2014 Sea-Dweller 4000

[Wesley Crusher]

Moby, I understand what you're saying. For bigger guys (or guys with bigger wrists), it's easier to pull off larger watches. I'm sure there are many people who feel the same way as you. I cannot say for sure what is best. If Rolex came out with a 42mm SD, it may be a huge hit or it may be a huge bust. Who knows. All I know is that 40mm has worked very well for the SD for many years and with the new SD, I think 40mm will also work very well.

Don't write it off just yet. It's not even out. Try it on once it comes out. I have a feeling that it will feel/look very substantial.

[strafer_kid]

Glad they went for 40mm with this. I tried 42mm with the new Explorer and whilst its a beautiful watch, it just felt too big for me - each to his own I suppose!

[moby33]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

Moby, I understand what you're saying. For bigger guys (or guys with bigger wrists), it's easier to pull off larger watches. I'm sure there are many people who feel the same way as you. I cannot say for sure what is best. If Rolex came out with a 42mm SD, it may be a huge hit or it may be a huge bust. Who knows. All I know is that 40mm has worked very well for the SD for many years and with the new SD, I think 40mm will also work very well.

Don't write it off just yet. It's not even out. Try it on once it comes out. I have a feeling that it will feel/look very substantial.

My savings account would probably prefer I DON'T try it on...god knows you're probably right and I'll figure out a way to "justify" buying it too.

Size aside, I've got to say just when I think a SS Rolex diver couldn't get even more crazy in price, the price goes up significantly. I clearly remember saying years ago (well before I even purchased my first Sub), "No way that SS watch is worth $4000!" Now I yearn for the days of a BNIB Sub or SD for sub $5K!

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by moby33

My savings account would probably prefer I DON'T try it on...god knows you're probably right and I'll figure out a way to "justify" buying it too.

Size aside, I've got to say just when I think a SS Rolex diver couldn't get even more crazy in price, the price goes up significantly. I clearly remember saying years ago (well before I even purchased my first Sub), "No way that SS watch is worth $4000!" Now I yearn for the days of a BNIB Sub or SD for sub $5K!

When I was looking into my first nice watch in 07-08, I looked at this article that compared the SMP and the Sub.

http://luxurytyme.com/en/rolex-revie...mariner-16610/

At the time, I couldn't imagine spending over double for a Sub (I think at the time, the 16610 must have been around 5k). It's crazy to think that the 116610 is 8.5k and with the expected price increase, it will be very close to 10k.

[116680]

First post on the forum so please be nice :-)

I have the DSSD and have previously owned a Sub ND (old style). I just learned about the new SD4000 when popping in to my AD today to pick up a new strap for another watch.

When I learned that the SD4000 is 40mm I was initially disappointed, as like many others I felt that 42mm would be a better idea and would be a differentiator from the Sub.

HOWEVER, the fact that the caseback is so much fatter than a SubC will probably mean that it wears substantially bigger than the Sub C, in much the same way that the DSSD (44mm) actually, to my mind, wears quite a bit bigger than the YMII (also 44mm, but with 'thinner' caseback).

BUT, the clincher for me that means that I will - absent being wrong when I see it in the metal - be holding on to my DSSD is that the new SD 4000 doesn't have the beautiful "domed" crystal of the DSSD that I find so mesmerizing. It seems from the pictures to have the flat face of the sub.

[Rashid.bk]

^Yes, the crystal is flat.
Welcome to TRF.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

When I was looking into my first nice watch in 07-08, I looked at this article that compared the SMP and the Sub.

http://luxurytyme.com/en/rolex-revie...mariner-16610/

At the time, I couldn't imagine spending over double for a Sub (I think at the time, the 16610 must have been around 5k). It's crazy to think that the 116610 is 8.5k and with the expected price increase, it will be very close to 10k.

That article was decisive for me too for the same reasons. I guess JH had problems with Rolex after that and was forced to change the name of his site. The game only changed for me when the Sub-C was released.

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by FTX I

That article was decisive for me too for the same reasons. I guess JH had problems with Rolex after that and was forced to change the name of his site. The game only changed for me when the Sub-C was released.

Agreed. Rolex really caught my attention when I saw the SubC.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by FTX I

That article was decisive for me too for the same reasons. I guess JH had problems with Rolex after that and was forced to change the name of his site. The game only changed for me when the Sub-C was released.

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

Agreed. Rolex really caught my attention when I saw the SubC.

We're all the same. My intro to Rolex was via the original SD...but being an Omega SMP fan & owner for years, I entered Rolex ownership with reservation seeing as I was always turned off by the cheap feeling stamped clasps of previous generations models.

But clasp disappointments aside, I quickly learned to love the look & feel of the SD (and eventually the Sub), but again, being an "Omega Man", I also wasn't thrilled w/ the poor lume of the Sub. Hence the purchase of the SubLV w/ it's maxi-dial. At that time I was thinking, "Okay Rolex, you fixed the lume disappointment, now do something about that damn clasp."

When the DSSD was introduced w/ it's revolutionary Glidelock, I was HOOKED. It's then that I pretty much became a "Rolex before Omega" man. I loved my DSSD and didn't take it off for 3+ years...then the SubC came along. I didn't even think I would give the SubC a look, but after a year I bought it just to experience, and was convinced it would be flipped shortly after the "newness" wore off. But WOW...it quickly replaced my DSSD as my favorite daily wearer, so much so, I eventually sold off the DSSD because the SubC seemed to do everything I needed out of a watch. I still have a handful of watches in my collection, but there's no doubt if someone said I could only keep one, it would be my SubC without hesitation.

All that said, I LOVE the graduated bezel of the DSSD (and now SDc) and the domed crystal...if the new SDc had a domed crystal is would be hard to beat IMO as the ultimate, ultimate Rolex diver. There's just something cool about the way the light reflects off the dome...I use to stare at my DSSD more than any other watch just to look at that glorious subtle dome.

[Friedl41]

Originally Posted by subtona

My mistake, You are correct, i dont know what i was thinking
Im so excited with all this basel stuff

But still you were right Gus. It is because of the pressure. The surface of the watch is flat to the pressure goes evenly.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by moby33

We're all the same. My intro to Rolex was via the original SD...but being an Omega SMP fan & owner for years, I entered Rolex ownership with reservation seeing as I was always turned off by the cheap feeling stamped clasps of previous generations models.

But clasp disappointments aside, I quickly learned to love the look & feel of the SD (and eventually the Sub), but again, being an "Omega Man", I also wasn't thrilled w/ the poor lume of the Sub. Hence the purchase of the SubLV w/ it's maxi-dial. At that time I was thinking, "Okay Rolex, you fixed the lume disappointment, now do something about that damn clasp."

When the DSSD was introduced w/ it's revolutionary Glidelock, I was HOOKED. It's then that I pretty much became a "Rolex before Omega" man. I loved my DSSD and didn't take it off for 3+ years...then the SubC came along. I didn't even think I would give the SubC a look, but after a year I bought it just to experience, and was convinced it would be flipped shortly after the "newness" wore off. But WOW...it quickly replaced my DSSD as my favorite daily wearer, so much so, I eventually sold off the DSSD because the SubC seemed to do everything I needed out of a watch. I still have a handful of watches in my collection, but there's no doubt if someone said I could only keep one, it would be my SubC without hesitation.

All that said, I LOVE the graduated bezel of the DSSD (and now SDc) and the domed crystal...if the new SDc had a domed crystal is would be hard to beat IMO as the ultimate, ultimate Rolex diver. There's just something cool about the way the light reflects off the dome...I use to stare at my DSSD more than any other watch just to look at that glorious subtle dome.

I feel the opposite. The dots on the SDC bezel are really unwelcome IMHO. To be honest the last Omega I sold was my 2254 and the dots played an important role. I never noticed they were there. Had it for 3 years and loved it. But the day I realised their presence I just could not get over anymore. This is mad. How can someone be sick of a tiny detail that was absolutely normal in the past is beyond me. Maybe the clean look of the Sub-C bezel was the reason all this happened as I was in love with mine and lusting after another Sub-C for my team. Anyway.. this is part of collecting watches. Love this hobby.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Friedl41

But still you were right Gus. It is because of the pressure. The surface of the watch is flat to the pressure goes evenly.

Huh....I highly doubt this is the case. Rolex used to have domed plexis before which weren't flat and now you see in the Deepsea which has a greater depth rating that the crystal is domed, which is said to actually deal with pressure better.
The Sea-Dweller lacks the magnifier supposedly due to the crystal thickness which caused some distortion with magnification, although I've seen a member install one on a DSSD and it didn't seem to really effect magnification.

Rolex appears to have perfected waterproofing a watch so most of what they do is geared towards aesthetics it seems. Flat crystals, no AR, domed crystals...etc.

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

Let's be honest, 2mm is nothing. The thickness and length of the lugs is a bigger factor in how the watch appears on the wrist. My SubC wears a lot larger than my Omega SMP, yet the SMP is a bigger watch (42mm vs 40mm). Some of you guys will find the absolute smallest thing to complain about.

Yep. Moreover, the SubC wears like a 42mm due to the thicker lugs. So, even had a 42mm SD been offered, it still would have been quite similar to the SubC as far as how large it wears, except for the thickness, which would make it wear higher rather than larger. Ultimately, the watch has yet to be issued and we are speculating as to how it will wear based on the specs. The best gauge of all this is to see how it wears on the wrist and in person. Only then can any of us speak from an informed and authoritative standpoint. But, guessing is a lot of fun at this point.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Tridor

Yep. Moreover, the SubC wears like a 42mm due to the thicker lugs. So, even had a 42mm SD been offered, it still would have been quite similar to the SubC as far as how large it wears, except for the thickness, which would make it wear higher rather than larger. Ultimately, the watch has yet to be issued and we are speculating as to how it will wear based on the specs. The best gauge of all this is to see how it wears on the wrist and in person. Only then can any of us speak from an informed and authoritative standpoint. But, guessing is a lot of fun at this point.

Agree but I'm not sure about this "wears like xxx". A 40mm Sub-C may look and wear bigger than the 5 digit Sub cause it's thicker, because of the maxi dial etc but its still a 40mm watch. When I put a 41-42mm Omega it looks and feels larger on my wrist. Maybe its because I have a tiny 6.5 flat wrist and every single mm can be really noticed. But I guess if I had bigger wrists I would agree with you 100%.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Friedl41

But still you were right Gus. It is because of the pressure. The surface of the watch is flat to the pressure goes evenly.

See below...

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Huh....I highly doubt this is the case. Rolex used to have domed plexis before which weren't flat and now you see in the Deepsea which has a greater depth rating that the crystal is domed, which is said to actually deal with pressure better.
The Sea-Dweller lacks the magnifier supposedly due to the crystal thickness which caused some distortion with magnification, although I've seen a member install one on a DSSD and it didn't seem to really effect magnification.

Rolex appears to have perfected waterproofing a watch so most of what they do is geared towards aesthetics it seems. Flat crystals, no AR, domed crystals...etc.

Guys i feel like i read the above early on and for a long time found it the best excuse available...eventually someone pointed out e magnification issue due to the thicker crystal & that seemed to make more sense to me

There could still be something to it as far as shape or perhaps its a limiting factor of the glue holding the cyclops on, perhaps the glue wouldn't hold up to the greater pressures at depth but this is purely speculation


Still a fine looking timepiece

[HogwldFLTR]

It's funny that a mere three years following the original post in the SD4K, it would be phased out in favor of the red print SD 50th Anniversary model. The latter being 43 mm, 3mm larger than the SD4K and thicker as well. I personally picked up the SD4K following the intro of the SD43. Although not rare this resulted in premium prices being paid for the previously hard to sell SD4K. Fortunately for me with slender wrists, the SD4K is for now the last of the traditionally proportioned Sea Dwellers with all the advancements of the most modern Rolex dive watches with the exception of the new 3235 caliber (replacing the 3135) which was added to the new SD43.

[mistermann]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

It's funny that a mere three years following the original post in the SD4K, it would be phased out in favor of the red print SD 50th Anniversary model. The latter being 43 mm, 3mm larger than the SD4K and thicker as well. I personally picked up the SD4K following the intro of the SD43. Although not rare this resulted in premium prices being paid for the previously hard to sell SD4K. Fortunately for me with slender wrists, the SD4K is for now the last of the traditionally proportioned Sea Dwellers with all the advancements of the most modern Rolex dive watches with the exception of the new 3235 caliber (replacing the 3135) which was added to the new SD43.

I've had 3 ceramic subs and a deepsea, was never able to bond with them. All lasted less than a year, some only a few months. Just had my 1 year anniversary with the sd4k and I'm still in love with it just as much as the 1st day I bought it. It's a very special watch and I hope to keep it forever.

[leeroy]

nice post mate, Loving the detail

[Linuxpenguins]

Great write up! What a watch! Wow!