ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
7 December 2013, 11:41 PM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: England
Posts: 5
|
Sea dweller or submariner
Ok guys I know this has probably been debated a million times but what is the better all round watch sea dweller or submariner forget about the price difference which is the better all round watch?
|
7 December 2013, 11:47 PM | #2 |
TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: Ken
Location: SW Florida
Watch: One on my wrist.
Posts: 64,008
|
Neither...Flip a coin.
__________________
SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT |
7 December 2013, 11:51 PM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,683
|
|
7 December 2013, 11:52 PM | #4 |
TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron
Join Date: Apr 2012
Real Name: Tim
Location: Pennsylvania
Watch: 14060M
Posts: 72,244
|
Depends, the "Submariner" doesn't a date, the SD does, coin flip otherwise!
__________________
Rolex Submariner 14060M Omega Seamaster 2254.50 DOXA Professional 1200T Card carrying member of TRF's Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons TRF's "After Dark" Bar & NightClub Patron P Club Member #17 2 FA ENABLED
|
8 December 2013, 01:27 AM | #5 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Up a tree
Posts: 4,001
|
|
8 December 2013, 05:40 AM | #6 |
TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron
Join Date: Jul 2007
Real Name: Rob
Location: Nearby.
Posts: 24,931
|
I have to agree..
It really just comes down to personal preference.
__________________
He who wears a Rolex is always on time, even when late!! TRF's "After Dark" Bar & Nightclub Patron-Founding Member.. |
8 December 2013, 11:18 PM | #7 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: Travis
Location: FL / NYC
Watch: Yes..
Posts: 33,493
|
Sub for me, but there is no clear "better" choice. Just personal.
|
7 December 2013, 11:52 PM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 623
|
If you want to follow the herd and buy a watch that is everywhere then you can't go wrong with a submariner but the SD would be my choice, probably the best Rolex ever made.
|
7 December 2013, 11:56 PM | #9 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Watch: Me now
Posts: 19,372
|
Whatever sings to you is the better choice
|
8 December 2013, 12:07 AM | #10 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Real Name: Trav
Location: singapore
Watch: it
Posts: 2,316
|
Sd unless the other is a LV
|
8 December 2013, 12:09 AM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Andreas
Location: Margaritaville
Watch: Smurf
Posts: 19,879
|
Unless you're going to dive very deep they are basically the same. I would pick the SD though.
__________________
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. |
8 December 2013, 12:16 AM | #12 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: USA
Watch: SeaDweller
Posts: 464
|
I have a 16600 Sea Dweller and my wife has a 16610 Sub Date. Obviously, they are very similar. The Sea Dweller is a bit heavier and taller on the wrist, so more likely to bump against things during daily wear. The SubDate has a cyclops so the date is larger but has to be viewed head-on to see. From a practical standpoint, those are the only differences.
I prefer the Sea Dweller and she prefers the Sub Date. Of course, if you are looking at a ceramic sub, then you also have the improved bracelet clasp to consider. L |
8 December 2013, 12:29 AM | #13 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Real Name: Joe
Location: PA
Posts: 14,774
|
SD for me. Then again I'm biased.
|
8 December 2013, 12:38 AM | #14 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Real Name: gus
Location: East Coast
Watch: APK & sometimes Y
Posts: 26,599
|
Wore a sub for 20 years, now i have the SD.
I like the SD for all its uniqueness!
__________________
|
8 December 2013, 12:41 AM | #15 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Real Name: Juan
Location: Sherwood Park, Ab
Watch: 114060
Posts: 1,509
|
Ive always felt tempted by the SD, but I wouldn't want to give up my sub as to me its the perfect dive watch, so for me personally, the sub. Then again, maybe someday I'll want both.
|
8 December 2013, 12:48 AM | #16 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Real Name: Justin
Location: Pa
Watch: Explorer ii
Posts: 3,155
|
Forgetting the price? I'm getting a sd all day.
|
8 December 2013, 12:56 AM | #17 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: GMT -5
Watch: HulkPepsiCoke
Posts: 2,364
|
I prefer the Sub over the SD.
|
8 December 2013, 01:05 AM | #18 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: MDangerSteel
Location: Canada
Watch: Vintage Rolex
Posts: 2,301
|
Here's my unbiased opinion, as I own both.
SD-built like a tank, heavier,more unique SUB-lighter, thus more comfortable. I'd choose the SD for the cool factor.Besides, there's fewer of them around.
__________________
Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons Probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival---Capt. Rage Don't believe anything in aviation, 'till V1---Mitch Danger Steel |
8 December 2013, 12:57 AM | #19 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3
|
Sd
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk |
8 December 2013, 01:21 AM | #20 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: Brian (TBone)
Location: canada
Watch: es make me smile
Posts: 78,113
|
I've always liked my seadweller, it has the date function without the cyclops, and for that reason I prefer it over the Sub
|
8 December 2013, 01:36 AM | #21 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: DM[V]
Watch: 16710 | 16600
Posts: 3,546
|
I've only seen one SD in the wild, when on a trip to DC. That weekend I saw a ZILLION Subs.
__________________
Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons
|
8 December 2013, 01:39 AM | #22 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Brett
Location: Bahrain, Dubai
Watch: Rolex and AP
Posts: 5,538
|
SD for me!
|
8 December 2013, 02:03 AM | #23 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: Young
Location: Woodstock
Watch: Rolex AP PP
Posts: 1,271
|
One more for SD!!
|
8 December 2013, 02:06 AM | #24 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Real Name: Dennis
Location: Bay Area - 925
Posts: 40,018
|
The SD is a little bulkier than both a 14060 and 16610. My choice is the 16610 between the three.
|
8 December 2013, 02:07 AM | #25 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: NYC
Watch: '85 1680, AP RO
Posts: 148
|
Whichever one seduces you most when they're on your wrist
|
8 December 2013, 02:11 AM | #26 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Real Name: Scott
Location: GMT -7
Watch: GMT's & Sub's
Posts: 10,401
|
Which SD are we talking about here' the 116600 or the 16600? I'm not a huge fan of the DSSD, but I love the SD....which is a Sub on steroids!. As others have stated, you can't go wrong either way.
__________________
"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of lower price is forgotten." -Benjamin Franklin Member No. 922 |
8 December 2013, 02:18 AM | #27 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SF, south bay
Posts: 5,222
|
Sub Date, or LV works for me.
|
8 December 2013, 04:05 AM | #28 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Real Name: Neil
Location: UK
Watch: ing ships roll in
Posts: 59,369
|
SD over sub but not subc.
|
8 December 2013, 04:10 AM | #29 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Real Name: Erwin
Location: usa
Watch: Sea Dweller
Posts: 685
|
They're both great tool watches but I'm with the SD camp! I see so many Subs out in the wild but very rare that I see a SD. Its low profile is what attracted me to the SD.
|
8 December 2013, 04:37 AM | #30 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Real Name: Wes
Location: Holosuite
Posts: 6,345
|
To me, the 16600 is just an awesome watch. The DSSD, on the other hand, while nice, is just too big. I tried one on at an AD and it was not comfortable on my wrist. I don't have child-like wrists by any means, but the DSSD felt too big.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.