Classic design or hormonal Submariner ?

[alphadweller]

The Sea-Dweller has always been a super Sub. Taller, heavier, more capable.

It's now available in a larger size with the SD43 to accommodate larger wrists and reduce the hockey puck effect, offering nicer proportions overall.

The 116600 aka SD4K was a commercial failure. Nobody wanted one. Also, it has an odd looking protruding crystal and sloppy mislagned end links. The only reason people are talking about it is because it's discontinued thus they see it as investment material.

To each their own.

[Rori]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

The Sea-Dweller has always been a super Sub. Taller, heavier, more capable.

It's now available in a larger size with the SD43 to accommodate larger wrists and reduce the hockey puck effect, offering nicer proportions overall.

The 116600 aka SD4K was a commercial failure. Nobody wanted one. Also, it has an odd looking protruding crystal and sloppy mislagned end links. The only reason people are talking about it is because it's discontinued thus they see it as investment material.

To each their own.

Ditto.

[franktehtank]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

The Sea-Dweller has always been a super Sub. Taller, heavier, more capable.

It's now available in a larger size with the SD43 to accommodate larger wrists and reduce the hockey puck effect, offering nicer proportions overall.

The 116600 aka SD4K was a commercial failure. Nobody wanted one. Also, it has an odd looking protruding crystal and sloppy mislagned end links. The only reason people are talking about it is because it's discontinued thus they see it as investment material.

To each their own.

I definitely agree with the end link issue, just seems lazy and sloppy, and that's what would bug me about this watch. Although, I still like the watch and would like to own one. I'm inclined to say that the SD43 seems like a much cleaner, better executed package. But perhaps the SD4K's quirks will render it collectable and desirable (neither of which are of any interest to me).

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by ce027772

Sure. It's funny how you complain that a diving watch is not good enough for climbing or whatever else. Try diving and let me know how it feels.

I did not complain about anything. Unless I’m mistaken, You appeared to indicate that the newer references had a leg up on the older versions. I simply pointed out that the changes from the 5 to 6 digit references were simply cosmetic, and had no functional purpose other than justifying price increases. A dive watch can work well diving (yes I have with mine) and plenty of other tasks. I simply pointed out how the older references were better at functional tasks (regardless of sport) and the newer references simple focused on the cosmetics of the watches. Nothing wrong with that however.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fskywalker]

SD4K


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro