ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

DWdrummer · 27 May 2010, 12:57 PM

It seems so. You can find tons of Subs on the bay and other places. It seems for every ten Subs, you see a SeaDweller.

Every AD I have been to has a few Subs for sale at any given time. I have not seen an SD in a long time.

Does Rolex build less of them than the Submariners? Im curious as to why if that is in fact the case.

sakuraba · 27 May 2010, 01:22 PM

I'm not privy to sales figures, but it does seem so.

I'm guessing the SD is less popular because of its thickness. It wears a lot taller than the Sub, and I can see how some can find it a bit cumbersome (my dad's words, not mine).

nickriebe · 27 May 2010, 01:27 PM

I think the Subs have been around longer thus the higher numbers... just guessing though...

sea-dweller · 27 May 2010, 01:30 PM

It seems so, as your observations are the same as mine. I have seen hundreds of Subs "in the wild", and only 3 SD's in my life.

sakuraba · 27 May 2010, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sea-dweller

It seems so, as your observations are the same as mine. I have seen hundreds of Subs "in the wild", and only 3 SD's in my life.

You're luckier than me, Dennis. The only SD I've seen in the wild is the one on my wrist!

Maybe I should move to Sunnyvale?

snowbird · 27 May 2010, 01:54 PM

Yes there are far more subs out there, for whatever reason the SD did not sell nearly as well as the sub.

Zed Homme · 27 May 2010, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowbird

Yes there are far more subs out there, for whatever reason the SD did not sell nearly as well as the sub.

Agreed. My guess is that the general buying public was turned off by the SD's lack of cyclops and higher price...but its really just a guess.

nauticajoe · 27 May 2010, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickriebe

I think the Subs have been around longer thus the higher numbers... just guessing though...

I believe the Subs have been around since '53, whereas the SDs were introduced in '71? So, it had a good head-start.

andrew79 · 27 May 2010, 09:41 PM

more subs definitely

mcjp6 · 27 May 2010, 09:48 PM

If one forgets the WIS community for a moment (forgive me!) the Sea Dweller has a MUCH narrower market than the sub. i.e. if you buy the watch for its intended purpose, who really needs one that goes to those depths??

If you are not a commercial diver then the sub will more than meet your needs. In fact any Rolex Oyster will meet most peoples needs regarding going swimming or even rec diving.

landroverking · 27 May 2010, 10:09 PM

I see Subs all the time and have only seen two Sea Dwellers.

mattmartin · 27 May 2010, 10:29 PM

When the SD was first produced it was only sold to COMEX. Afterwards rolex decided to make small batches for sale to other companies and individuals. Because it was seen as more of a piece of equipment for divers rather than a fine timepiece, it was marketed that way. Specifically, the SD was a special order item and ADs didnt stock them. ADs would show them in catalogs if asked and could order them but they rarely if ever had them in inventory. However ADs in Florida and South carolina and Maine (?) tended to stock them. By sometime in the 80's they became more well known though still relatively unkown to the buying public. The old man that old me this info used to be an AD in a southern coastal city. He also said that during the 80's and early 90's Rolex would say that the ratio of subs produced to SDs was 4 to 1.

rolexdeepsea · 27 May 2010, 11:00 PM

i bet it a lot less now with the deepsea.

my local deal told me when the deepsea first came out he had lots of order for them then they see the watch and how thick it was they fused it!!

shame....guess it not to everyone taste.

padi56 · 27 May 2010, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWdrummer

It seems so. You can find tons of Subs on the bay and other places. It seems for every ten Subs, you see a SeaDweller.

Every AD I have been to has a few Subs for sale at any given time. I have not seen an SD in a long time.

Does Rolex build less of them than the Submariners? Im curious as to why if that is in fact the case.

Well the 16610 has now been in production since 1988/9 so quite a few million of those around and Rolex most popular sports watch.The 16660 SDs biggest customer is/was Comex but even thought the SD sold in lesser numbers than the sub, there must few quite a few in this world today.Some prefer the Sub cyclops some don't that where most of the non diver SD sales went.

chris russell · 27 May 2010, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zed Homme

My guess is that the general buying public was turned off by the SD's lack of cyclops and higher price...but its really just a guess.

That was what drew me to it! Death to the Cyclops!

"Noman has blinded me! Noman has poked out my eye!"

ersnyder · 27 May 2010, 11:42 PM

Never seen an SD in the "wild."

mike · 27 May 2010, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattmartin

When the SD was first produced it was only sold to COMEX. Afterwards rolex decided to make small batches for sale to other companies and individuals. Because it was seen as more of a piece of equipment for divers rather than a fine timepiece, it was marketed that way. Specifically, the SD was a special order item and ADs didnt stock them. ADs would show them in catalogs if asked and could order them but they rarely if ever had them in inventory. However ADs in Florida and South carolina and Maine (?) tended to stock them. By sometime in the 80's they became more well known though still relatively unkown to the buying public. The old man that old me this info used to be an AD in a southern coastal city. He also said that during the 80's and early 90's Rolex would say that the ratio of subs produced to SDs was 4 to 1.

Yeah, I've heard in the area of 5 to 1, but certainly much less than the Sub.

MURRAY · 28 May 2010, 12:05 AM

I imagine many like the cleaner look sans a cyclops, yet still have the date (unlike the 14060). The problem some may have with the SD is that its height makes it more difficult to fit under sleeved shirts at times....

I really like mine....

tkc324 · 28 May 2010, 12:11 AM

I have probably never seen a SD in the wild... while, i lost count of the number of Subs.

P Diddy · 28 May 2010, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MURRAY

I imagine many like the cleaner look sans a cyclops, yet still have the date (unlike the 14060). The problem some may have with the SD is that its height makes it more difficult to fit under sleeved shirts at times....

