think I remember reading in one of my Rolex books that the cyclops are made of the same synthetic sapphire as the crystal.

Yep – just made a “investigation” myself

Cyclops on 16610 etc. = SAPPHIRE.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by watchfreak2003

Yep – just made a “investigation” myself

Cyclops on 16610 etc. = SAPPHIRE.

Okay, I stand corrected then

Another AD then that tells you

Where did you find that piece of information?

[watchfreak2003]

Originally Posted by Spacedweller

Okay, I stand corrected then

Another AD then that tells you

Where did you find that piece of information?

TZ

[Letsgodiving]

Great job Bo. Almost makes me want to do a lateral flip just to get another. But that would be

[Green Arrow]

For "tool" watches, I have a Sunto and a Ball "Mad Cow" I look to my Rolex more as a "sports watch" which is probably why I go with TT (would go with gold if it wasn't so darned expensive).

But I have to admit that in a stainless, clean faced, easy to read, heavy feeling watch, the SD is a great choice. Congratulations. Wear it in good health.

If they make one around 43 mm with a maxi-dial, I will buy one (but not to replace my GMT which is staying unless I can afford solid gold someday)

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by watchfreak2003

TZ

ANOTHER watch forum as "proof"!

I LIKE that!

[JJ Irani]

Good stuff, Bo!!

[watchfreak2003]

Originally Posted by Spacedweller

ANOTHER watch forum as "proof"!

I LIKE that!

A bit touchy today Bo!

THE CYCLOPS ON 16610 etc. = SAPPHIRE.
Call AD Klarlund and ask Flemming or Ole – they know. Or try Jocke.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by watchfreak2003

A bit touchy today Bo!

THE CYCLOPS ON 16610 etc. = SAPPHIRE.
Call AD Klarlund and ask Flemming or Ole – they know. Or try Jocke.

Not touchy at all

The AD I called yesterday was in fact Klarlund and they stated (as I also state above) that they could not confirm that the cyclops is made of sapphire crystal, but they could also not confirm that it is made of mineral glass.

Besides that, WHY should the TZ people know better than we good people here on TRF?

You are probably right, but you should not set TZ as the God-Almighty authority

And if this is a pissing contest, by all means let's say you pissed the longest way and say the cyclops is made of sapphire crystal!