Sub or Sea Dweller

[daveenty]

I know it's been asked before in many places, but I can't remember seeing it here, and I respect the opinions here more than elsewhere...

I've been looking at 16600 Sea Dwellers for a while now, but still can't decide between one of these or a 14060 Sub.

The date is not overly important, hence the choice of Sub. I think the Sub looks better without personally, though this is my opinion so the date one is out here.
I've even considered the earlier 5513, though the plastic crystal tends to put me off. No idea why as I have a few watches with them, just don't fancy a Rolex with one for some reason.

As for the SD, it seems to tick all the boxes, and I'm particularly keen on the non-cyclops date feature. I appreciate that the price is higher due to the levels of workmanship on the case etc. for the added water resistance, not that this will bother me too much as I don't even go out in the rain, let alone swim.

So, I *need* a Rolex diver (to go with the others that never get wet) and have narrowed it down to these two. Investment factor is not being considered here, as I have a knack of losing money on everything I acquire.

All thoughts welcomed, even for stuff and reasons I've not considered.

[bry1975]

Don't forget Sean Connery aka 007 wore a no date sub-

http://jamesbond.ajb007.co.uk/rolex-submariner/

Edited by bry1975 on Thursday 10th May 11:31

[huytonman]

Ive owned (and still do) both - the sub is easier to wear due to its thinner case and its slightly ligher in weight, the SD is more "toolish" in my mind and the dial is smaller diameter so on paper can appear smaller - in the real world it wears bigger than the dimensions imply. Both as as reliable as each other and both are easy to have serviced and repaired. So what do I prefer? the SD by a long way, its rarer and just as more of an aura about it (James Bond or not)...A good SD will set you back quite a bit more than a none date sub but will hold its value well. If you can buy either with the full works i.e. papers, box etc...it makes a big difference if you decide to sell on later, unless you go vintage when many come without papers such as my own great white from 1977 (which has a plexi glass but is lovely). BTW the ceramic sub is a decent piece of kit and looks higher qiality than the older generations of sub but some people hate the look...
Whatever you decide though, it will be a good choice. If you need some pointers on where to look for decent watches just let me know.
Keith
btw - you cant go to a 1000 metres in your submarine with the sub..you can with the SD..I know how important that is to you!

[Riff Raff]

huytonman said:

Ive owned (and still do) both - the sub is easier to wear due to its thinner case and its slightly ligher in weight, the SD is more "toolish" in my mind and the dial is smaller diameter so on paper can appear smaller.............

I too have both a 16600 and a 16610. The case is pretty much identical, but the case back on the SD is shaped like a deep dish so it sits higher off the wrist, which is probably what Huytonman was getting at. I don't find that a problem, personally. In fact it has an advantage in that it keeps the crown a bit further off the skin and therefore it doesn't dig in when you bend your wrist. It does mean that the watch can flop around a bit though unless the bracelet is on the tight side. I have a case back protector on mine though, which stops it moving around.

The face is smaller on the SD by a mm or so (from memory),compared with the Sub but you wouldn't really notice it unless you had the two side by side.

If you ask me which one I prefer, it's hard to call. I'd have to say that they both get less wrist time than my GMT

[huytonman]

Riff Raff said:

I too have both a 16600 and a 16610. The case is pretty much identical, but the case back on the SD is shaped like a deep dish so it sits higher off the wrist, which is probably what Huytonman was getting at. I don't find that a problem, personally. In fact it has an advantage in that it keeps the crown a bit further off the skin and therefore it doesn't dig in when you bend your wrist. It does mean that the watch can flop around a bit though unless the bracelet is on the tight side. I have a case back protector on mine though, which stops it moving around.

The face is smaller on the SD by a mm or so (from memory),compared with the Sub but you wouldn't really notice it unless you had the two side by side.

If you ask me which one I prefer, it's hard to call. I'd have to say that they both get less wrist time than my GMT

And this just goes to prove its down to personal taste - I bought a GMT last year after admiring one on a mate BUT..flogged it six months later because I preferred wearing my SD! Another stonking sports Rolex though..
Cheers Keith

[Buster73]

I wear a sub non date and bought my son a sd for his 21st.

I cannot help think that I should have bought the sd for myself , but then I think that because my sub was my object of desire for so long that the sub was the best choice.

Funnily enough I've never really liked the sub date.

All personal choice in the end.

[daveenty]

Thanks for the responses guys, it really seems like it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

The size of the SD is not really an issue as I've already got a huge 2225.80 Seamaster so used to walking with a list to port.
As for the GMT mentioned by Riff Raff, I also have an Explorer II so that function is taken care of.

I may have a wander round a couple of ADs in the morning or at weekend to try to compare a few different ones, but at the moment I'm leaning towards the SD.

Oh, the Bond thing means nothing to me really Bry, even though Sean Connery was my favourite actor in the role (I'm that sort of age) I didn't pay much attention to his watch at the time. Incidentally, referring to your link, apparently Fleming wrote the novels without mentioning the model though the Sub hadn't been released at the time of the earlier books but the Explorer had.