sub, sub date or SD???

[blueface]

Thinking about adding watch #3 to my collection. I already have a YG DD and a TT DJ . I need a SS sport watch to round out my collection. I am a certified diver, and although I no longer dive, the dive watches strike my interest more than any other.
I pretty much was set on a black sub date, but I really like the clean look of the SD without the cyclops. I thought about the sub no date, but it looks like it's missing something, IMO.( yea, the date)
Does any one own both the SD and a sub date that can give me any pros and cons? Size comparison pics would help too, I know there is a small difference. Thanks, Dave (blueface)

[SPACE-DWELLER]

I have owned both the SS Sub Date and the SD.

Here are some pics:

SS Sub Date:






SD:







Personally, I prefer the SD due to the cleaner look of the dial. I also like the thicker case and the higher standing crystal.

However, the SD tends to look SMALLER when you look directly upon the dial, and the dial of the SD is also 1 MM smaller in diametre.

• Further differences are the HEV, of course
• Thicker crystal and caseback > greater depth rating
• Engraving on the case back (until recently the ONLY Rolex that is engraved on the caseback. Now the Milgauss also has an engraving)
• Polished sides of the bracelet
• Comes with an extra long diver's extension link marked "L" and a tool set.

If you want a professional classic, go for the SD!

[mike]

Hope I can help. Both the 16610 and 16600 use the same movement and for all practical purposes one is as strong as the other. I know the tendency is to view the SD as the "tougher" reference, but it reality it "goes deeper" LOL!

Both have a wonderful history as the consummate "tool watch", but there are some differences. The SD is actually an evolution of the Sub. designed as the professionals watch stemming from the needs of the professional diver (read the history of COMEX).

As such the SD, in my view, presents a more utilitarian apperance with it's lack of a cyclops lens, and thicker crystal--I quite like it.
Understand that the SD has a thicker case than the Sub. befitting it's deeper depth rating and as such many feel it sits higher on the wrist. I've noticed this, however in my view it's a matter of proper adjustment of the bracelet which has a bit different linkage.

The luminosity of each is the same. Of course the SD has the HE valve--useless to all but a handfull of people, but it kinda cool and speakes to the professional history of the watch.

I wear the Sub more, but that's just me. (Actually the LV is my pick LOL!)

Try each and see.

Comparison,







Of course if you like writing on the back gotta be SD,



The HE,



Don't over look the 14060M unless you have to have a date. It's the father of both and has a stronger link to the past with it's lug hole case and non-sels.

Best I can do is an "older" one LOL!



If lume is an issue the maxi-dial is the best.

[The Engineer]

What superb photographs you take, Mike. It's a pleasure looking at your work.

[jesper451]

I would choose the SD or the sub non date depending if you need a date or not. But the ultimate choice would be a vintage 5513. Good luck!

[f16570]

I think the SD for the cleaner look. JMO.

f

[blueface]

Thanks to all for the replies.
The more I look, the more I'm drawn to the SD. Guess it's time to head to the AD and have a better look.

[LawMan]

Sd

[Solar]

I too own a Sea Dweller, and something that wasn't mentioned here is that the coin edge of the bezel is thicker on the SD than the Sub. The polished coin edges are deeper, and as such the crevaces of the SD coin edge reflects light in a facinating way.

For example, driving home on the highway at night, as I pass under the the highway lights every 100 yards or so, the light coming in the car hits my SD bezel as my left had is at 10:00 on the wheel; I see the coin-edge light play right around the bezel and it really glitters.

Outstanding. Plus the thicker crystal has a refractive quality that seems different and more deep than my GMT II.

[fear]

Given all the facts, between the sub date and the SD prefer the SD. No wait, I prefer the Sub. Both? ARRRGGHH


In all seriousness, if I was to have only one it'd be the SD. The sub sits flatter on the wrist and the cyclops don't bother me but for some instrinsic, irrational reason I like the SD better.

[Andad]

Hmmm, I have a Sub date and an SD but in this case I'd go for the LV - I like the maxi dial and the green bezel.

[ashu2289]

Originally Posted by The Engineer

What superb photographs you take, Mike. It's a pleasure looking at your work.

[ashu2289]

I would suggest ..............

[ASW1]

Earlier in the year, I already had a Non-date and was looking between Sub Date and SD.

I couldn't decide, so bought them both !

You can't go wrong with either. Personally I would plump for the SD if I had to choose - I prefer the polished sides of the bracelet, the clean look, the slightly more weighty feel and the helium valve is a nice touch too. Overall I think that the SD feels a more solid watch and the Sub feels cheaper and less substantial alongside it.

Also, something for the hard core WIS , is that the inner ring around the dial (can't recall the silly french/swiss name for this) is thicker/taller on the Sub. You can see this in Mike's first two comparison pictures - it may well be this that makes the Sub look bigger face on. I personally prefer the slightly slimmer ring on the SD.

A couple of other points - the Sub is more common/popular, and with the SD you get a braclet adjusting/removing tool and spare link.

You'll enjoy whichever you get - and maybe in time buy the other one for company

[morgman]

The sub looks a bit bigger on the wrist, even though the case is actually thinner. The dial and bezel insert are about 1mm larger on the sub, but the actual outer diameters of the coin-edge bezels are the same. The no-date sub shares similar dial and bezel diameters with the SD, although it's the thinnest of the three.

For me, between a regular sub and the SD: the SD.
But between the LV sub and the SD: maybe the LV!

I have owned the no-date, but no longer have it. It's a gorgeous piece, but I really do like having the date, and I found I missed it. And although very comfortable, I think the bracelet is not as good. The divers extension would often pop out when I didn't want it to! The SEL bracelets on the SD and sub are better, and the new GMT is even better.

I really don't think you can go wrong either way though.
Try them both on, and see what looks better to you.

[TARDIS]

My first was a 'Y' series 16610

My second was this......'D' series 14060M




Now I have this which for me is the pinnacle of Rolex Diver models 16600 Z:



Cheers
Steve

[pegase747]

I have this and love it, 14060M.
Clean look, no cyclop, no date, just time and bezel, no useless COSC writing, strong military and diving history.

Cheers / Pierre

[Teofilo]

Originally Posted by pegase747

I have this and love it, 14060M.
Clean look, no cyclop, no date, just time and bezel, no useless COSC writing, strong military and diving history.

Cheers / Pierre

You've nailed it Pierre...........two beautiful photos
Sub, Sub date, or SD......all winners though !