ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

ShawnK · 20 January 2007, 08:44 AM

I've enjoyed the posts from the SD fan club, and want to get an opinion from those who have owned both the Sub Date and SD.

I thought that I had narrowed down my new Rolex search to the Sub no-date as I'm not a fan of the date bubble. However, the fact that I intend to wear the watch daily and the 14060m doesn't have a date feature was gnawing at me. I stopped into a local AD today and decided to take a look at the Seadweller in the case.

I hadn't really given the SD any thought because I have a smaller wrist (6 3/4 or so) and it just seemed--based on the listed case thickness and weight--a little too massive for me. Once I had the SD in my hand, I could tell right away that it was a different animal than the either the 14060m or the 16610. It just felt solid and indestructable--like one would expect a "professional" dive watch to feel. Now, I'm NOT throwing stones at the regular Subs--they are awesome watches--but I was just blown away by the SD.

The SD actually felt surprisingly comfortable and solid on the wrist, and I didn't think it felt substantially bigger than the Sub. Yes, you could feel more "heft" to the watch, but not anything uncomfortable. However, I also know that there is a big difference in slipping one on your wrist in a store, and actually having it sized to fit and wearing it day-in and day-out.

Here's the question: Those of you who have owned both, and/or those who have a smaller wrist but own a SD, is the SD noticeably less comfortable over the long haul? I know this is a subjective question, but I'd like to hear your experiences before making what (for me) is a big investment.

Thanks!

mike · 20 January 2007, 09:04 AM

Hey Shawn,

I have both and like you I have a 6 3/4 inch wrist. The SD sits a bit higher onthe wrist due to the added thickness of the case and crystal. I found to get the proper fit for me I had to remove a link from each side of the bracelet.

Normally I remove one link from the 6 o'clock side but the size of the last link on the sub bracelet at 6 o'clock is a bit larger. The watch tended to "flop". Taking a link from each side and adjusting via the micro adjustment on the clasp gave me a great fit.

fat-sam · 20 January 2007, 09:04 AM

i own neither... but will add my 2p worth anyway!- i think within the first week you get used to any watches size. i went from a gucci dress watch to a corum bubble chrono on mesh steel bracelet that weighed the same as a medium sized house! at first it was uncomfortable and weird but within a week, fine.

quinson418 · 20 January 2007, 09:13 AM

I have a small wrist too, just 6.5 inches.
The SD feels just right for me, maybe because I have always been wearing watches on a daily basis. Then if you switch from my plastic thin swatch watch, then that is a totally different story.

I definitely like the engineering feel it gives.

tonelar · 20 January 2007, 09:22 AM

I have a couple Subs as well as a Seadweller... I don't notice a big difference between them. The back of the SD and it's larger case and taller crystal all make it bigger than the Sub, but not by too much.

A tribute to it's design is it doesn't appear as big as it actually is...

Lastly, you should bear in mind that watches are getting bigger nowadays.

But all of this is more about the aesthetics of the beast...

I've never worn it (and for a while I was wearing it 24/7) and felt like it was too big or heavy. Then again I take whatever watch off before I drum... I broke a rotor shaft once on an automatic that way.

JJ Irani · 20 January 2007, 02:13 PM

The VITAL difference between the two can be seen in the linkage on the 6 o'clock side.

Whereas the SD has FIVE FULL links on the '6' side...the Sub-date has 4½ links. On the '12' side the links are identical, i.e. 9 all up.

So when you wear the SD, the extra ½ width could cause some discomfort. With the Sub-date I have no problems at all. Out of box and smack on the wrist.

With the SD, I have to move the micro-adjustment pin in by one hole to get a perfect fit.

JJ

Blue Bull · 20 January 2007, 03:13 PM

Great watches,both ..

For my own purposes and taste I would prefer the ss Sub.. I like the cyclops,flatter profile and larger diameter(crystal)All said ,very close in preference and price difference,small.My problem with both these watches are that they are a bit 'bland and lifeless'.I like a bit of sparkle and colour.I guess thats why I went for the GMT II red/black nearly 6 years ago ...

Just my own preference.

