ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
3 April 2014, 03:07 AM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 259
|
SDC vs. 16600 - Comparison Photos
More drool-worthy shots of the new 116600 here:
http://www.fratellowatches.com/rolex...erence-116600/ And for those (like me) who've been waiting for natural-lighting, same-angle comparison shots of the new and old Sea Dwellers, here you go: 16600: 116600: An observation: As I speculated previously, if you look closely it appears that the SDC's lugs aren't actually any WIDER than the 16600's—they're just a bit SHORTER so that they taper less and LOOK thicker. Not at all like the squarish Sub-C lugs, and not as thick as the GMT's lugs either… |
3 April 2014, 03:11 AM | #2 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 259
|
By the way, the SDC's shorter lugs also explain why the end links stick out a bit past the lugs. If you look closely, you can see that the SDC's end links are exactly the same as the 16600's.
|
3 April 2014, 03:39 AM | #3 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas
Watch: 12800ft = 3900m
Posts: 11,173
|
Quote:
Don't know why Rolex does this. |
|
3 April 2014, 03:45 AM | #4 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 259
|
|
3 April 2014, 05:53 AM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 244
|
|
3 April 2014, 03:14 AM | #6 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 259
|
Another difference I have yet to see anyone comment on: Look how much larger the scalloping is on the old vs. the new. I don't have any conclusions from that, but I thought it was interesting.
|
5 April 2014, 01:06 AM | #7 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Vancouver
Watch: 14060M 2 liner
Posts: 88
|
Quote:
While the 16600 is a classic, I think the 116600 is about as good an evolution as possible. Of course there are annoying details like the 3 hash marks but I can totally see that being called a "charming" or "unique" feature down the road once the dust settles. As for the "ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX" on the inside ring...that's just plain ugly but hardly noticeable in real life. If it's an actual anti-counterfeit feature then I can live with it. About the only thing that would have made it really bad-ass is a domed crystal. And that bracelet/clasp...let's face it...it's light years ahead of the old bracelet/clasp. I can totally see myself picking one up in the used market down the road but it wouldn't be to replace my 16600. I'd have to have them both! |
|
3 April 2014, 03:18 AM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Denmark
Watch: UJ Alfred 40
Posts: 216
|
Still like the 16600 better. The three dots on the new bezel annoy the hell out of me.
And the Maxi Dial is not my favorite either. The new font is also not really as good as the old font, in my opinion.
__________________
Don't drink out of ornamental ponds in Tiergarten. You will get sick. |
3 April 2014, 04:03 AM | #9 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Real Name: Flavio
Location: N/A
Posts: 14,654
|
Agree. Too much going on on that bezel. Between 11 and 1 you can see different sizes of markings and that would really drive me crazy. If that insert was a marketing idea as a fellow member said, IMHO it simply ruined the watch. Unfortunately.
|
3 April 2014, 06:15 PM | #10 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Over here
Watch: Today's Watch!
Posts: 306
|
Quote:
Thanks for sharing guys! |
|
3 April 2014, 06:37 PM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Watch: 116610LN
Posts: 15,802
|
|
3 April 2014, 03:47 AM | #12 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ann Arbor MI
Watch: Rolex Ref 16600
Posts: 3,908
|
I think you're reading too much into these two photographs. I seriously doubt that the lug to lug distance on the new SD is shorter than the old one. I'll wait until I see some measurements with a caliper before making definitive statements.
|
3 April 2014, 04:04 AM | #13 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Real Name: Dave
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,181
|
|
3 April 2014, 03:48 AM | #14 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Watch: 116610 , 16233
Posts: 1,802
|
Interesting
__________________
|
3 April 2014, 05:29 AM | #15 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: DM[V]
Watch: 16710 | 16600
Posts: 3,546
|
Jeez, slap me silly, but I have to go with the original.
__________________
Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons
|
3 April 2014, 05:35 AM | #16 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Blighty (England)
Watch: Daytona/Pepsi/Sub
Posts: 1,517
|
The SubC bezel really catches the light and is very blingy. The extra markings may just tone it down along with the dial.
|
3 April 2014, 05:40 AM | #17 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Ozone
Watch: DD, DJ, SubC Date
Posts: 1,666
|
Meh!
|
3 April 2014, 05:49 AM | #18 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Adam
Location: Orlando, Florida
Watch: Me
Posts: 9,935
|
We will all find something to dislike but at the end of the day IMO we would all love this piece in the stable, I for one am so glad Rolex brought this baby back
__________________
The richest people in the world look for and build NETWORKS, Everyone else looks for work... Robert Kiyosaki |
3 April 2014, 08:22 AM | #19 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Midlands
Posts: 1,515
|
Quote:
I wouldn't love to have it in my stable. The only time it would get on my wrist would be when my 114060 was being serviced. That or when I forced myself to put it on my wrist for the sake of wearing it. Would I love to have one for free? Sure that way I could sell it and get another watch. I've not been paying huge amounts of attention to the pictures but in this closeup the bezel looks far too busy for my liking. Maybe I'm just used to looking at my sub |
|
3 April 2014, 06:36 AM | #20 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Real Name: BondJamesBond
Location: The Algarve
Watch: Rolex or nothing
Posts: 4,081
|
As usual, the original is better.
__________________
♛ 5-digit Rolex or nothing ♛ |
3 April 2014, 07:13 AM | #21 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas
Watch: 12800ft = 3900m
Posts: 11,173
|
|
3 April 2014, 07:17 AM | #22 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Up a tree
Posts: 4,001
|
I prefer the 16600, less bling, but the new one is nice.
But can someone tell me what the purpose is of the Rolex Rolex Rolex On the rehalt??? |
3 April 2014, 10:12 AM | #23 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ann Arbor MI
Watch: Rolex Ref 16600
Posts: 3,908
|
The originally cited explain reason, when it first showed up, is that it's to make counterfeiting more difficult. I think it's a design feature for people who like jewelry more than horology.
|
3 April 2014, 07:22 AM | #24 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Real Name: Wes
Location: Holosuite
Posts: 6,345
|
Nice comparison. The 16600 is a classic beauty, but the new 116600 looks so much better.
|
3 April 2014, 07:26 AM | #25 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Real Name: Chris
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,417
|
Thanks for sharing! Love the new SDc
|
3 April 2014, 07:30 AM | #26 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Watch: Your Six
Posts: 1,500
|
The new bracelets trumps the originals in all the sports models, including the SD and SDC but what's with the four then three hash marks. It's like pink elephants; you don't think about it until you think about it then you can't stop thinking about it.
Other than that and the price juxtaposition in the line-up, it would be a hit with me.
__________________
Time and tide wait for no man. |
3 April 2014, 07:58 AM | #27 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Real Name: Richard
Location: UK
Watch: Tudor Ranger
Posts: 1,613
|
I really don't like the modern inflated dial markers and hands that are now appearing on newer Rolex models. They just look too childish to me. I much prefer the refinement and elegance of the earlier models. Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.
|
4 April 2014, 12:29 AM | #28 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Hoth
Posts: 1,243
|
I didn't even notice until you mentioned it, but now I realize that's why the bezel seems kind of "off" to me. They should have kept the bezel markings the same as the 16600.
|
3 April 2014, 07:49 AM | #29 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: USA & France
Posts: 11,078
|
Dream scenario: you can fit the new dial/hands on the old watch! :-)
I love everything about the good old SD16600, except I now prefer the maxi hands/dial, thus I'll go with the new one. |
3 April 2014, 09:26 AM | #30 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Real Name: Joe
Location: PA
Posts: 14,774
|
We'll always find pro's/con's between the two.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.