Sub C more special than the SD4K ???

[Dusko.Popov]

Originally Posted by samson66

You get a top heavy, thicker, more expensive Sub with a misplaced date window that literally no one outside of this forum can tell apart from a Sub. If I wanted a 40mm diver I'd stick with a Sub...

The sd43 is a watch someone made to satisfy the bigger watch craze and distinguish the dweller from the submariner for the ordinary, “know-nothing” consumer.

It’s not a watch for the purist.

It has nearly none of the 50-year Sea Dweller dna. Barely any of the silhouette. It drastically departed from the design language just to sell units.

It pulled an Omega-esque red font play which can best be described as gratuitous and pandering.

I can’t think of another of the Rolex silhouettes that made so drastic a change ever and then for such ignominious reasons.

The sd43 is a sell out, a horological orphan, and a bad joke.

If you want a Sea Dweller, buy a 116600, 16600, or any of its progeny.

If you want a sub/sea dweller, Omega, Seiko Marine Master hybrid watch that Rolex tinkered with to make a buck from an unsuspecting public, by the 122660.

Don’t need anyone to agree with me and I have my flame suit on. Hopefully this board is big enough for contrary opinions.

[HogwldFLTR]

Sub C vs SD4K; I chose...



Sub C felt awkward to wear and was easy to part with. I can't ever imagine parting with the SD4K,

Originally Posted by Dusko.Popov

The sd43 is a watch someone made to satisfy the bigger watch craze and distinguish the dweller from the submariner for the ordinary, “know-nothing” consumer.

It’s not a watch for the purist.

It has nearly none of the 50-year Sea Dweller dna. Barely any of the silhouette. It drastically departed from the design language just to sell units.

It pulled an Omega-esque red font play which can best be described as gratuitous and pandering.

I can’t think of another of the Rolex silhouettes that made so drastic a change ever and then for such ignominious reasons.

The sd43 is a sell out, a horological orphan, and a bad joke.

If you want a Sea Dweller, buy a 116600, 16600, or any of its progeny.

If you want a sub/sea dweller, Omega, Seiko Marine Master hybrid watch that Rolex tinkered with to make a buck from an unsuspecting public, by the 122660.

Don’t need anyone to agree with me and I have my flame suit on. Hopefully this board is big enough for contrary opinions.

I'd likely not be so harsh, consider it Rolex taking advantage of a niche. I personally am not a fan so I wouldn't ever be going with one. Glad I have the 4K.

[viper]

I wore my SD4K today after a giving it a break for a while. I'm amazed it's discontinued, it's such a perfect transitional piece. Glad I got one while I could.

[Filipão]

Originally Posted by Dusko.Popov

The sd43 is a watch someone made to satisfy the bigger watch craze and distinguish the dweller from the submariner for the ordinary, “know-nothing” consumer.

It’s not a watch for the purist.

It has nearly none of the 50-year Sea Dweller dna. Barely any of the silhouette. It drastically departed from the design language just to sell units.

It pulled an Omega-esque red font play which can best be described as gratuitous and pandering.

I can’t think of another of the Rolex silhouettes that made so drastic a change ever and then for such ignominious reasons.

The sd43 is a sell out, a horological orphan, and a bad joke.

If you want a Sea Dweller, buy a 116600, 16600, or any of its progeny.

If you want a sub/sea dweller, Omega, Seiko Marine Master hybrid watch that Rolex tinkered with to make a buck from an unsuspecting public, by the 122660.

Don’t need anyone to agree with me and I have my flame suit on. Hopefully this board is big enough for contrary opinions.

Absolutely. Period.

[superstarmar]

Originally Posted by Dusko.Popov

The sd43 is a watch someone made to satisfy the bigger watch craze and distinguish the dweller from the submariner for the ordinary, “know-nothing” consumer.

It’s not a watch for the purist.

It has nearly none of the 50-year Sea Dweller dna. Barely any of the silhouette. It drastically departed from the design language just to sell units.

It pulled an Omega-esque red font play which can best be described as gratuitous and pandering.

I can’t think of another of the Rolex silhouettes that made so drastic a change ever and then for such ignominious reasons.

The sd43 is a sell out, a horological orphan, and a bad joke.

If you want a Sea Dweller, buy a 116600, 16600, or any of its progeny.

If you want a sub/sea dweller, Omega, Seiko Marine Master hybrid watch that Rolex tinkered with to make a buck from an unsuspecting public, by the 122660.

Don’t need anyone to agree with me and I have my flame suit on. Hopefully this board is big enough for contrary opinions.

I’m not going to disagree ... I think you’ve made some very
valid points ...

[watchmework]

Originally Posted by Dusko.Popov

The sd43 is a watch someone made to satisfy the bigger watch craze and distinguish the dweller from the submariner for the ordinary, “know-nothing” consumer.

It’s not a watch for the purist.

It has nearly none of the 50-year Sea Dweller dna. Barely any of the silhouette. It drastically departed from the design language just to sell units.

It pulled an Omega-esque red font play which can best be described as gratuitous and pandering.

