How do I reconcile the hype around the SD4K here with prices being constant?

[Babalaas]

A common viewpoint here is that the SD4K ref 116600 is a collectors’ piece (a euphuism for watch owners to avoid using the “I” word). Well, it’s been discontinued for some time now, we’ve been through the peak of watch prices, supply really isn’t increasing…and prices (an imperfect proxy for being a “collectors’ piece) have been constant and not increased much.

The point of this post is not to invite the traditional trope of watches not being investments. I know and acknowledge this. The point is to get viewpoints on why there appears to be an inconsistency between the purists’ view here and how regular retail consumers treat the piece.

[nr1416]

The way I look at prices when it comes to pieces that are not made long or rare. Is from historical point of reference, and that is Sea Dwellers in general never had a massive following. Take for example a clean full set 14060 will sell for more then 5 digit Seadweller 16600.

The biggest factor in the SD4k is that it was only made for something like 2.5 years. My guess is it will be worth a premium but it will take 10 years plus before the market adjusts for that.

[Calatrava r]

It is a significant piece because the ceramic version was made for such a short time as said above. Added to that it was a poor seller at the time so not many ended up being made. In any event, people want and collect what is rarer and it fits the bill.

[GB-man]

Being relatively rare doesn’t equate to inflated secondary pricing. It has to be rare and desired by the masses. The SDc is a very niche watch and most consumers prefer the cyclops as to them it may appear unfinished without one.

When it was in catalogue I bought mine at 20% off because most buyers had no reason to pay more than what a submariner cost for one.

[1William]

Not a watch for the masses and the prices reflect that. I like it but would not pick it over the Submariner or the DSSD at the time. Now, nothing has changed for me and I own the SD43 which I prefer. As with any discontinued watch, value is in who is buying the watch. In the long run, nothing gets cheaper and Rolex watches are a prime example.

[WatchTimes]

I have a SD4K, bought shortly after they came out.
Its one of my most worn pieces, I have always loved the SD but I am the minority.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Babalaas

A common viewpoint here is that the SD4K ref 116600 is a collectors’ piece (a euphuism for watch owners to avoid using the “I” word). Well, it’s been discontinued for some time now, we’ve been through the peak of watch prices, supply really isn’t increasing…and prices (an imperfect proxy for being a “collectors’ piece) have been constant and not increased much.

The point of this post is not to invite the traditional trope of watches not being investments. I know and acknowledge this. The point is to get viewpoints on why there appears to be an inconsistency between the purists’ view here and how regular retail consumers treat the piece.

I think you've almost answered your own question there where you said it's seen as a COLLECTOR'S piece. I think where you went slightly wrong is equating "collector's piece" to "investment piece". The two things aren't the same to my mind.

The SD4K is a niche piece - it was tough for the average buyer to consider it over the similarly-sized and cheaper Sub, or the "statement piece" DSSD. You had to really want an SD4K to buy one. That continues to this day.

[goodolejr]

I was always fond of its sans cyclops crystal configuration. Clean and unique.

IIRC, it is the only non-Deepsea reference you can get with such an attribute.

[logo]

Rare ≠ collectible ≠ desired ≠ investment.

Rare is just low numbers. Collectible is something that has something historically significant or relevant, a quirk if you will. Just because something is rare does not mean it is universally desired, though the rarer it is the more $ can be commanded by lack of comps alone. Put all this together and you have an investment. The SD4K is not that.

It’s not particularly rare to command a significant premium, it’s not significantly desired to generate hype, and collectibility is uncertain. It will always have a higher price, but a continued rocket to the moon less likely.

[stainlesssteelsteve]

It's one of the best symmetrical dive watches ever created by Rolex.

It's better than the Submariner. It's better than the current Sea-Dweller.

Watches are meant to be worn.

If you want an investment, buy Microsoft stock.

If you want one of the best looking sports watches, buy the SD4K.

[APPRF]

Too thick at 15.5mm for a 40mm diameter looks odd on the wrist. Plus no Cyclops, I know some people prefer Sea Dweller without cyclops, but they are in the minority, especially when the gorgeous SD43 red line 50th Anniversary was introduced. A Rolex with date has to have a cyclops it's in the Rolex date watches DNA. When Rolex overcomes the difficulties in adding a cyclops to the Deep Sea all date models will have a Cyclops. The absence of a cyclops is not a design thing.

