Sub vs. Sea Dweller Older model vs. newer Model

[ljr33]

I am in the process of looking at Submariner's and Sea Dweller's trying to figure out which watch I want to get. My question for the forum is whether there is benefit to buying one watch over the other and what the benefit/ or detriment there is to buy an e newer model versus a much older model. I found one in particular, a 1978 Vintage Rolex Submariner Maxi Dial. Would this be a better purchase than getting a newer watch or should I stay away from the older models? This watch is for me to wear, it is not just going to be sitting in a collection. Any thoughts or opinions would be greatly appreciated.

[Joe750]

My personal opinion on old versus new is similar to a car - get the newest you can afford, because you can never be sure how it was treated and maintained. The unfortunate thing about any automatic watch is that it needs regular care. If you buy a watch from 1978, it could have missed 6 services by now, and you can bet your next one will be more than the difference between that and a newer one, considering they will want you to replace the hands, dial, crystal, full service, etc, etc. Go for a newer one from the boards here, IMHO, and enjoy. Maybe it's the OCD in me, but I just imagine the torture an older watch could have gone through - even keeping good time, it could be a trainwreck inside. Google "Hacko Watchmaker Blog" for examples!

As for SM vs SD, I personally like the 'bells and whistles' of the Dweller, and the extra size and weight. It has also been discontinued (see other thread on that). I think the SM is a classic and always will be - but to me, that just means everyone has one! I say try them both on (hard to try on the SD nowadays, but anyway..) and see which one sings to you. Usually, months of research and hemming/hawing can be solved by 1/2 a second of gut reaction. I am still waiting to try on the SD to see if that will be my next watch. The SM is great, but too common to be my 'one watch'.

[mike]

Since you mention 1978 I guess the question really is do you prefer the look of a vintage piece or the modern?

There's no right or wrong answer, but there is a bit of a difference between the two--movement, dial,etc....

Vintage speaks to another era and to a great extent to the history that made Rolex the name it is today.

You'll find both camps have strong opinions as to preference. Neither is wrong, but there are some issues that should be addressed.

Buying a nice vintage piece is not like walking into the AD and saying "I'll take that one". There's a certain amount of research that should be done to get "just the right one" for you and your comfort level.

If luminosity is a concern the modern piece is your only choice. Likewise if you are one to agonize over a small scratch on your crystal the acryllics might not be the best choice.

If however you feel the call to own a piece of history and get a little closer to the "flagpole" then vintage is for you.

Understand that depending on condition valuations can be all over the place depending on reference etc....

I would check on the need for a service on a vintage piece, but understand that despite what you might here a properly serviced vintage piece takes a backseat to no modern reference in accuracy.

The worst I have is +3 sec a day and a couple are +/- 1 or 2.

Good luck on your decision.

Some vintage help.

[RolexPete]

Sub over SD any day for me. Had both, SD just too darn big! Sub is the way to go.

[Mr Sandman]

I really enjoy my SD but the new DSSD is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too big for my liking.

Go with the one you like the most.

[ljr33]

Thanks for all of the responses. Should I expect to pay more for the Sea Dweller? It does probably make sense for me to try on both of the watches at a store before deciding which one I want to purchase. Anyone have recommendations for good places try a Sea Dweller and or a Submariner in Boston? Thanks.

[ljr33]

Originally Posted by mike

Since you mention 1978 I guess the question really is do you prefer the look of a vintage piece or the modern?

There's no right or wrong answer, but there is a bit of a difference between the two--movement, dial,etc....

Vintage speaks to another era and to a great extent to the history that made Rolex the name it is today.

You'll find both camps have strong opinions as to preference. Neither is wrong, but there are some issues that should be addressed.

Buying a nice vintage piece is not like walking into the AD and saying "I'll take that one". There's a certain amount of research that should be done to get "just the right one" for you and your comfort level.

If luminosity is a concern the modern piece is your only choice. Likewise if you are one to agonize over a small scratch on your crystal the acryllics might not be the best choice.

If however you feel the call to own a piece of history and get a little closer to the "flagpole" then vintage is for you.

Understand that depending on condition valuations can be all over the place depending on reference etc....

I would check on the need for a service on a vintage piece, but understand that despite what you might here a properly serviced vintage piece takes a backseat to no modern reference in accuracy.

The worst I have is +3 sec a day and a couple are +/- 1 or 2.

Good luck on your decision.

Some vintage help.

Thanks for the advice, I really like the pictures that you posted. The idea of owning an older watch that is still in nice condition seems pretty cool to me. I honestly have not compared an older model to a newer one. Are there a lot of differences. The first picture is of the Submariner from 1978. Next is another older Submariner which I really like because of the blue bezel. My main concern about this watch is whether or not the scratches could be fixed without me having to get a new bezel and or watch face because I really like the current lighter blue color. Was the Sea Dweller ever made with a blue face? Thoughts or input from anyone would be greatly appreciated.

[1175]

Sea Dweller all the way!!!