DSSD: A Better buy than Sub C

[rolexsubdate]

Even though they are different, it is like comparing apples to oranges,
I am reading a lot more reports of unsatisfied sub C people than unsatisfied DSSD people....

Eventhough the DSSD is not for everyone, those who do see it and handle it and do not buy it, most of them are awed by it and can't deny its appeal.

The same is not true for Sub C. Most look at it and don't wanna handle it... yet the DSSD draws a crowd...

In short, Rolex has done a better job creating the DSSD for a niche market then creating the Sub C for the masses....

[Fiery]

The DSSD is a much more unique piece than the Sub-C, and it didn't have to be true to its heritage. The Sub-C has to be the same size, the same design (well, almost), the same approach than its predecessors. If some owners or potential owners think the Sub-C is underwhelming, they basically criticise Rolex for what it is great at -- which is being true to its roots, keeping most things unchanged, manufacturing timeless pieces.

As soon as the hype about big watches are over, the DSSD will look out of proportion. The Sub-C is already -- and will always be -- a classic, just like the 16610 and all previous Subs were.

It's normal for someone who already owns a 16610 or an older Sub to be not much interested in the Sub-C. However, for newcomers (like me) the Sub-C would most likely represent the pinnacle of dive watch design: not too large, not too small, timeless design, up-to-date technical solutions.

The DSSD indeed became an instant hit, and will keep attracting a small crowd, but in the long run the Sub-C will sell like hot cakes. Some may like that widespread status, while others will prefer to own less common watches like the DSSD or YM.

[tifosi]

I definitely agree that customers who do not already own a classic cased Sub are more drawn to the SubC. If that was the first Sub I'd even seen, I'd be all over it!!

[Frogman4me]

I got to believe the DSSD draws a very small crowd compared to the legendary Sub, therefore it only makes sense that there are less complaints with the DSSD. I also agree that people who have loved the Sub all along and have owned at least one are the people who are complaining the most about the new Sub C.

[rolexdeepsea]

sub are nice but to me the DSSD is a better watch!

[Cabaiguan]

I just posted a thread about my new Sub-C. I evaluated the DSSD at an AD befre pulling the trigger and really did like it. However, the size of it is something that can't be overlooked. I've owned a PAM and have a few DOXA's that are hefty pieces...but those don't make good daily wearers for me. The Sub-C has many of the attributes of the DSSD without the weight. To me, that was key. In fact, if Rolex hadn't made the Sub-C, I would probably not be a Rolex wearer right now. The combination of a "beefier" case, maxi dial and better bracelet is a winner, IMO...at least for new Rolex customers like myself.

[psv]

Originally Posted by rolexsubdate

Even though they are different, it is like comparing apples to oranges,
I am reading a lot more reports of unsatisfied sub C people than unsatisfied DSSD people....

Even though the DSSD is not for everyone, those who do see it and handle it and do not buy it, most of them are awed by it and can't deny its appeal.

The same is not true for Sub C. Most look at it and don't wanna handle it... yet the DSSD draws a crowd...

In short, Rolex has done a better job creating the DSSD for a niche market then creating the Sub C for the masses....

Come on guys, this just sounds silly or like trying to justify your own purchase post the event.

The DSSD is not a better buy or a better watch. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it to yourself, the argument still isn't a valid one.

The DSSD is a more extreme watch, arguably the most extreme automatic production dive watch in the world, but that doesn't make it a "better" watch or buy per se.

For the vast majority out there, the Sub (or great many other dive watches) is a more suitable buy and certainly extreme and durable enough. The DSSD was created after 20-30 years of innovation gap from Rolex - the regular SD used to be the most extreme dive watch but the design got long in the tooth and Rolex refused to update the bezel, put larger hands/plots and a new bracelet on it. When they came around the decided to win back the heavy-weight title in terms of depth rating, but again none of that makes it a better buy or a better watch. Just more extreme.

Some people feel better owning the most extreme instrument out there, for whatever reason. Other people own it because they like larger/heavier watches and Rolex didn't have any offering for them of many, many years.

Needless to say, Rolex will sell 50 Submariners for every DSSD they sell, simply because it is rather large/heavy/thick and for most people not an optimal everyday watch.

If you have one and it floats your boat - enjoy it, but there is no reason to keep making posts to put down the watches other people chose to own and pretending that your choice/hardware is better. Different perhaps, but not better by most definitions.

Rock on folks!

[Dan2010]

[Frogman4me]

Originally Posted by psv

Come on guys, this just sounds silly or like trying to justify your own purchase post the event.

