SDC Vs 16600 !

[Trurolexer]

SDc is my next watch for sure.

[JohnFM]

I own an F serial 16600 and love the thing. When I first got it I wasn't sure what all the fuss was about. I liked the fact it had no cyclops but felt it was a bit chunky for its dial size. After owning it for a couple of years, it has become my favorite Rolex. The dial is a bit smaller than the 16610 but the bezel scalloping is deeper, so the watch has a more rugged look and feel than the older Subs.

The 16600 is not a flashy watch. It doesn't shout at you. But once you own one and wear one for a while, you realize how good and special it really is. I'm lucky to own the darn thing and wouldn't sell it for any reason.

All of that said, the 116600 looks fantastic. It has the same overall look and feel of the older one with a few changes that some will appreciate and others will not (larger hands and markers, ceramic bezel, different bracelet). In my opinion, the two watches are cut from the same mold. If you want bling, look elsewhere. If you want a relatively (for Rolex) low key watch that exudes quality and ruggedness, the 16600 and 116600 are both superb.

[postalworker]

Sdc

[petenyc]

SDc

[Clay]

This is the watch I "go to" every summer...

Although the new Sea Dweller looks very nice, it could NEVER replace my 16600…

[Mike1066]

16600. You can't beat perfection.

V/R

Mike

[Karbo]

Originally Posted by Mike1066

16600. You can't beat perfection.

V/R

Mike

+1
I tell you... You will regret the glossy dial !

[paltak]

If it weren't for the significant price difference, roughly $4K, I would've picked the SDC for nice upgrades. I'd keep my SD and save the difference towards another watch.

[Karbo]

60/40 not bad atm

[harrjaso]

This one



Sent from an iPhone on a secluded island

[accce]

Had I not bought the new C-dweller I would have said the 16600 from the pictures. Put it on and its the older SD but better. The band and clasp. The bezel twist and the ceramic. The matt dial. Its a beautiful pice in real life.

[harrjaso]

Originally Posted by jjnd08

SDC. But I wouldn't own either. There are plenty of other black dial Rolexes I like more.

Wha wha wha whhaaatttt??? Just kidding, have 5 or 6 "black dial" Rolexes myself so I can relate. I really love the 1680, the matte finish on the dial is by far my favorite of any I've seen and the thick crystal is my favorite aspect of ANY Rolex (but, sorry, the 1665 is the best sports watch Rolex has ever made, imho).

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Karbo

Which one wd you choose !?
To me answer is 16600 all the way
Reasons ?:
- SDC too thick
- too much weight
- not crazy of ceramic
- not crazy of graduated bezel
- finally the price gap

From ISO 6425.

The presence of a time-preselecting device, for example a unidirectional rotating bezel or a digital display. Such a device shall be protected against inadvertent rotation or wrong manipulation. If it is a rotating bezel, it shall have a minute scale going up to 60 min. The markings indicating every 5 min shall be clearly indicated. The markings on the dial, if existing, shall be coordinated with those of the preselecting device and shall be clearly visible.

Watches can not be described as 'divers' unless the rotating bezel has a minute scale and 5 minute markers.

IMO this was the reason Rolex did this and it had nothing to do with aesthetics.

[T01]

Though I am a huge fan of the 16660, after picking this up today I have to say SDc.

[Token74]

Sold my 16600 a week after picking up my 116600; still love the old model, but after wearing the new SDC the difference in feel is striking.

As for it being thicker, it may well be, but on me, it wears lower so appears less thick; I have no idea why this is, but it is what it is.

The old one remains a classic and one of my favourite Rolex models, but the new model is for me better in every way.

[gmortens]

Both:)

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by directioneng

From ISO 6425.

The presence of a time-preselecting device, for example a unidirectional rotating bezel or a digital display. Such a device shall be protected against inadvertent rotation or wrong manipulation. If it is a rotating bezel, it shall have a minute scale going up to 60 min. The markings indicating every 5 min shall be clearly indicated. The markings on the dial, if existing, shall be coordinated with those of the preselecting device and shall be clearly visible.

Watches can not be described as 'divers' unless the rotating bezel has a minute scale and 5 minute markers.

IMO this was the reason Rolex did this and it had nothing to do with aesthetics.

Right on, Eddie!

Seems Rolex might introduce the full minute marker bezel insert on the other diver's watches, too; at least judging from this picture of a TT Sub Date 116613 that was posted here recently:



Source: http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=354325

The bezel insert on Omega Sea-Master Professional watches have been following the ISO 6425 standard for years... about time Rolex did it too.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by directioneng

From ISO 6425.

