SeaDweller 16600 or Sub-date 16610

[bradiowausa]

I'm about to buy either a submariner or a classic seadweller. I need some advice in order to make my decision.

1) How much bigger does the SeaDweller feel versuses the submariner? I heard its only 2mm thicker, has the same width and the same height.

2) Does the SeaDweller flop around on your wrist more than the sub? Does this depend on how big your wrist is?

3) Is the SeaDweller in general as comfortable as the submariner?

4) What about looks, is it kind of strange wearing a date rolex without a cyclops?

Let me know what you think, I'll post pictures when I finally get this watch.

[mike]

Brad,

I think you're going to get strong opinions on both sides here. Both references have their champions. Personally I don't feel one is anymore comfortable than the other.

Comfort is more a matter of proper bracelet adjustment than anything else. My SD is as comfortable as the Sub however I do have the fine adjustment in the clasp set differently on the SD (one notch tighter).

Having said that, the SD rides a tad higher on the wrist for me than the Sub.

Either will make a wonderful daily wear albiet different in that the SD sans cyclops presents a more "business" look for want of a better description. To me it presents a more utilitarian look as befits a watch born out of a specific need.

One question to ask is do you want the maxi-dial look of the larger indices on the Sub LV or the smaller indices of the standard Sub or SD. Again both have their champions.

Comparison,



and the LV,



If you want this, there's only one choice,



Keep in mind the LV can be made black with a bit of hunting,



Of couse there is the lume consideration if that's a factor,



Good luck.

[AIKO]

I carefully investigated both when making my decision. I found the size difference to be a non-factor. I went with the sub LV. Between the SD and the Sub Date, I would go with the SD.

[1175]

My order of preference would be as follows:

1. Sea Dweller (my only Rolex, but wished I had more)
2. Sub Date LV
3. Sub Non-Date
4. Sub Date

[R1@160@alltimes]

I voted for ss sub date. Just a personal preference.

[Tools]

The Sub-Date has become the classic Rolex sport watch..

Most wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an SD or a Sub, so it's really up to you...

Personally, I like the Sub..

[johnnybazookajoe]

I can't and won't speak poorly about the SD, but I am absolutely satisfied with my sub-date. To me, part of the "Rolex look" besides the dial and bezel is the distinctive cyclops. Also, the watch is incredibly comfortable day and night, though I agree Mike that it has to do with proper sizing. I had to go back to the AD three times to get it just right.

[rockclimber]

I like the Sub Date. The SeaDweller is a bit overkill even for fans of scuba. Try both on at an AD and go with what feels/looks best on you. In the end its all about what is most comfortable and aesthetically pleasing to you, the buyer.

[kcmo]

Another vote for the classic Sub Date, but you won't go wrong with either!

[karmatp]

Sub date is a fantastic watch but every store you go into you will see another. That right there is enough for me not to want one, get the SD. Best of luck.

[Jason71]

Originally Posted by 1175

my order of preference would be as follows:

1. Sea dweller (my only rolex, but wished i had more)
2. Sub date lv
3. Sub non-date
4. Sub date

+1

[GBJIV]

As for me. Love the solid feel of the SD and extra heft. I like vintage subs a ton too.

I also like flat crystal look of my SD. Also why I love certain Panerai models.

Try both. Can't go wrong with either. Both are phenomenal to own...

[JPersat]

Does it have to be the 16610? Can it be a vintage 16800 or even a 1680?

[sea-dweller]

I own both a Sub Date, and Non Date Sub and an SD -

1/ the SD sits higher on a wrist and the face is slightly smaller
2/ the Sub Date sits flatter

I find the Sub Date to be slightly more comfortable

Sub Date -



SD -

[dlack]

The SD sits higher on the wrist because of its taller case-back. Therefore the case tends to "float" or hover just slightly above the wrist. This added few millimeters of height over the Sub has the advantage of creating enough space between the crown and the wrist to prevent the crown from making contact with and chaffing the skin on the wrist. Accordingly, I find the 16600 SD to be a more comfortable wear than the Sub 16610, although both are very comfortable to begin with.

I also find the SD's 4000 ft depth rating much more practical...for those truly deep desk dives!

[accountank2000]

Originally Posted by dlack

The SD sits higher on the wrist because of its taller case-back. Therefore the case tends to "float" or hover just slightly above the wrist. This added few millimeters of height over the Sub has the advantage of creating enough space between the crown and the wrist to prevent the crown from making contact with and chaffing the skin on the wrist. Accordingly, I find the 16600 SD to be a more comfortable wear than the Sub 16610, although both are very comfortable to begin with.

The bulging case back on the SD does make it ride higher when you look at it down your arm, which some people might like and others not. It's my thickest watch, but still fits under my shirt cuff - it's not a monster like the deepsea, and doesn't really look out of place with office dress or casual.

I wasn't too sure I would get along with a watch which was taller / less flat on the wrist, before I bought it. However, I wanted the date feature, and was confident I didn't want a bulbous 'date bubble' until I was at least 50 year old with failing eyesight. So getting the thicker case and more robust depth rating was the 'price of admission' to getting a non cyclops dive watch, whether or not I wanted that overengineered technical spec for its own merits. In the end, I was happy I had made the right choice with the 16600 over the sub.

Though it is a bit thicker / heavier than the sub, making it a little more 'top heavy': as someone mentioned in an early post, it shouldn't flop around on your wrist as long as you've sized the bracelet correctly and are wearing it like a watch rather than a bangle. The clasp is not as super-easily adjustable as the genius tool-free glide lock on the 6-digit newer model, but if you do find that your wrist has swelled a little during the course of a hot/humid summer day, you can easily adjust it with the supplied tool (or more realistically, a toothpick) which gives the seadweller an adjustment range from a few mm up to more than a full link if you want to make a change, without actually needing to add or remove spare links.

Originally Posted by dlack

I also find the SD's 4000 ft depth rating much more practical...for those truly deep desk dives!

Yes I do like to know my watch could go a kilometre under sea level with plenty more to spare, just in case, even though it will never see more than a few metres of snorkeling at most

[Steerpike999]

My Go-To watch most of the time for travelling, tough, waterproof but not an obvious "Rolex".



Chip on crystal and all

[BNA/LION]

SS Sub Date

[gulllake]

Sub.

[Exiztence]

Sub sits a bit better, but I always felt Seadweller is more special also it lacks cyclops which I prefer as there is always grime stuck around it. I had 16610 2x and now I have 16600.

[hot66]

You can’t go wrong with either imho, but there is something about a seadweller that just makes it feel special