ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

sennheiserz · 22 June 2014, 03:08 AM

I'm looking to the SeaDweller as 'daily beater'. Something special to wear anywhere while my more delicate vintage pieces relax on their winders. The 16600 was discontinued in 2008 after a 40+ year run, much to the dismay of Rolex fans. It was replaced with the Deep Sea SeaDweller (DSSD), a friggin' hulk of a watch at nearly 44mm and an insane depth rating of 12,800ft. There are a lot of fans of the DSSD, and if I didn't have such tiny wrists, I would certainly be one of them. For the rest of us, Rolex just introduced the new SeaDweller 4000, and I went to see it today.

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

andyol1966 · 22 June 2014, 03:36 AM

Not sure I would describe the new seadweller as very blingy and a watch covered in diamonds without using one

roadie1 · 22 June 2014, 04:26 AM

Thanks for the review but I really disagree with the bling part. I've had my new SD for about a month and it's not blingy at all. I've also had prob half a dozen of the last edition.

sea-dweller · 22 June 2014, 09:06 AM

Thanks for posting!

sennheiserz · 22 June 2014, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadie1

Thanks for the review but I really disagree with the bling part. I've had my new SD for about a month and it's not blingy at all. I've also had prob half a dozen of the last edition.

Fair enough, I mostly saw it under the crazy lights they have in the boutique, so I can't honestly say how it will look in normal life. I'll revise it based on your feedback as an owner. Thanks!

roadie1 · 23 June 2014, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sennheiserz

Fair enough, I mostly saw it under the crazy lights they have in the boutique, so I can't honestly say how it will look in normal life. I'll revise it based on your feedback as an owner. Thanks!

Yes the AD lighting does increase the bling factor but in everyday use it's less blingy than the SubC date due to the lack of a cyclops.

strafer_kid · 23 June 2014, 04:43 AM

Whist I would accept that there is a bit more of a shine to the new SD when compared to the 16600, the new one could certainly not be described as bling. I have both and feel that Rolex were careful in their redesign and stopped short of making it too flash. Yes, it looks quite different from say a 1665 but that is understandable given the time difference. Rolex have placed all the latest technical advances into it and it has turned out as an excellent watch that I have little doubt will be popular with existing SD fans and new guys.

Rolexpharm · 23 June 2014, 09:45 PM

I really like the new SD. It is beefier than the Sub but not the size of a cow like the Deep Sea. I got to try it on and I really liked he size and weight. It was definitely slight bigger and heavier than the Sub and still had a great balance to it. I really want this watch. Thanks for posting the review

MATCH1969 · 24 June 2014, 07:58 AM

New SD is not a must have for me. Old version is nicer from far !

22 June 2014, 03:08 AM	#1
sennheiserz "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Real Name: Dave Location: Brooklyn, NY Watch: ♛ + Ω + Posts: 601	Hands on review of the SD4000 116600 I'm looking to the SeaDweller as 'daily beater'. Something special to wear anywhere while my more delicate vintage pieces relax on their winders. The 16600 was discontinued in 2008 after a 40+ year run, much to the dismay of Rolex fans. It was replaced with the Deep Sea SeaDweller (DSSD), a friggin' hulk of a watch at nearly 44mm and an insane depth rating of 12,800ft. There are a lot of fans of the DSSD, and if I didn't have such tiny wrists, I would certainly be one of them. For the rest of us, Rolex just introduced the new SeaDweller 4000, and I went to see it today. http://www.wristtimes.com/blog-1/201...r-4000-ceramic __________________ My Watch Blog - http://www.wristtimes.com Collection: Rolex Sub NDc 114060 \| Omega SMP 861 \| Apple Watch SS

22 June 2014, 03:36 AM	#2
andyol1966 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Real Name: Andy Location: East Midlands, UK Watch: Patek and Rolex Posts: 1,074	Not sure I would describe the new seadweller as very blingy and a watch covered in diamonds without using one

22 June 2014, 04:26 AM	#3
roadie1 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southeast Watch: Divers, GMT Posts: 2,149	Thanks for the review but I really disagree with the bling part. I've had my new SD for about a month and it's not blingy at all. I've also had prob half a dozen of the last edition.

22 June 2014, 09:06 AM	#4
sea-dweller "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Real Name: Dennis Location: Bay Area - 925 Posts: 40,018	Thanks for posting!

23 June 2014, 04:43 AM	#7
strafer_kid "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Real Name: Kenny Location: northern ireland Watch: SDs, Subs & GMTs Posts: 5,136	Whist I would accept that there is a bit more of a shine to the new SD when compared to the 16600, the new one could certainly not be described as bling. I have both and feel that Rolex were careful in their redesign and stopped short of making it too flash. Yes, it looks quite different from say a 1665 but that is understandable given the time difference. Rolex have placed all the latest technical advances into it and it has turned out as an excellent watch that I have little doubt will be popular with existing SD fans and new guys.

23 June 2014, 09:45 PM	#8
Rolexpharm "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Bensalem, Pa Posts: 638	I really like the new SD. It is beefier than the Sub but not the size of a cow like the Deep Sea. I got to try it on and I really liked he size and weight. It was definitely slight bigger and heavier than the Sub and still had a great balance to it. I really want this watch. Thanks for posting the review

24 June 2014, 07:58 AM	#9
MATCH1969 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: PARIS Watch: Vintage Posts: 2,761	New SD is not a must have for me. Old version is nicer from far !

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)