I can’t think of another of the Rolex silhouettes that made so drastic a change ever and then for such ignominious reasons.

The sd43 is a sell out, a horological orphan, and a bad joke.

If you want a Sea Dweller, buy a 116600, 16600, or any of its progeny.

If you want a sub/sea dweller, Omega, Seiko Marine Master hybrid watch that Rolex tinkered with to make a buck from an unsuspecting public, by the 122660.

Don’t need anyone to agree with me and I have my flame suit on. Hopefully this board is big enough for contrary opinions.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, that’s why we all buy different watches. I disagree with some, not all of your points but at the end of the day we are both happy with our watches and that’s all that matters.

[watchtabs]

I havent wor nthe sea dweller. But the 40mm sub is very uncomfortable. I am planning on trading my hulk.

[Nikrnic]

I think the only thing they could have done better on the 4k is if they would have pushed the date window out further like on the Tudor gmt.
Not nitpicking, just thinking that would have made it more perfecto than it is..

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[jrs146]

They’re all special in their own way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fishingbear]

116600

[BLACKHORSE 6]

The SD4K is very close to perfection.

The only thing that looks slightly off to me is that the date window is a little too close to the center of the dial.

[Justindo]

I prefer the Submariner but the SD4K isn't a bad second choice.

[jjdesq]

Originally Posted by Dusko.Popov

The sd43 is a watch someone made to satisfy the bigger watch craze and distinguish the dweller from the submariner for the ordinary, “know-nothing” consumer.

It’s not a watch for the purist.

It has nearly none of the 50-year Sea Dweller dna. Barely any of the silhouette. It drastically departed from the design language just to sell units.

It pulled an Omega-esque red font play which can best be described as gratuitous and pandering.

I can’t think of another of the Rolex silhouettes that made so drastic a change ever and then for such ignominious reasons.

The sd43 is a sell out, a horological orphan, and a bad joke.

If you want a Sea Dweller, buy a 116600, 16600, or any of its progeny.

If you want a sub/sea dweller, Omega, Seiko Marine Master hybrid watch that Rolex tinkered with to make a buck from an unsuspecting public, by the 122660.

Don’t need anyone to agree with me and I have my flame suit on. Hopefully this board is big enough for contrary opinions.

heh, kinda funny you didn't need that suit after all but your post seems spot on. I wonder how "haters" like us would feel if the only change from the 4k was the red writing. I actually don't hate the new sea-dweller but c'mon now, a 1mm difference in case size from the deep-sea and red writing with a bubble. It also only goes 1/3 the depth as the deep-sea so what was the point, the watch kinda already existed...

[Rolexavidfan]

Originally Posted by Nikrnic

I think the only thing they could have done better on the 4k is if they would have pushed the date window out further like on the Tudor gmt.
Not nitpicking, just thinking that would have made it more perfecto than it is..

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Well the absence of the cyclops highlight that glaring window thing. IMO Rolex could have adjusted the date window.

Nice to know that some of us noticed that window thing.

And that’s the reason why I prefer the Sub C than the SD4K


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by superstarmar

I don’t see the new sea dweller 43 in the same light ...
40 mm is the legend ... 43 mm is the new chapter and
new species/race of deep sea !!!

100% agreement here. I just meant the hype surrounds the new sucker and the last true 40mm cyclops-less will come back swinging.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Dusko.Popov

The sd43 is a watch someone made to satisfy the bigger watch craze and distinguish the dweller from the submariner for the ordinary, “know-nothing” consumer.

It’s not a watch for the purist.

It has nearly none of the 50-year Sea Dweller dna. Barely any of the silhouette. It drastically departed from the design language just to sell units.

It pulled an Omega-esque red font play which can best be described as gratuitous and pandering.

I can’t think of another of the Rolex silhouettes that made so drastic a change ever and then for such ignominious reasons.

The sd43 is a sell out, a horological orphan, and a bad joke.

If you want a Sea Dweller, buy a 116600, 16600, or any of its progeny.

If you want a sub/sea dweller, Omega, Seiko Marine Master hybrid watch that Rolex tinkered with to make a buck from an unsuspecting public, by the 122660.

Don’t need anyone to agree with me and I have my flame suit on. Hopefully this board is big enough for contrary opinions.

No flame suit required (and that's coming from someone who owned and loved a 16600 for many years, but who firmly believes that the 126600 is the most complete diver Rolex have ever made).

I would, however, like to present an alternative view.

For the Purists?

Perhaps with the exception of the Explorer, Rolex doesn't make sports watches for the "purist" any more, and hasn't for some considerable time. That stopped with the six digit bloated supercases, 42mm Explorer IIs, shiny ceramic bezels (some of which are in garden plastic green) and PCLs.

That would make the last "purist" Sea Dweller the 16600 IMHO

Sea Dweller "DNA"

The only relevant differences between the 116600 and the 126600 are the overall size and the cyclops. Upscale any previous sea dweller and remove the cyclops and hey, you've got effectively the same watch. Right down to the depth rating sea dwellers have had for the past 40 years. Back to the matte dial of the triple 6 too. Add in the same, HEV, same divers extension, same name, same purpose, same construction.