The DSSD is not a better buy or a better watch. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it to yourself, the argument still isn't a valid one.

The DSSD is a more extreme watch, arguably the most extreme automatic production dive watch in the world, but that doesn't make it a "better" watch or buy per se.

For the vast majority out there, the Sub (or great many other dive watches) is a more suitable buy and certainly extreme and durable enough. The DSSD was created after 20-30 years of innovation gap from Rolex - the regular SD used to be the most extreme dive watch but the design got long in the tooth and Rolex refused to update the bezel, put larger hands/plots and a new bracelet on it. When they came around the decided to win back the heavy-weight title in terms of depth rating, but again none of that makes it a better buy or a better watch. Just more extreme.

Some people feel better owning the most extreme instrument out there, for whatever reason. Other people own it because they like larger/heavier watches and Rolex didn't have any offering for them of many, many years.

Needless to say, Rolex will sell 50 Submariners for every DSSD they sell, simply because it is rather large/heavy/thick and for most people not an optimal everyday watch.

If you have one and it floats your boat - enjoy it, but there is no reason to keep making posts to put down the watches other people chose to own and pretending that your choice/hardware is better. Different perhaps, but not better by most definitions.

Rock on folks!

Couldn't agree more, it always seems its the DSSD owners who express this opinion, I guess its because a lot of people have awkward feelings about the DSSD so they are trying to prove them wrong. Anyway both are quality watches, the term better is subjective so the point is moot. Lets move on.

[rzielinski]

The Sub is the fame, icon, practicality, better resale value. What about DSSD - none of the above. So, you tell me which one is the better Rolex.

[MortgageGuy]

Originally Posted by Fiery

The DSSD is a much more unique piece than the Sub-C, and it didn't have to be true to its heritage. The Sub-C has to be the same size, the same design (well, almost), the same approach than its predecessors. If some owners or potential owners think the Sub-C is underwhelming, they basically criticise Rolex for what it is great at -- which is being true to its roots, keeping most things unchanged, manufacturing timeless pieces.

As soon as the hype about big watches are over, the DSSD will look out of proportion. The Sub-C is already -- and will always be -- a classic, just like the 16610 and all previous Subs were.

It's normal for someone who already owns a 16610 or an older Sub to be not much interested in the Sub-C. However, for newcomers (like me) the Sub-C would most likely represent the pinnacle of dive watch design: not too large, not too small, timeless design, up-to-date technical solutions.

The DSSD indeed became an instant hit, and will keep attracting a small crowd, but in the long run the Sub-C will sell like hot cakes. Some may like that widespread status, while others will prefer to own less common watches like the DSSD or YM.

I agree 100%..well said

[chris russell]

and the supposed lack of complaints about the DSSD are due to embarrassment over having been talked into buying such a monstrosity in the first place.

In any case, take a look at ebay or other sales forum and see the transport-truckloads of DSSDs for sale.

[L-16610]

i think the new sub is already to big and not elegant, what do you think I think about the deepsea ?

[steubi1]

Talked to a big AD in Switzerland recently. He told me that in fact the DSSD is not selling very well. Rolex has shortened production already to cope with this situation (this said, it is not my opinion, it is what I got from an AD, so maybe it is bullshit, but why should he mention it to me, I was not interested in buying one).

If the thread starter thinks that a DSSD is a better buy than a SubC, then this is his personal opinion and I respect it, of course.

My personal opinion is that the DSSD is as superfluous as the shingles JJ is currently fighting with. This watch has no grace, no beauty, it is completely over-engineered for us desk workers, and it is way to heavy for daily wear.

For me, and once again, just my 2c, the SubC is a much better buy than the DSSD, although I like the old Sub 16610 better and would prefer it over the SubC.

Tom

[psv]

As we all know this discussion is completely pointless because we all know that the old SD 16600 is really the overall best buy... ;-)

[sorry couldn't resist...]

[rzielinski]

Since the "maxi dial" rules and the oversized case on Sub ceramic is in question mark, the best buy is: THE 16610LV.

[EchoBlueUK]

Hate these argumental threads. Both watches are great.

[Wisconsin Proud]

The same is not true for Sub C. Most look at it and don't wanna handle it... yet the DSSD draws a crowd...


Very strange comment.

I can't say that I've ever seen a "crowd" clamoring over either of these watches but I'll agree the sub will far outsell the DSSD.

[chris russell]

Originally Posted by psv

As we all know this discussion is completely pointless because we all know that the old SD 16600 is really the overall best buy... ;-)

[sorry couldn't resist...]

You better believe it, dude. By a factor of ten over the DSSD.

