SD 4000 - do you agree?

[Degas]

http://www.wristtimes.com/blog-1/201...r-4000-ceramic

[jay_man2]

Agree with what?

[Degas]

Originally Posted by jay_man2

Agree with what?

Sorry, with the conclusion of the article regarding buying it or not

[stmoore]

Originally Posted by Degas

Sorry, with the conclusion of the article regarding buying it or not

I think the 4000 is a great watch and is one that I might add one day. I think his comment that one could add a 1665 or triple 6 (matte) and have money left over is way off. I proper example of either is going to run north of $10,400, the price of a 4000-C.

They serve two different enthusiast markets. Personally I'd purchase it over the Sub-C as the thicker lugs of said watch were too much visually for me. The 4000 improves upon this nicely.

Lastly, if I wanted a tool watch / beater, I'd buy a 16600 with lug holes. Best value in Rolex sport today.

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by Degas

Sorry, with the conclusion of the article regarding buying it or not

Impossible to answer.

If someone wants it then buy it, if they do not want it then do not by it. Very simple.

[Jake B]

I think that the new bezels are bullocks.

I have one of them that I bought years ago now but likely won't be buying any more watches with them after finding out that it can't easily be removed/cleaned.

[Jason71]

Originally Posted by Jake B

I think that the new bezels are bullocks.

I have one of them that I bought years ago now but likely won't be buying any more watches with them after finding out that it can't easily be removed/cleaned.

This. How can one own a tool watch where removable parts are only designed to be removed by the manufacturer?? I have several of the ceramics...but make no mistake about it....they are my jewelry watches. When there is work to be done, my 16600 on a NATO is on the wrist.

[Gary.]

In sum, the SeaDweller is a mass market professional super-watch, built like the engineers were daring each other to go further everyday. The new one is too, but I feel they subverted some of the rugged tool quality, in favor of a the trend of flashier bigger watches.

I'd have thought that, if Rolex were catering to the trend for bigger watches, they wouldn't have replaced the 40mm Sea Dweller with a 40mm Sea Dweller.

[Karbo]

I agree that the SDC will never be in my collection

[sebastien1975]

Disagree with the conclusion and with the author's rationale. Had my SD 4000 for over 5 weeks and i really love it. It has become my daily beater.

[Twiten]

A very good critique , we can make up our own minds.

[waterman1]

I find the new sea dweller to be the perfect watch. I've had the sub-c date and sub-c, the old sea dweller 16600, and still have the dssd. In my opinion after wearing them all for extended periods the new SD 4000 is my favorite. But all are great watches depending on your taste.

[Psmith]

Thanks for sharing the article. Couple of points:
The clasp is not the same as the DSSD. It's the same Glidelock mechanism as the Sub. Also, the dial is not matte but rather 'satin' as per the black dial Explorer II

Imho with the DSSD clasp and sized between the Sub and DSSD at 42/43 mm this watch would make more sense

[Rolexpharm]

I agree with the end of the article. It costs nearly $2k more than the SubC and not that much difference in appearance to me that would warrant that much of a price difference. I have seen it and tried it on and was not overly impressed and it looked very similar to the SubC. I like all of the technology behind it but not enough to send me over the edge to buy it now. I did want to get it before but was disappointed when I actually got to see and hold the watch

[mike]

Well, I think it's a hell of a reference. Then again did they ever make a bad SD??

[strafer_kid]

Some very interesting comments on the new SD ceramic. I have it and the older 16600, and think there are pros and cons with both. A lot of this is down to personal taste. Good and all as the 16600 is (and it probably remains my favourite Rolex and arguably the best value for money), the new SD ceramic is a step forward in technology even if only incremental. Yes, it is a bit shinier and more flash, but still a super watch!

[Furbo]

I've seen one at my AD and I agree about dial being dull and not matte. Too bad they didn't have more courage to make it like they used to.

[timuS]

I think the conclusion reflects more on the author's personal tastes - for someone who has been exposed to any the older references. All of this applies to almost any other rolex model - the older references have actually seen much more action as tools, and have ticked away while maintaining poise (pun intended)!

Rolex is well known for its diver's watches, so I think with the revamping of the new SD4000, the lineup has something for everyone - from the Epipelagic Sub, to the slightly bigger Mesopelagic SD 4000, and finally the titanic Bathypelagic DSSD

[AK797]

Originally Posted by timuS

from the Epipelagic Sub, to the slightly bigger Mesopelagic SD 4000, and finally the titanic Bathypelagic DSSD

This thread must be the stuff of which your dreams are made

[HogwldFLTR]

Frankly I'd love one and am considering trading a couple (or few of my watches) to get one.

[GradyPhilpott]

I agreed with a lot of what the author had to say and I disagreed with a lot of it, too.

As to whether or not to buy one, that's his business, regardless of his rationale.

I never much cared for the 116610 Subs, but that has more to do with the cases than with the bezels.

The SD4000 is far from blingy in my book, mainly because I don't consider a ceramic bezel to be bling.

There are two main reasons I won't buy one. Firstly, I have a Sub 14060M, a watch I dearly love, so I don't need another dive watch in my collection and secondly, the SD crosses the five figure line, which is territory that at this time, I'm not willing to enter.

I almost got there with the BLNR and really, a thousand more isn't such a big deal, but we have to draw lines in the sand somewhere.

[14060m]

Nough said