ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
6 February 2016, 03:14 AM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: ct
Posts: 189
|
OK guys need your opinion
OK guys looking into my second rolex. Looking for a pre own rolex. But can't decide between a sub, sea dweller or gmt Pepsi bezel. I have to spend 5000 to 7000 to spend. Love all 3 but always around water so I think gmt I's not a great pick. What's your opaion and why. And what should I look for? Am a proud owner of a gmt 16753
|
6 February 2016, 03:32 AM | #2 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Real Name: Mark
Location: Washington State
Watch: SUBS and GMT's!
Posts: 9,664
|
I wear my vintage watches all the time and for most activities, but I must admit I am a little leery of wearing my four digit pieces in the water. Even though both current pieces have been pressure tested I still would not dive with one. I have swam in a 5513 and a 1675 but rarely would anymore. I have 5 digit references that I feel more comfortable doing that activity in.
Maybe a 5 digit Submariner or Sea Dweller with sapphire. They can be found in great condition and generally much less cost than the 4 digit models. If you love dome plexis and plan to stick to a 4 digit reference then probably an SD. |
6 February 2016, 03:56 AM | #3 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: US
Watch: 1680 Red & 16622
Posts: 2,449
|
Quote:
Also, I believe the GMT is waterproof up to 100 meters, so unless you're doing some serious diving, that should be plenty sufficient around the water. Good luck |
|
6 February 2016, 04:39 AM | #4 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: ct
Posts: 189
|
Yes am leaning more to the SD. What is the big difference between the sub and SD. Spec etc.. just learning guys lol
|
6 February 2016, 05:29 AM | #5 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: US
Watch: 1680 Red & 16622
Posts: 2,449
|
Quote:
Helium Escape Valve SD has no cyclops/date magnifier case thickness (SD taller on the wrist) SD wears a little heavier I've also heard the SD wears 1mm smaller than the Sub although it's listed as 40mm Hope that helps |
|
7 February 2016, 01:51 AM | #6 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Real Name: Aaron
Location: CT/NYC
Watch: ing the time!
Posts: 6,999
|
The SD indeed wears a tad smaller to the eye when looking down at the dial, but the heft, height, weight and overall thickness gives it a bigger feel on the wrist, IMHO. I own both and prefer the SD because of its wrist presence. I'm referring to the sapphire versions, which can still be "vintage" in my book, if they're from the '80s-early'90s. Vintage 5513 vs. 1665 is a completely different story. Good luck in your search!
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.