[chris russell]

To me, at least.

[mike]

Both watches use the same movement, which after all is the heart of any watch.

The Submariner has always out sold the Dweller in what ever form it has taken.

Dwellers enjoy an almost cult like following no doubt due to the genesis of the reference as an outgrowth of the Submariner.

Which reference you prefer is of course a personal thing and there is no wrong answer.

Having said that I tend to find it way over the top by a few select posters that constantly berate the watch.

Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean it's a Rolex mistake or an owner is crazy for buying it (and even thinking it the best reference for them).

Rolex didn't make the DS for people that sit behind a desk. Nor did they make the thing for the vast majority of people that wear them.

Reguardless of the reasons for someone buying the watch THEY like it, and that's all that matters.

One can certainly express an opinion and we can certainly disagree. That's what makes forums such a learning tool.

But,....If you have to be hatefull about it go somewhere else. Try treating people with a little respect--maybe it's a new thing for you.

Rant Off.

[chris russell]

Originally Posted by rolexsubdate

Eventhough the DSSD is not for everyone, those who do see it and handle it and do not buy it, most of them are awed by it and can't deny its appeal.

The same is not true for Sub C. Most look at it and don't wanna handle it... yet the DSSD draws a crowd...

In short, Rolex has done a better job creating the DSSD for a niche market then creating the Sub C for the masses....

rating on the DSSD. I mean, why didn't they design it so it could withstand the pressure at the surface of Jupiter, the point where atmospheric hydrogen becomes metallic hydrogen at a pressure of roughly 200 Gigapascals, or 2,000,000 atmospheres, 30 million psi. I figure they could make the case from monomolecular graphene, and about the size of a basketball should do it. I mean, that would be so much more USEFUL, with the deepest human dive in history being 1,732 feet and all.

[SeamasterGMT]

Originally Posted by chris russell

rating on the DSSD. I mean, why didn't they design it so it could withstand the pressure at the surface of Jupiter, the point where atmospheric hydrogen becomes metallic hydrogen at a pressure of roughly 200 Gigapascals, or 2,000,000 atmospheres, 30 million psi. I figure they could make the case from monomolecular graphene, and about the size of a basketball should do it. I mean, that would be so much more USEFUL, with the deepest human dive in history being 1,732 feet and all.

Sub v Deepsea? One is the ultimate dive watch - a result of many, many years of advancements, R&D, and making the Rolex diver's line better and better producing THE best example of Rolex engineering. The other is a sub.

[mike]

Originally Posted by SeamasterGMT

Sub v Deepsea? One is the ultimate dive watch - a result of many, many years of advancements, R&D, and making the Rolex diver's line better and better producing THE best example of Rolex engineering. The other is a sub.

Well said. Some here seem to take joy in being as caustic as possible. Won't last much longer.

[Subdialler]

Thanks Mike!!

[Randy]

The DSSD rocks!!! It get's the most wrist time of any submariner.

[chris russell]

Originally Posted by mike

Well said. Some here seem to take joy in being as caustic as possible. Won't last much longer.

The on any comments about the owners indicates that. 99% of the sarcastic humor was directed at Rolex's overboard design model for this product, not the owners and buyers themselves. Sorry if that was not clear.

[mike]

Originally Posted by chris russell

The on any comments about the owners indicates that. 99% of the sarcastic humor was directed at Rolex's overboard design model for this product, not the owners and buyers themselves. Sorry if that was not clear.

The issue is not whether one like or dislikes the reference (or any watch for that matter). We are all free to have a preference.

Rather it's the fact that there are those here and elsewhere that voted with their pocketbooks, genuinely like the reference, and feel it represents a bit of a milestone in extreme engineering.

The reasons why Rolex (or any manufacturer)makes what it makes certainly is a topic for discussion, but when it's perceived that those that buy the reference (and like it) are silly or not well informed then I take exception.

We are a community of enthusiasts. There are references that I personally would not own, but for me to imply that someone else is wrong for doing so or the watch they like is just stupid is wrong on a lot of levels.

I was "brought up" in the watch community to consider the dignity of others. I think it's still a valid point.

[DCgator]

My first sports model Rolex is the Deepsea. If they had not made the DS I would've purchased the Sea Dweller for sure. I love my DS for everyday wear (on a Breitling Diver Pro II strap). Even before the ceramic bezel models came out my personal preference has always been the Sea Dweller and the GMT II. GMT IIc coming in a couple of days. Yeay!

[kyle L]

Personally I'm not a fan of either, I will stick to my < 40 mm watches.