20 January 2007, 08:44 AM	#1
ShawnK "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Real Name: Shawn Location: Kentucky Watch: GMT Master 16750 Posts: 222	Seadweller comfort I've enjoyed the posts from the SD fan club, and want to get an opinion from those who have owned both the Sub Date and SD. I thought that I had narrowed down my new Rolex search to the Sub no-date as I'm not a fan of the date bubble. However, the fact that I intend to wear the watch daily and the 14060m doesn't have a date feature was gnawing at me. I stopped into a local AD today and decided to take a look at the Seadweller in the case. I hadn't really given the SD any thought because I have a smaller wrist (6 3/4 or so) and it just seemed--based on the listed case thickness and weight--a little too massive for me. Once I had the SD in my hand, I could tell right away that it was a different animal than the either the 14060m or the 16610. It just felt solid and indestructable--like one would expect a "professional" dive watch to feel. Now, I'm NOT throwing stones at the regular Subs--they are awesome watches--but I was just blown away by the SD. The SD actually felt surprisingly comfortable and solid on the wrist, and I didn't think it felt substantially bigger than the Sub. Yes, you could feel more "heft" to the watch, but not anything uncomfortable. However, I also know that there is a big difference in slipping one on your wrist in a store, and actually having it sized to fit and wearing it day-in and day-out. Here's the question: Those of you who have owned both, and/or those who have a smaller wrist but own a SD, is the SD noticeably less comfortable over the long haul? I know this is a subjective question, but I'd like to hear your experiences before making what (for me) is a big investment. Thanks!

20 January 2007, 09:04 AM	#3
fat-sam "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Real Name: Manuel_Winde Location: London N1- UK Watch: Reverso Duoface Posts: 578	i own neither... but will add my 2p worth anyway!- i think within the first week you get used to any watches size. i went from a gucci dress watch to a corum bubble chrono on mesh steel bracelet that weighed the same as a medium sized house! at first it was uncomfortable and weird but within a week, fine. __________________ This confession has meant nothing

20 January 2007, 09:22 AM	#5
tonelar "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Real Name: Tony Location: san francisco Watch: Seadweller Posts: 1,368	I have a couple Subs as well as a Seadweller... I don't notice a big difference between them. The back of the SD and it's larger case and taller crystal all make it bigger than the Sub, but not by too much. A tribute to it's design is it doesn't appear as big as it actually is... Lastly, you should bear in mind that watches are getting bigger nowadays. But all of this is more about the aesthetics of the beast... I've never worn it (and for a while I was wearing it 24/7) and felt like it was too big or heavy. Then again I take whatever watch off before I drum... I broke a rotor shaft once on an automatic that way. __________________ It's a rarity that something popular is actually right... Wear 'em with PRIDE, y'all.

20 January 2007, 02:13 PM	#6
JJ Irani Fondly Remembered Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: JJ Location: Auckland, NZ Watch: ALL SOLD!! Posts: 74,319	The VITAL difference between the two can be seen in the linkage on the 6 o'clock side. Whereas the SD has FIVE FULL links on the '6' side...the Sub-date has 4½ links. On the '12' side the links are identical, i.e. 9 all up. So when you wear the SD, the extra ½ width could cause some discomfort. With the Sub-date I have no problems at all. Out of box and smack on the wrist. With the SD, I have to move the micro-adjustment pin in by one hole to get a perfect fit. JJ __________________ Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!! I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!

20 January 2007, 09:04 AM	#2
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	Hey Shawn, I have both and like you I have a 6 3/4 inch wrist. The SD sits a bit higher onthe wrist due to the added thickness of the case and crystal. I found to get the proper fit for me I had to remove a link from each side of the bracelet. Normally I remove one link from the 6 o'clock side but the size of the last link on the sub bracelet at 6 o'clock is a bit larger. The watch tended to "flop". Taking a link from each side and adjusting via the micro adjustment on the clasp gave me a great fit.

20 January 2007, 09:13 AM	#4
quinson418 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Washington, USA Watch: Rolex Sea-dweller Posts: 207	I have a small wrist too, just 6.5 inches. The SD feels just right for me, maybe because I have always been wearing watches on a daily basis. Then if you switch from my plastic thin swatch watch, then that is a totally different story. I definitely like the engineering feel it gives.

20 January 2007, 03:13 PM	#7
Blue Bull Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,887	Great watches,both .. For my own purposes and taste I would prefer the ss Sub.. I like the cyclops,flatter profile and larger diameter(crystal)All said ,very close in preference and price difference,small.My problem with both these watches are that they are a bit 'bland and lifeless'.I like a bit of sparkle and colour.I guess thats why I went for the GMT II red/black nearly 6 years ago ... Just my own preference.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)