Is the dial size of the 16600 the same as 16610?

[psv]

I heard somewhere that the 16600 dial is slightly smaller than the regular Submariner (date). Is that true?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by psv

I heard somewhere that the 16600 dial is slightly smaller than the regular Submariner (date). Is that true?

The dial on the SD is 1mm smaller than the sub,and the bezel on SD is 1mm wider than the sub

[psv]

Perfect, just the info I was looking for.
Cheers,
p.

[Dan2010]

I noticed that last week when I almost bought a Sea Dweller. At first I thought it was an optical allusion since it had a thicker crystal but my AD and I sat down and measured. Sure enough, the dial was smaller and the bezel was bigger. The Sub's dial is as small as I want to go so I have crossed the Sea Dweller off my list of future purchases.

[sakuraba]

Whatever it loses in dial diameter, it makes up for in crystal thickness!

[DCgator]

Sometimes I think the dial on the DS is the same size as the one in the LV. Can anyone confirm? Because the DS is much bigger and thicker the dial size looks deceiving. Pls chime in... Thanks.

[sakuraba]

Originally Posted by DCgator

Sometimes I think the dial on the DS is the same size as the one in the LV. Can anyone confirm? Because the DS is much bigger and thicker the dial size looks deceiving. Pls chime in... Thanks.

I believe the 116660 would have a larger diameter crystal than the LV since it has a larger case diameter (43mm vs 40mm).

Of the older references, 16600 vs 16610, the Sub has a not-so-discernible size advantage.

Hope this helps.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Dan2010

I noticed that last week when I almost bought a Sea Dweller. At first I thought it was an optical allusion since it had a thicker crystal but my AD and I sat down and measured. Sure enough, the dial was smaller and the bezel was bigger. The Sub's dial is as small as I want to go so I have crossed the Sea Dweller off my list of future purchases.

Well I would seriously doubt if 1mm is going to make any difference whatsoever to the reading functionality of the dial.

[N_Swe]

both sd 16600 and sub 16610 is 40mm, the key difference is that sd has a thicker case AND glass so if you want the largest watch... Go with sd.

[Eric88]

Here's a good resource on various Rolex measurements

[warrior]

It's funny...perhaps b/c I have a small wrist at 6.5 inches but I love and prefer the smaller dial size of the Sea Dweller. For me, a smaller dial size almost always translates into the face of a watch being tighter and more focused. Better proportioned. HOwever, there isn't that much difference to me b/c the the sub and dweller are relatively small when compared to most dive watches.

A better example perhaps is comparing a 42MM Planet Ocean to a 45 MM. To me, the face is perfectly proportioned on the 42MM. There's waaaay too much black open space b/w the markers in a 45MM PO dial IMO. Id say the same about a Doxa 1000T Sharkhunter, which I prefer, when comparing it to a Doxa 750T.

YMMV.

Originally Posted by Dan2010

I noticed that last week when I almost bought a Sea Dweller. At first I thought it was an optical allusion since it had a thicker crystal but my AD and I sat down and measured. Sure enough, the dial was smaller and the bezel was bigger. The Sub's dial is as small as I want to go so I have crossed the Sea Dweller off my list of future purchases.

[Dan2010]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well I would seriously doubt if 1mm is going to make any difference whatsoever to the reading functionality of the dial.

I agree it makes little difference in functionality. It's just a personal preference. The absolute perfect watch for ME would be a Sub Date without the cyclops. Perfect size dial, bezel, everything. And it would have the date like the Sea Dweller.