The presence of a time-preselecting device, for example a unidirectional rotating bezel or a digital display. Such a device shall be protected against inadvertent rotation or wrong manipulation. If it is a rotating bezel, it shall have a minute scale going up to 60 min. The markings indicating every 5 min shall be clearly indicated. The markings on the dial, if existing, shall be coordinated with those of the preselecting device and shall be clearly visible.

Watches can not be described as 'divers' unless the rotating bezel has a minute scale and 5 minute markers.

IMO this was the reason Rolex did this and it had nothing to do with aesthetics.

They should have also considered reducing the size of the bezel numbers so they could fit in the correct number of minute markers on the bezel if they were going to do this. This is a bit of a clumsy half way house.

[strafer_kid]

A really tough one! I ahve both and its hard to decide - both have their plus points - maybe the new Ceramic but only just!

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by AK797

They should have also considered reducing the size of the bezel numbers so they could fit in the correct number of minute markers on the bezel if they were going to do this. This is a bit of a clumsy half way house.

Rolex made it the same way with the MilSub 5517, too.

Maybe not perfect but that's just the way Rolex decided to design the bezel insert.

[psv]

OK, I should reserve judgement as I haven't handled the C-Dweller in person yet, but since I have the DSSD, 114060 and SD16600, I guess I'm somewhat qualified to make projection.

I love the old Sea-Dweller 16600, especially with lug-holes, but reality is that it is a watch that is magic, has a cult-following and is extremely photogenic. In real life, I never quite got along with it because if you use it as intended - in and around water - I never quite got the right fit of the watch. And the lume is not good with modern standards.

Sure, the new SDC weight a few grams more due to the new and much improved bracelet. The new clasp system is a great and useful improvement. The maxi dial/hands have better legibility and much better lume. Fully graduated beze - no one ever complained about it on a DSSD or 5517 Milsub - I don't get that critique. Everyone worries about the ceramic bezel being fragile - but they have now been out for what, 8 years, have either of you actually broke one yet?

In my book the new SDC looks like a true winner. A return to sanity for Rolex. A great do-it-all sportwatch. The only way they could have made it better would be if they added back the lugholes and put a domed AR coated crystal on it.

[Clay]

Now if you want to talk "Matte Dail"...

[Karbo]

Originally Posted by Clay

Now if you want to talk "Matte Dail"...

x10

[sunspot2013]

Originally Posted by AK797

They should have also considered reducing the size of the bezel numbers so they could fit in the correct number of minute markers on the bezel if they were going to do this. This is a bit of a clumsy half way house.

Good eye. So in reality, if you take the ISO criterion as meaning a bezel insert must have 1 minute markers from 1 to 60 minutes, then neither the 16600 insert nor the SDc insert fits the criterion.

In all honestly I don't see Rolex thinking they must comply with ISO 6425 to boost the "dive watch" cred of the SD.

[DamageInc.77]

The ceramic Sea-Dweller lost its elegance. In my eyes, the 16600 is the perfect Rolex.

[accce]

Originally Posted by DamageInc.77

The ceramic Sea-Dweller lost its elegance. In my eyes, the 16600 is the perfect Rolex.

In what way did it loose anything?

[Karbo]

Why the graduated bezel only have 3 dots with SDC ?

[tdubt]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

Right on, Eddie!

Seems Rolex might introduce the full minute marker bezel insert on the other diver's watches, too; at least judging from this picture of a TT Sub Date 116613 that was posted here recently:


The bezel insert on Omega Sea-Master Professional watches have been following the ISO 6425 standard for years... about time Rolex did it too.

I guess rules and certs are rules and certs, but I think that's too bad as I personally find the full minute markers around clutter the look. I prefer 16600 probably for that reason foremost. secondly, for the non-ceramic bezel. The only thing i'd prefer about SDc is the glidelock clasp.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by Karbo

Why the graduated bezel only have 3 dots with SDC ?

And why on the Omega Seamaster 300m?


(Source)


And why on the Rolex MilSub 5517 ??


(Source)

It's just the way it's designed!

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Karbo

Why the graduated bezel only have 3 dots with SDC ?

to maintain balance the "5" & "10" do not take up as much bezel real estate as the rest.

see how the 10 is barely squeezed in… the 20, 30 , 40 , 50 just wouldnt fit unless they resized all the number fonts, but that would give the watch a different look.