[roadie1]

One of the best Rolex has ever made. I bought one of the first releases from Wempe in New York almost 10 years ago. It will always be in my collection.

[Scholar]

I don’t know about ‘hype’ and I generally dislike that.

I like it because it was the last Submariner of proper proportions/size, and unfortunately while it was on the market I didn’t have the funds to get it.

[Mystro]

We need some pics for this thread.

[sys999]

Will never sell mine, one of the best references recently made.

[Gaussian]

Originally Posted by APPRF

Too thick at 15.5mm for a 40mm diameter looks odd on the wrist. Plus no Cyclops, I know some people prefer Sea Dweller without cyclops, but they are in the minority, especially when the gorgeous SD43 red line 50th Anniversary was introduced. A Rolex with date has to have a cyclops it's in the Rolex date watches DNA. When Rolex overcomes the difficulties in adding a cyclops to the Deep Sea all date models will have a Cyclops. The absence of a cyclops is not a design thing.

I may be in the minority, and no offense to anyone that likes the cyclops, but that feature makes me think of every 500 peso copy I saw South of the border 30 years ago.

It’s a superfluous feature for anyone that doesn’t need reading glasses and has cluttered the face of many otherwise fantastic looking watches. It is at home alongside those exaggerated magnifying glasses that the visually impaired use.

As we all have different preferences, it would be a great disservice to take away that choice and force one half to buy what the other half prefers.

It’s probably more scarce too than most would like to admit. I use Chrono24 to help gauge both the scarcity and the direction of pricing. If you look at complete watches with both box and papers in the US, there are 14 116600’s listed. Compare that to the 116610LV and there are 89 current listings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fishingbear]

Pics4thread…

[worldofoyster]

it's a great watch IMHO. however, the main reason for the discontinuation is that Rolex had hard time selling it and demand was low.

[carwash66]

It is my favorite by a mile!

[nyc2la]

One of my favorite SS Rolex.

[Mr. Superlative]

Unless you’ve owned one, worn it regularly etc. it’s difficult to understand why the SD4K is one of the best timepieces they ever made. Brilliant, capable, rare, and unique.

[fishingbear]

Brilliant, capable, rare and unique indeed.
Here’s another pic of mine in it’s salty environment kayak fishing for a rooster fish in Costa Rica…

[Linuxpenguins]

It’s only a matter of time before this piece has its day in the sun. More and more YouTube videos seem to be cropping up.

Remarkable piece.

[rajurama]

Great watch

[subtona]

Sdk4 is a rockstar of a watch. The combination of unique details set it apart

Like it’s previous version, it’s not for everyone. There is a consistent appreciation for it by some, while little interest from others.

Could be the best, no bs, diver ever made.

It will always be an amazing watch, as an owner, you know that better than most.
Wear it and enjoy.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Babalaas

. . .

The point of this post is not to invite the traditional trope of watches not being investments. I know and acknowledge this. The point is to get viewpoints on why there appears to be an inconsistency between the purists’ view here and how regular retail consumers treat the piece.

Perhaps you are only registering opinions of this type.

Historically, Seadwellers have not been either collector pieces or received the hype that other more popular references. In my view nothing has really changed about SD's

[rolexjackson]

The sea dweller is one of my favorite if not my favorite piece in my entire collection. I love the red text and especially the non shiny dial. The size and proportions are perfect. And you can actually get one either from the AD or the grey.

[rolexjackson]

[subtona]

Originally Posted by rolexjackson

The sea dweller is one of my favorite if not my favorite piece in my entire collection. I love the red text and especially the non shiny dial. The size and proportions are perfect. And you can actually get one either from the AD or the grey.

Originally Posted by rolexjackson

Sdk4 is long discontinued.

Your picture is of modern sea dweller.

[WatchTimes]

I bought this shortly after it was released and its still my favorite of all of my sports Rolex watches.
Ive always been a SD guy, friends had subs when I was younger so I wanted the SD and have had a few over the years but this is the one Ive kept. I do want to get a M SD as well to replace the one I sold but I may end up going for an older one with holes.