Submariner or Sea Dweller

[MrPaulo]

I have a Submariner Black Ceramic but fancy a green one as well. I was about to order one but got distracted by the Sea Dweller.

How different would a Sea Dweller be over a Submariner? Do they feel different in weight for example?

I really like the look of the green but I am having second thoughts.

[KungFuPanda]

Do you mean the new Sea Dweller 4000 which has just been released with the ceramic bezel of the Deep Sea Sea Dweller which is the £8050 44mm monster?

I've had both 16610 and 116610 Subs in black and LV form. Never had a Sea Dweller but had a Deep Sea and absolutely loved it. Although it's big, it feels so well engineered and it's all in proportion. I've spoken to a friend about a regular Sea Dweller and he thinks they don't wear too comfortably as the thickness of the case makes them quite unbalanced and not too comfortable. Each to their own though.

If you're a member on TZ, keep an eye out for bargains on the Sales Corner. A couple of DSSD have recently been sold for a tad under £5k and there are a couple of nice pre ceramic Sea Dwellers on there at the moment...

[pikeyboy]

I bought a sea dweller as I liked the look of the non cyclops but wanted a date which ruled out a sub.

[Arun_D]

MrPaulo said:

I have a Submariner Black Ceramic but fancy a green one as well. I was about to order one but got distracted by the Sea Dweller.

How different would a Sea Dweller be over a Submariner? Do they feel different in weight for example?

I really like the look of the green but I am having second thoughts.

I've done exactly what you're contemplating (assuming you mean Sea Dweller 4000). There may be a slight difference in weight but honestly it's not noticeable. Even the extra case thickness looks quite subtle to me once its on the wrist.

I'm not totally sold on the extra minute markers that go round the bezel on the Sea Dweller, and think i prefer the cleaner bezel of the Submariner, but what I do love is the lack of a cyclops. Also the slightly higher glass seems to give the impression that the dial is smaller in diameter, but that might just be me.

So really, going from a current Submariner to a SD4000 isn't a large jump at all. Completely different story if you mean the Deepsea.

Edited by Arun_D on Friday 10th October 08:28

[bobbybee]

Arun_D said:

Also the slightly higher glass seems to give the impression that the dial is smaller in diameter, but that might just be me.

Edited by Arun_D on Friday 10th October 08:28

The dial is smaller, had the chance to try one on and compare side by side with my Submariner. Although I did like the 4000, due to the smaller dial, it did look like the Sub's little brother looking head on.
Weight and comfort, for me, was just or take the same, and the build quality was pretty good

[hilly10]

I ruled out the Sea Dweller simply because it weighs more its bigger and thicker then the Sub.

[rat840771]

I ruled out the Sub as it was too small ( after coming from a Omega seamaster chrono)

So I went for the original seadweller - love it

[waterjoke]

Sea Dweller definitely!

[dom9]

waterjoke said:

Sea Dweller definitely!

+1

As a former owner of a 14060 ND Sub and current owner of a Date Sub and 16600 SD...

My favourite watch at the moment is the SD4000, having tried on all the 'new' range of ceramics. It's a beautiful piece!

I will have to have one at some point...

[Sy1441]

Ive got a 16600 Sea Dweller and a black 2003 Sub. Not much difference truth be told. Also got a coke GMT, think if I was buying another sports Rolex i'd go for the BLNR GMT.

[dom9]

Sy1441 said:

Ive got a 16600 Sea Dweller and a black 2003 Sub. Not much difference truth be told. Also got a coke GMT, think if I was buying another sports Rolex i'd go for the BLNR GMT.

Snap - I also have a Coke GMT.

I think my perfect combination at the moment is the old Coke GMT and the new SD4000... Which will probably mean my Date Sub and SD16600 will end up leaving!

[Riff Raff]

MrPaulo said:

How different would a Sea Dweller be over a Submariner? Do they feel different in weight for example?

The SD Ceramic and the Sub C look different on the wrist (from the front anyway) and wear differently. Weightwise, there isn't much in it, on the scales anyway. With a bracelet sized for my 7 1/4 inch wrist, the SD comes in at 165g, whilst the Sub is 154g. To put it into context a £1 coin weighs 10g, which is about the difference between the two.

On the wrist, the Sub has a noticeably more 'blocky' case due to the squared off lugs, whilst the SD has more traditional tapering lugs. The SD does sit a bit higher because of the pronounced dome of the caseback, which makes it feel heavier than it actually is. It's not an issue though, because of the fine adjustment feature on the clasp, and for those of us with wrists on the small side, you can remove more links on the six o'clock side of the bracelet than you could on the older model. I never could get a good fit on the 16600 I had because of the lack of an 'on the fly' adjustment feature on the clasp, and the inability to take enough links out on the inside side of the bracelet.

As another poster alluded, the dial on the SD may well be smaller than the one on the Sub - it certainly was on the old models by a mm or so - but you don't notice unless you are looking closely.

As for which one you should choose - well that's a personal choice - they are both fine watches. FWIW I had both for a while, but sold the Sub after having the SD on my wrist for a couple of weeks. I think it's just about The Perfect Sports Rolex. Other opinions are equally as valid though.

[MrPaulo]

I have decided to stick with the Submariner for the time being. I may look at a Sea Dweller next year.