ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Lew Archer · 8 September 2014, 10:23 AM

Oh, boy. What a watch!

Definitely my favorite of the current Rolex line up of dive watches...

With regret, I handed it back to the salesman.

Oh, boy, what a watch.

2Redbulls · 8 September 2014, 10:24 AM

I haven't seen one in person. What makes it different?

Mr Daytona · 8 September 2014, 10:26 AM

It's the best sport watch made today!

SaddleSC · 8 September 2014, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Daytona

It's the best sport watch made today!

Agree 100%

brettpaul · 8 September 2014, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

Agree 100%

Absolutely love the watch, but having a 16600 that I purchased new in 2008 for under US $5k and keeping in mind I upgraded the so called "tin / tuna can" clasp to the Glidelock, I have to ask myself if a ceramic bezel is worth an additional $5k......with all the other watches I would like to own the answer is "no"....for the time being anyway!!

iazrollie · 8 September 2014, 10:28 AM

It's a beautiful watch. It's like the sub date without the cyclops. However, I can't say I understand the price premium.

Mr Daytona · 8 September 2014, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iazrollie

It's a beautiful watch. It's like the sub date without the cyclops. However, I can't say I understand the price premium.

Price premium.......luxury watch.........yeah, don't even bother trying to figure that one out........

2Redbulls · 8 September 2014, 10:34 AM

Besides the ceramic bezel are there any changes over the old sea-dweller?

SaddleSC · 8 September 2014, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2Redbulls

Besides the ceramic bezel are there any changes over the old sea-dweller?

Solid center links, Glidelock clasp, 60-min gradations on bezel, matte dial, etc.

2Redbulls · 8 September 2014, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

Solid center links, Glidelock clasp, 60-min gradations on bezel, matte dial, etc.

Ah...thank you!

Mick P · 8 September 2014, 10:37 AM

Chaps

I think the Sea Dweller is the only watch that is ruined by the ceramic bezel.

It just looks vulgar with all those extra minute markings.

Mick

Mr Daytona · 8 September 2014, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick P

Chaps

I think the Sea Dweller is the only watch that is ruined by the ceramic bezel.

It just looks vulgar with all those extra minute markings.

Mick

Vulgar??? Wow that's harsh.....LMAO....

Mick P · 8 September 2014, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Daytona

Vulgar??? Wow that's harsh.....LMAO....

Yes I suppose it is just a question of taste.

If is much more bulky than a ceramic sub and it just screams Rolex and appears loud due to that big black shiny bezel with all those white markings.

I prefer the older model.

Mick

FTX I · 8 September 2014, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick P

Yes I suppose it is just a question of taste.

If is much more bulky than a ceramic sub and it just screams Rolex and appears loud due to that big black shiny bezel with all those white markings.

I prefer the older model.

Mick

C'mon Mick a black 40mm ss Rolex diver can't be vulgar. when you add colors, precious metals etc things can be different but a black ss is never vulgar c'mon

foodle · 8 September 2014, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick P

It just looks vulgar with all those extra minute markings.

Vulgar? You mean like how a 5517 is vulgar?

Speed · 8 September 2014, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick P

Chaps

I think the Sea Dweller is the only watch that is ruined by the ceramic bezel.

It just looks vulgar with all those extra minute markings.

Mick

I wouldn't go that far.

However...The shiny ceramic bezel does seem to "conflict" with the satin dial. Apart from that, I liked the watch when I tried it on in Las Vegas @ the Wynn Boutique.

leicashot · 8 September 2014, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speed

I wouldn't go that far.

However...The shiny ceramic bezel does seem to "conflict" with the satin dial. Apart from that, I liked the watch when I tried it on in Las Vegas @ the Wynn Boutique.

I think it goes better in a lot of ways. Most of the time the dial looks black. Just like the bezel it goes to a lighter shade when light hits it so I think it goes better with the ceramic bezel if anything

rjarr · 8 September 2014, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick P

Chaps

I think the Sea Dweller is the only watch that is ruined by the ceramic bezel.

It just looks vulgar with all those extra minute markings.

Mick

Thats your opinion and your opinion means nothing to me. After saying that i love both the sub-c and the SD4000. Here they are side by side.

jhcam8 · 8 September 2014, 11:22 PM

A lot of crabbiness going on. I rather like it and don't feel the need to bash the SubC or Sub or older DS either.

GoingPlaces · 8 September 2014, 10:58 AM

Considering the Deepsea can survive 4x greater depths and has the elaborate helium escape valve, I think the price difference is negligible. For me it's a no brainer.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

SaddleSC · 8 September 2014, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoingPlaces

Considering the Deepsea can survive 4x greater depths and has the elaborate helium escape valve, I think the price difference is negligible. For me it's a no brainer.

In your opinion, what makes the DSSD's helium escape valve more "elaborate" than the one found on the SD4000?

GoingPlaces · 8 September 2014, 02:48 PM

Actually I meant Sea Dweller. My mistake.

watchwatcher · 8 September 2014, 11:08 AM

Saw my first one the other day at my AD...meh, take it or leave it.

tkerrmd · 8 September 2014, 11:11 AM

It's a great watch

leicashot · 8 September 2014, 11:18 AM

So the controversy and arguments begin, again. It's obviously 'that' good that it gets DSSD and Sub-C owners feeling insecure to the point they feel the need to spread negative comments around. Yes! I'm being serious cause there's no need to bash a 'watch'. I could say the Sub-C is too blingy and the ridiculous wide lugs are hideous, but that would be immature and stupid to say in such a way. If I felt that I would say it more nicely, like I don't have a hidden agenda.

