ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

ddnyc77 · 13 October 2010, 12:00 AM

I own a Z Serial ND Sub but happened to see a SD (16600) with drilled lugs today on the train. I've never seen a SD in the wild. I was intensely focused on this guys watch specifically with respect to thickness of the case and the diameter of the dial.

I did a fair amount of research looking for this comparison this morning but could not find it. Does anyone have this information, also is the dial smaller on the SD? I thought I read that somewhere before.

Thanks.....

SaddleSC · 13 October 2010, 01:32 AM

The dial on an SD is 39mm vs the 40mm of the 14060M due to the increased case thickness. I have both watches, but I don't have any comparison pictures on my work computer to post. I am sure others will chime in with the exact stats, but I just wanted to say that the 16600 is an AMAZING watch and I am enjoying it so much more than I ever thought I would. I had concerns about the weight and height before I bought it, but I actually find it much more comfortable (and well balanced) than my 14060. It has become my daily wearer.

sakuraba · 13 October 2010, 01:36 AM

I've never had a 14060M, but I can compare the 16600 to my 16610.

The SD wears a bit heavier on the wrist. Not cumbersome, just more substantial. It also has a smaller dial and bezels insert, but the bezel itself is much thicker.

Here's a stupid attempt at bezel thickness comparison.

Sorry for the crappy pic.

padi56 · 13 October 2010, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddnyc77

I own a Z Serial ND Sub but happened to see a SD (16600) with drilled lugs today on the train. I've never seen a SD in the wild. I was intensely focused on this guys watch specifically with respect to thickness of the case and the diameter of the dial.

I did a fair amount of research looking for this comparison this morning but could not find it. Does anyone have this information, also is the dial smaller on the SD? I thought I read that somewhere before.

Thanks.....

Yes the SD dial is 1mm smaller in diameter but the bezel is 1mm wider than the sub date.The Sea-Dweller is around 2mm thicker that the Submariner, due to the thicker crystal, case and caseback,Sub date 135 grams,SD 150 grams

joeychitwood · 13 October 2010, 01:53 AM

Here is a photo of the Sea Dweller next to two Submariners. The dial diameter is smaller but it's hardly noticeable. sakuraba's photo nicely shows the differences in thickness.

Tools · 13 October 2010, 03:25 AM

You guys are comparing the wrong watches...

The 14060 is smaller than the Sub Date, and so the dial on the SD and the 14060 are about the same size - about 29mm (the Sub Date is 30mm)

The 14060 is 12.20mm thick, the Sub Date is 12.55mm thick, and somebody needs to measure the SD thickness for us, but I believe that it is slightly thicker than the Sub Date.

14060 case size is 39.5mm, the Sub Date and SD are both 40mm.

None of the inserts on the three are interchangeable and both the Sub Date and the SD have substantially thicker (top to bottom) bezels from the 14060.

ersnyder · 13 October 2010, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeychitwood

Here is a photo of the Sea Dweller next to two Submariners. The dial diameter is smaller but it's hardly noticeable. sakuraba's photo nicely shows the differences in thickness.

Nice lineup there Joey, sweet shot!

Len · 13 October 2010, 05:03 AM

I have both, and as already said they almost look the same but due to its thickness the SD sits higher on the wrist and you can feel that it is a bit more heavy than the 14060. Both are great to wear....

MortgageGuy · 13 October 2010, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Len

I have both, and as already said they almost look the same but due to its thickness the SD sits higher on the wrist and you can feel that it is a bit more heavy than the 14060. Both are great to wear....

Excellent photo

Len · 13 October 2010, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortgageGuy

Excellent photo

Thx

Dr. Robert · 13 October 2010, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeychitwood

Here is a photo of the Sea Dweller next to two Submariners. The dial diameter is smaller but it's hardly noticeable. sakuraba's photo nicely shows the differences in thickness.

I dig the black/ss/yg sub w/ the diamonds a lot!

joeychitwood · 14 October 2010, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

I dig the black/ss/yg sub w/ the diamonds a lot!

Thanks! People tend to either love it or hate it. It matters not to me, as it was my first Rolex nearly 20 years ago.

slevin kelevra · 13 October 2010, 03:43 AM

I own a 14060m and I've seen a few SDs out there. To me they look the same until you catch the SD side on then its much thicker than the Sub. The SD is the only watch id swap my Sub for.

The ultimate "Tool" watch if you ask me!

ac001 · 13 October 2010, 05:21 AM

Great photos. I will chime in. I have a small wrist and tried both the Sub Date and 14060. I ended up w/the latter. The Sub Date is more substantial and sits a bit higher on the wrist. For me, it made a difference, though I preferred both look and fit (and bought) the 14060.

