SDC vs. 16600 - Comparison Photos

[BJHofkin]

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…

[BJHofkin]

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.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by BJHofkin

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.

Not really, it's design feature. The Deepsea, YM2 and gold Daytonas are the same.
Don't know why Rolex does this.

[BJHofkin]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Not really, it's design feature. The Deepsea, YM2 and gold Daytonas are the same.
Don't know why Rolex does this.

I agree. I was just pointing out that it's the design of the LUGS, and not the END LINKS, that creates the different appearance.

[Der Meister]

Originally Posted by BJHofkin

I agree. I was just pointing out that it's the design of the LUGS, and not the END LINKS, that creates the different appearance.

The lugs of the 116506 does not look shorter than the ss models

[BJHofkin]

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.

[JMAK]

Originally Posted by BJHofkin

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.

Nice observation...I also noticed that the crown guards appear to be bigger on the 116600. That adds to the chunky look.

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!

[DamageInc.77]

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.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by DamageInc.77

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.

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.

[sBmRnR]

Originally Posted by DamageInc.77

The new font is also not really as good as the old font, in my opinion.

Here's a comparison, from the original hi-res images ;)



Thanks for sharing guys!

[Bangel]

Originally Posted by sBmRnR

Here's a comparison, from the original hi-res images ;)



Thanks for sharing guys!

Font variations are not uncommon in Rolex models.

Some DSSDs have writing like the top picture and some have writing like the bottom picture.

[JP Chestnut]

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.

[DCheeta]

Originally Posted by JP Chestnut

I'll wait until I see some measurements with a caliper before making definitive statements.

We really are freaks, aren't we?

Great comparison, thanks for sharing. I agree with the author - it is the perfect sport watch.

[14060m]

Interesting

[Armyguy03]

Jeez, slap me silly, but I have to go with the original.

[Robbyman]

The SubC bezel really catches the light and is very blingy. The extra markings may just tone it down along with the dial.

[Tridor]

Meh!

[MortgageGuy]

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

[jay1988]

Originally Posted by MortgageGuy

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

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

[jamesbondOO7]

As usual, the original is better.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by jamesbondOO7

As usual, the original is better.

Of course, in your opinion.
To me, this new one(SD4C) is much better.

[Clay]

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???

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by Clay

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???

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.

[Wesley Crusher]

Nice comparison. The 16600 is a classic beauty, but the new 116600 looks so much better.

[SoonerTA]

Thanks for sharing! Love the new SDc

[SALTY]

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.

[omx5o]

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.

[Touring]

Originally Posted by Nimrod

...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.

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.

[psv]

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.

[nauticajoe]

We'll always find pro's/con's between the two.