At the end of the day, argue that this piece looks crap all you like, but it's alright in my book.

versatile1 · 8 September 2014, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leicashot

So the controversy and arguments begin, again. It's obviously 'that' good that it gets DSSD and Sub-C owners feeling insecure to the point they feel the need to spread negative comments around. Yes! I'm being serious cause there's no need to bash a 'watch'. I could say the Sub-C is too blingy and the ridiculous wide lugs are hideous, but that would be immature and stupid to say in such a way. If I felt that I would say it more nicely, like I don't have a hidden agenda.

At the end of the day, argue that this piece looks crap all you like, but it's alright in my book.

Blue dial or camera angle?

leicashot · 8 September 2014, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by versatile1

Blue dial or camera angle?

Thats the sky reflecting off the matte dial....here is another angle where the dial is jet black. Either way, legibility exceeds any current Rolex diver easily.

versatile1 · 8 September 2014, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leicashot

Thats the sky reflecting off the matte dial....here is another angle where the dial is jet black. Either way, legibility exceeds any current Rolex diver easily.

Very nice!
I have to admit, when I saw the pic of what looked like a blue dial, I thought I found a reason for a new Rolex

leicashot · 8 September 2014, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by versatile1

Very nice!
I have to admit, when I saw the pic of what looked like a blue dial, I thought I found a reason for a new Rolex

A blue dial certainly would be very nice indeed

AK797 · 8 September 2014, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leicashot

So the controversy and arguments begin, again. It's obviously 'that' good that it gets DSSD and Sub-C owners feeling insecure to the point they feel the need to spread negative comments around. Yes! I'm being serious cause there's no need to bash a 'watch'. I could say the Sub-C is too blingy and the ridiculous wide lugs are hideous, but that would be immature and stupid to say in such a way. If I felt that I would say it more nicely, like I don't have a hidden agenda.

At the end of the day, argue that this piece looks crap all you like, but it's alright in my book.

Come on, do a bit of research before you start slagging off DSSD and subc owners. Only Mick has said he doesn't like them and he doesn't like anything. Only your reaction sounds defensive and insecure.

8 September 2014, 10:23 AM	#1
Lew Archer "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: L.A., Calif. Watch: Rolex Submariner Posts: 2,220	Finally saw the new Sea-Dweller 4000 Oh, boy. What a watch! Definitely my favorite of the current Rolex line up of dive watches... With regret, I handed it back to the salesman. Oh, boy, what a watch.

8 September 2014, 10:28 AM	#6
iazrollie "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Ian Location: NY Watch: All of them Posts: 3,245	It's a beautiful watch. It's like the sub date without the cyclops. However, I can't say I understand the price premium. __________________ Rolex, PPs, Breitling

8 September 2014, 10:24 AM	#2
2Redbulls "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Tom Location: Morgan Hill, CA Watch: I give up.. Posts: 719	I haven't seen one in person. What makes it different?

8 September 2014, 10:26 AM	#3
Mr Daytona "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Real Name: Mr. Daytona Location: On the water Watch: Panerai Posts: 974	It's the best sport watch made today!

8 September 2014, 10:34 AM	#8
2Redbulls "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Tom Location: Morgan Hill, CA Watch: I give up.. Posts: 719	Besides the ceramic bezel are there any changes over the old sea-dweller?

8 September 2014, 10:37 AM	#11
Mick P Banned Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: UK / Spain Watch: 39mm Explorer Posts: 1,990	Chaps I think the Sea Dweller is the only watch that is ruined by the ceramic bezel. It just looks vulgar with all those extra minute markings. Mick

8 September 2014, 11:22 PM	#19
jhcam8 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2011 Real Name: Jim Location: SE MI, USA Watch: Sub C Posts: 2,068	A lot of crabbiness going on. I rather like it and don't feel the need to bash the SubC or Sub or older DS either.

8 September 2014, 10:58 AM	#20
GoingPlaces "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 5,356	Considering the Deepsea can survive 4x greater depths and has the elaborate helium escape valve, I think the price difference is negligible. For me it's a no brainer. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

8 September 2014, 02:48 PM	#22
GoingPlaces "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 5,356	Actually I meant Sea Dweller. My mistake.

8 September 2014, 11:08 AM	#23
watchwatcher "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Larry Location: Kentucky Watch: Yes Posts: 35,047	Saw my first one the other day at my AD...meh, take it or leave it.

8 September 2014, 11:11 AM	#24
tkerrmd "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: Tom Location: In a race car! Watch: ME RACE PORSCHES Posts: 24,123	It's a great watch

8 September 2014, 11:18 AM	#25
leicashot "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Melbourne Watch: SEIKO SLA033 Posts: 665	So the controversy and arguments begin, again. It's obviously 'that' good that it gets DSSD and Sub-C owners feeling insecure to the point they feel the need to spread negative comments around. Yes! I'm being serious cause there's no need to bash a 'watch'. I could say the Sub-C is too blingy and the ridiculous wide lugs are hideous, but that would be immature and stupid to say in such a way. If I felt that I would say it more nicely, like I don't have a hidden agenda. At the end of the day, argue that this piece looks crap all you like, but it's alright in my book.

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