EchoBlueUK · 13 October 2010, 05:29 AM

Some nice trios there.

SaddleSC · 13 October 2010, 05:42 AM

I think that the Sub Date definitely looks the biggest in diameter although the SD is substantially taller off the wrist...

Eric88 · 13 October 2010, 07:42 AM

Here's a good reference with all the dimensions.

13 October 2010, 12:00 AM	#1
ddnyc77 Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: nyc Posts: 425	Size Comparison - Sub 14060 vs Sea Dweller I own a Z Serial ND Sub but happened to see a SD (16600) with drilled lugs today on the train. I've never seen a SD in the wild. I was intensely focused on this guys watch specifically with respect to thickness of the case and the diameter of the dial. I did a fair amount of research looking for this comparison this morning but could not find it. Does anyone have this information, also is the dial smaller on the SD? I thought I read that somewhere before. Thanks.....

13 October 2010, 01:32 AM	#2
SaddleSC "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: Charles B Location: GMT -7 Watch: Hulk 116610LV Posts: 6,131	The dial on an SD is 39mm vs the 40mm of the 14060M due to the increased case thickness. I have both watches, but I don't have any comparison pictures on my work computer to post. I am sure others will chime in with the exact stats, but I just wanted to say that the 16600 is an AMAZING watch and I am enjoying it so much more than I ever thought I would. I had concerns about the weight and height before I bought it, but I actually find it much more comfortable (and well balanced) than my 14060. It has become my daily wearer. __________________ Hulk 116610LV + GMT II 126710 BLNR + Explorer 124270 + Air King 126900 + Submariner 16613LB

13 October 2010, 01:36 AM	#3
sakuraba "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Real Name: Jib Location: SJ, California Watch: sun dial Posts: 8,189	I've never had a 14060M, but I can compare the 16600 to my 16610. The SD wears a bit heavier on the wrist. Not cumbersome, just more substantial. It also has a smaller dial and bezels insert, but the bezel itself is much thicker. Here's a stupid attempt at bezel thickness comparison. Sorry for the crappy pic. __________________ 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

13 October 2010, 03:25 AM	#6
Tools TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,514	You guys are comparing the wrong watches... The 14060 is smaller than the Sub Date, and so the dial on the SD and the 14060 are about the same size - about 29mm (the Sub Date is 30mm) The 14060 is 12.20mm thick, the Sub Date is 12.55mm thick, and somebody needs to measure the SD thickness for us, but I believe that it is slightly thicker than the Sub Date. 14060 case size is 39.5mm, the Sub Date and SD are both 40mm. None of the inserts on the three are interchangeable and both the Sub Date and the SD have substantially thicker (top to bottom) bezels from the 14060. __________________ (Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member

13 October 2010, 05:42 AM	#16
SaddleSC "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: Charles B Location: GMT -7 Watch: Hulk 116610LV Posts: 6,131	I think that the Sub Date definitely looks the biggest in diameter although the SD is substantially taller off the wrist... __________________ Hulk 116610LV + GMT II 126710 BLNR + Explorer 124270 + Air King 126900 + Submariner 16613LB

13 October 2010, 01:53 AM	#5
joeychitwood "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Way Up North USA Watch: Rolexes & Tudors Posts: 6,361	Here is a photo of the Sea Dweller next to two Submariners. The dial diameter is smaller but it's hardly noticeable. sakuraba's photo nicely shows the differences in thickness.

13 October 2010, 05:03 AM	#8
Len "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: Hans Henrik Location: EU, Denmark Posts: 184	I have both, and as already said they almost look the same but due to its thickness the SD sits higher on the wrist and you can feel that it is a bit more heavy than the 14060. Both are great to wear....

13 October 2010, 03:43 AM	#13
slevin kelevra "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Scotland Watch: 14060m Posts: 631	I own a 14060m and I've seen a few SDs out there. To me they look the same until you catch the SD side on then its much thicker than the Sub. The SD is the only watch id swap my Sub for. The ultimate "Tool" watch if you ask me!

13 October 2010, 05:21 AM	#14
ac001 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2008 Real Name: Alan Location: Maryland Watch: 14060M Posts: 164	Great photos. I will chime in. I have a small wrist and tried both the Sub Date and 14060. I ended up w/the latter. The Sub Date is more substantial and sits a bit higher on the wrist. For me, it made a difference, though I preferred both look and fit (and bought) the 14060.

13 October 2010, 05:29 AM	#15
EchoBlueUK "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,543	Some nice trios there.

13 October 2010, 07:42 AM	#17
Eric88 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: 88 keys Posts: 2,241	Here's a good reference with all the dimensions.

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