Practically none of the "DNA" ? I don't think so. Its just a little bit bigger and has a small magnifying lens on the crystal (that, as is generally accepted, Rolex wanted to put on the original Sea Dwellers but couldn't for technical reasons)

So what we have is that the entire basis of the argument that the Anniversary Sea Dweller is a "drastic" departure and a "bad joke" devoid of most of the SD DNA is because its a little bit bigger and has a small magnifying lens glued on the crystal? Seriously? Its closer to the 16600 than some twins I know are to each other

Silhouette

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll just leave this here. Is the silhouette drastically departed? You can all be the judge, but I don't think there's any argument that proportionally its as close to the 4 and 5 series references as you can get in a diver from Rolex these days.

[envuks]

IMHO the SD4k is much more special than the current subs.

[Ckci]

I don’t have either the 16600 or the 116600 but I like both. I do have a couple ND Subs. Also, great watches. I think you can’t go wrong here. I’m sorry the 116600 was discontinued. I prefer the non cyclops on the SD’s. I do own a DSSD shown below. E37692F1-80FF-490A-8343-F4CF4E759E3A.jpeg

D124B99B-16D1-4786-AC5B-4BB0C39077F8.jpeg

1AB365FD-D847-4038-9E30-5A38C273AF29.jpeg

[Rolex85]

Originally Posted by Devildog

No flame suit required (and that's coming from someone who owned and loved a 16600 for many years, but who firmly believes that the 126600 is the most complete diver Rolex have ever made).

I would, however, like to present an alternative view.

For the Purists?

Perhaps with the exception of the Explorer, Rolex doesn't make sports watches for the "purist" any more, and hasn't for some considerable time. That stopped with the six digit bloated supercases, 42mm Explorer IIs, shiny ceramic bezels (some of which are in garden plastic green) and PCLs.

That would make the last "purist" Sea Dweller the 16600 IMHO

Sea Dweller "DNA"

The only relevant differences between the 116600 and the 126600 are the overall size and the cyclops. Upscale any previous sea dweller and remove the cyclops and hey, you've got effectively the same watch. Right down to the depth rating sea dwellers have had for the past 40 years. Back to the matte dial of the triple 6 too. Add in the same, HEV, same divers extension, same name, same purpose, same construction.

Practically none of the "DNA" ? I don't think so. Its just a little bit bigger and has a small magnifying lens on the crystal (that, as is generally accepted, Rolex wanted to put on the original Sea Dwellers but couldn't for technical reasons)

So what we have is that the entire basis of the argument that the Anniversary Sea Dweller is a "drastic" departure and a "bad joke" devoid of most of the SD DNA is because its a little bit bigger and has a small magnifying lens glued on the crystal? Seriously? Its closer to the 16600 than some twins I know are to each other

Silhouette

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll just leave this here. Is the silhouette drastically departed? You can all be the judge, but I don't think there's any argument that proportionally its as close to the 4 and 5 series references as you can get in a diver from Rolex these days.

Very well said. I completely agree and further to the part about not having any of the original dna of the seadweller - correct me if I am wrong but when they were testing to improve upon the submariner and they were nicknaming their prototypes ‘seadweller’ and they were marking the test models with a single line of red writing. This did not make it to the production model which has two red lines of text however the new anniversary is paying homage to the very start of the original seadweller DNA with its single line of red.

[GB-man]

No way jose.

[superstarmar]

Originally Posted by GB-man

No way jose.

[droptopman]

114060, love the look of the SD but just sits a little too tall with the fatter case back.

[cpefy3]

I am a little biased, but Sea-Dweller all the way!!

[lapince]

I considered getting a SD, but I found it way too thick for the diameter, so for me the no date sub is hard to beat, if it was the SD43 that might be different, but never saw one

[superstarmar]

Originally Posted by lapince

I considered getting a SD, but I found it way too thick for the diameter, so for me the no date sub is hard to beat, if it was the SD43 that might be different, but never saw one

If I’m right SD4K and Sd43 are the same thickness and
quite comfortable on the wrist as far as the SD4K goes ...

[warrior]

I’ve had the SD4K and actually sold it to get the Sub C No Date. SD is less common and I did prefer the minute markings. So, in that sense, the SD4K is more “ special”. But, here’s the thing NO ONE mentions on TRF.

IMO, the thicker the watch, the less it looks good. WHY? The more a watch hugs the wrist and sits low, the better it looks from most angles. Thickness is overrated by many WIS and TRFers. Thickness makes a watch look bulby, trying too hard, not elegant....WHILE at the same time, you see less the face of the watch and more metal. I don’t want that.

[Kelex]

personally, i prefer sea-dwellers to sub

[D111s]

SD4K looks much better, the case doesn’t look like a square! Plus they are far less common.

[soran]

The SD4k is the perfect "Sub"

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by nyc2la

SD4K ftw ........

Amazing pictures: cheers:

My vote goes to SD4K


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro