ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

rolexsubdate · 23 October 2009, 11:22 PM

One benefit of reading a magazine in the bathroom --- I think I found a mistake .....Here are the pics of the magazine and the article that was published in it.

The mistake is this: The author refers to the SUB DATE as being the YOUNGER sister of the SD .....

Sub came first so I do not know how the SUB DATE becomes the younger sister ... May be he meant "smaller" sister?

you think it is also a mistake??

I have underlined in red the author's statements ....

thanks,

Ed Rooney · 23 October 2009, 11:35 PM

I'm surprised WT even printed that article.

Submarino · 24 October 2009, 12:00 AM

Actually they have republished the same article a few times. I have it on two other Watch Time issues.

moviefreak · 24 October 2009, 12:41 AM

If the younger is the sub-date.. then the older (made before the sub date) is the regular sub.. so what is the mistake.?

Tools · 24 October 2009, 01:01 AM

The Sea Dweller started out as a modified 5513 in the early 1960's with their "Patent Pending" Sea Dweller in collaboration with COMEX and installation of a helium valve...

The Sub Date didn't come along until 1967 with the introduction of the 1680, so I suppose that the SD did pre-date the Sub Date by about a year or so..........

sakuraba · 24 October 2009, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolexsubdate

One benefit of reading a magazine in the bathroom ---

Just ONE benefit?

Seriously, the Sub ND predated the SD, but I think the Sub Date came after.

sakuraba · 24 October 2009, 01:09 AM

Oops! Didn't see Larry' response

rolexsubdate · 24 October 2009, 01:25 AM

oh really? The subdate did come after the SD? If that's true,
then I got my facts wrong ... and the author is correct afterall ...

My appologies ...

JBat · 24 October 2009, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tools

The Sea Dweller started out as a modified 5513 in the early 1960's with their "Patent Pending" Sea Dweller in collaboration with COMEX and installation of a helium valve...

The Sub Date didn't come along until 1967 with the introduction of the 1680, so I suppose that the SD did pre-date the Sub Date by about a year or so..........

And the mystery is solved...

Tools · 24 October 2009, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolexsubdate

oh really? The subdate did come after the SD? If that's true,
then I got my facts wrong ... and the author is correct afterall ...

My appologies ...

Well... Only if somebody is picking nits..

The 1665, which is the SD as we know it today, came out in about '77, so it was 10 years after the introduction of the 1680 Sub Date.. The famous Double Reds, which said "Sea Dweller Submariner" came out in ~71, still 4 years after the 1680..

Most people forget about the early non-date COMEX "Sea Dwellers" which are Subs with HEV's ... Heck, hardly anybody has ever seen one......

snow_rocks · 24 October 2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L_K

If you read ahead it says that the reason for not having a cyclops on the SD is due to the huge pressures at large depths. Isn't the cyclops just glued on to the solid saphire....?

This issue has come up before about SDs not having the cyclops.

Due to the thickness of the crystal, the cyclops would have to be double in size to be effective.

Welshwatchman · 24 October 2009, 09:01 AM

This is the earliest actual SeaDweller pic I can find and it supposedly dates to 1967. One of the "prototypes".

Any pics of earlier examples?

GradyPhilpott · 24 October 2009, 09:14 AM

I would argue with the assertion that the primary difference between the Sub Date and the Sea Dweller is the cyclops.

I would be more likely to cite the difference in depth rating or the helium escape valve.

The cyclops is hardly more than a cosmetic attachment.

wehttaM · 24 October 2009, 10:41 AM

I don't think the main difference is the cyclops magnification window, It is the Helium Escape Valve that was patented.

wehttaM · 24 October 2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I would argue with the assertion that the primary difference between the Sub Date and the Sea Dweller is the cyclops.

I would be more likely to cite the difference in depth rating or the helium escape valve.

The cyclops is hardly more than a cosmetic attachment.

That was my opinion, also.

23 October 2009, 11:22 PM	#1
rolexsubdate Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: The Moon Posts: 1,238	Bathroom Reading: Found a mistake in a popular SD article One benefit of reading a magazine in the bathroom --- I think I found a mistake .....Here are the pics of the magazine and the article that was published in it. The mistake is this: The author refers to the SUB DATE as being the YOUNGER sister of the SD ..... Sub came first so I do not know how the SUB DATE becomes the younger sister ... May be he meant "smaller" sister? you think it is also a mistake?? I have underlined in red the author's statements .... thanks, Attached Images

24 October 2009, 12:00 AM	#3
Submarino "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Real Name: Mr. H Location: Dallas Watch: them for me! Posts: 7,180	Actually they have republished the same article a few times. I have it on two other Watch Time issues. __________________ WATCHES ARE THE NEW CURRENCY!/ MEMBER 27491/OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED OLD TIMER /AP OWNERS CLUB MEMBER Instagram @watchcollectinglifestyle

24 October 2009, 12:41 AM	#4
moviefreak "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: in my house... Posts: 5,524	If the younger is the sub-date.. then the older (made before the sub date) is the regular sub.. so what is the mistake.? __________________ Cheers, Eduardo Be a WIS not a WUSS... and remove all the stickers..

24 October 2009, 01:01 AM	#5
Tools TRF Moderator & 2025 Titanium Yacht-Master Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,654	The Sea Dweller started out as a modified 5513 in the early 1960's with their "Patent Pending" Sea Dweller in collaboration with COMEX and installation of a helium valve... The Sub Date didn't come along until 1967 with the introduction of the 1680, so I suppose that the SD did pre-date the Sub Date by about a year or so.......... __________________ (Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member

24 October 2009, 01:09 AM	#7
sakuraba "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Real Name: Jib Location: SJ, California Watch: sun dial Posts: 8,189	Oops! Didn't see Larry' response __________________ F 14000 AirKing black F 16710 GMT Pepsi F 16570 Explorer II white T 16600 SD D 16610 LV "fine quality is remembered long after the pain of spending money" -Steve Mulholland

23 October 2009, 11:35 PM	#2
Ed Rooney "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Annapolis, MD Watch: Sea-Dweller 16600 Posts: 5,081	I'm surprised WT even printed that article.

24 October 2009, 01:25 AM	#8
rolexsubdate Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: The Moon Posts: 1,238	oh really? The subdate did come after the SD? If that's true, then I got my facts wrong ... and the author is correct afterall ... My appologies ...

24 October 2009, 09:01 AM	#12
Welshwatchman "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Real Name: Paul Location: Wales, UK Posts: 14,578	This is the earliest actual SeaDweller pic I can find and it supposedly dates to 1967. One of the "prototypes". Any pics of earlier examples?

24 October 2009, 09:14 AM	#13
GradyPhilpott 2025 TitaniumYM Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: 14060M Posts: 34,482	I would argue with the assertion that the primary difference between the Sub Date and the Sea Dweller is the cyclops. I would be more likely to cite the difference in depth rating or the helium escape valve. The cyclops is hardly more than a cosmetic attachment.

24 October 2009, 10:41 AM	#14
wehttaM "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: USA Posts: 557	I don't think the main difference is the cyclops magnification window, It is the Helium Escape Valve that was patented.

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