I really like mine....

I agree regarding the cyclops - I think they make the date more difficult to see as you have to look at it at the perfect angle. Not to mention they look weird, IMHO.

I think there are two main reasons there are more subs. First, they're cheaper. The average consumer (which the passionate watch enthusiasts of this forum do not even remotely represent) won't pay up for something that looks identical to an untrained eye. They're buying the Rolex for the name; the additional depth resistance of the SD is useless to them since the deepest they'd ever go is in a swimming pool. Second, I agree that the thickness would turn off the average person.

nauticajoe · 28 May 2010, 01:13 AM

I love my SD for a few reasons - it was once the only watch produced (aside from the Milgauss & the DSSD) with engraving on the caseback, and the only watch w/ a date without the cyclops.
IMO, its unique & in a class by itself.

27 May 2010, 12:57 PM	#1
DWdrummer Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Florida USA Posts: 954	Did Rolex make a lot more Submariners than SeaDwellers? It seems so. You can find tons of Subs on the bay and other places. It seems for every ten Subs, you see a SeaDweller. Every AD I have been to has a few Subs for sale at any given time. I have not seen an SD in a long time. Does Rolex build less of them than the Submariners? Im curious as to why if that is in fact the case.

27 May 2010, 01:22 PM	#2
sakuraba "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Real Name: Jib Location: SJ, California Watch: sun dial Posts: 8,189	I'm not privy to sales figures, but it does seem so. I'm guessing the SD is less popular because of its thickness. It wears a lot taller than the Sub, and I can see how some can find it a bit cumbersome (my dad's words, not mine). __________________ F 14000 AirKing black F 16710 GMT Pepsi F 16570 Explorer II white T 16600 SD D 16610 LV "fine quality is remembered long after the pain of spending money" -Steve Mulholland

27 May 2010, 01:27 PM	#3
nickriebe "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2010 Real Name: Nick Location: 3026'23N 8638'41W Watch: out for pirates! Posts: 692	I think the Subs have been around longer thus the higher numbers... just guessing though... __________________ ~Nick Riebe~

27 May 2010, 01:30 PM	#4
sea-dweller "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Real Name: Dennis Location: Bay Area - 925 Posts: 40,018	It seems so, as your observations are the same as mine. I have seen hundreds of Subs "in the wild", and only 3 SD's in my life. __________________ TRF Member #6699 (since September 2007)

27 May 2010, 09:41 PM	#9
andrew79 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Real Name: Andrew Location: Indonesia Watch: Rolex Posts: 2,277	more subs definitely __________________ Baume & Mercier Riviera Rolex GMT II c, DJ 116234, Sub 16610, EXP 2 16570 Panerai 111 , 232

27 May 2010, 01:54 PM	#6
snowbird "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: USA Watch: Sea-Dweller 16600 Posts: 2,157	Yes there are far more subs out there, for whatever reason the SD did not sell nearly as well as the sub.

27 May 2010, 09:48 PM	#10
mcjp6 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: Michael Location: VK2 - AUS Watch: 5513s Posts: 7,380	If one forgets the WIS community for a moment (forgive me!) the Sea Dweller has a MUCH narrower market than the sub. i.e. if you buy the watch for its intended purpose, who really needs one that goes to those depths?? If you are not a commercial diver then the sub will more than meet your needs. In fact any Rolex Oyster will meet most peoples needs regarding going swimming or even rec diving.

27 May 2010, 10:09 PM	#11
landroverking "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Jay Location: TEXAS Watch: Daytona Posts: 7,648	I see Subs all the time and have only seen two Sea Dwellers.

27 May 2010, 10:29 PM	#12
mattmartin "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: City Limits Posts: 82	SD was originally special order only When the SD was first produced it was only sold to COMEX. Afterwards rolex decided to make small batches for sale to other companies and individuals. Because it was seen as more of a piece of equipment for divers rather than a fine timepiece, it was marketed that way. Specifically, the SD was a special order item and ADs didnt stock them. ADs would show them in catalogs if asked and could order them but they rarely if ever had them in inventory. However ADs in Florida and South carolina and Maine (?) tended to stock them. By sometime in the 80's they became more well known though still relatively unkown to the buying public. The old man that old me this info used to be an AD in a southern coastal city. He also said that during the 80's and early 90's Rolex would say that the ratio of subs produced to SDs was 4 to 1.

27 May 2010, 11:00 PM	#13
rolexdeepsea "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: england Posts: 251	i bet it a lot less now with the deepsea. my local deal told me when the deepsea first came out he had lots of order for them then they see the watch and how thick it was they fused it!! shame....guess it not to everyone taste.

27 May 2010, 11:42 PM	#16
ersnyder 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Real Name: Eric Location: Long Beach CA USA Watch: Rolex Explorer II Posts: 4,102	Never seen an SD in the "wild."

28 May 2010, 12:05 AM	#18
MURRAY "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: Rick Location: Michigan Watch: for that TRF bug!! Posts: 275	I imagine many like the cleaner look sans a cyclops, yet still have the date (unlike the 14060). The problem some may have with the SD is that its height makes it more difficult to fit under sleeved shirts at times.... I really like mine.... __________________

28 May 2010, 12:11 AM	#19
tkc324 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Tom Location: Chi town Watch: Daytona AP DD Sub Posts: 3,717	I have probably never seen a SD in the wild... while, i lost count of the number of Subs.

28 May 2010, 01:13 AM	#21
nauticajoe "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: Joe Location: PA Posts: 14,774	I love my SD for a few reasons - it was once the only watch produced (aside from the Milgauss & the DSSD) with engraving on the caseback, and the only watch w/ a date without the cyclops. IMO, its unique & in a class by itself.

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