ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Degas · 21 January 2014, 05:58 AM

Do you agree?

http://www.theprodigalguide.com/2014...er-or-deepsea/

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

tkerrmd · 21 January 2014, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Degas

Do you agree?

http://www.theprodigalguide.com/2014...er-or-deepsea/

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

no totally disagree

the SD is an amazing and iconic watch and I have one, but the DSSD is in an upgrade league of its own, and got one the second it came out just based on its amazing build and of course the clasp!

only downside is it is too big for some, and even that is a plus for me

but the DSSD is not for everyone this is my opinion and you asked

but after thinking about it ah I do have both!!

SixPak · 21 January 2014, 06:13 AM

Also disagree. First I must say the SD is an iconic classic and an original so there's no disputing that fact. But to say the DSSD is "a jewelry and not a tool" watch is bordering on laughable.

AK797 · 21 January 2014, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SixPak

Also disagree. First I must say the SD is an iconic classic and an original so there's no disputing that fact. But to say the DSSD is "a jewelry and not a tool" watch is bordering on laughable.

Yup

subtona · 21 January 2014, 06:20 AM

Article is just entertainment.

For me i pick the SD.

I like features of the DSSD, Domed crystal & Matte dial especially, but ultimately i am not a fan of the DSSD size.

woodsworth · 21 January 2014, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by subtona

Article is just entertainment.

For me i pick the SD.

I like features of the DSSD, Domed crystal & Matte dial especially, but ultimately i am not a fan of the DSSD size.

Agreed.

If Rolex had updated the original SD with a domed crystal & matte dial, I'd probably own one right now

tkerrmd · 21 January 2014, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by subtona

Article is just entertainment.

For me i pick the SD.

I like features of the DSSD, Domed crystal & Matte dial especially, but ultimately i am not a fan of the DSSD size.

really think that is the deal breaker the size and some say the engraving but even that you dont notice to me, otherwise the technology is tough to argue with

stevedssd · 21 January 2014, 06:41 AM

Agree with the assessment of the SD, shame this 1993 model has had the original dial and hands replaced. Completely disagree with the assessment of the DSSD.

jk88 · 21 January 2014, 06:45 AM

I'd pick the 16600 over the DSSD any day, but that's just me.

I will say the DSSD is very striking -- not exactly what I'd want in an everyday watch but to each his own.

bayerische · 21 January 2014, 06:45 AM

All I'm saying is that I like the Sea-Dweller better.

psv · 21 January 2014, 06:48 AM

Once upon a time I thought these guy were entertaining and spoke intelligently about some watches, but after reviewing a couple of episodes it is clear that isn't the case. I even jumped in an commented on their DSSD crap-post. Their position on many watches is ill-informed and narrow at best, and in the case of the DSSD, devoid of even the most basic understanding of how and why the DSSD was brought to market.

Please feel free to comment not only here on this thread, but on their own site better balance some of their hate.

I own and enjoy both of these watches. They both stand on their own merits.

zama · 21 January 2014, 06:49 AM

If I had SD I would not get rid of it period. I am not a huge fan of DS but I can see why some do like it, and the article is designed as a bit of tongue in cheek I think. I don't believe anyone needs a watch that large but I am sure women will be wearing before the year is out.

Degas · 21 January 2014, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by subtona

article is just entertainment.

For me i pick the sd.

I like features of the dssd, domed crystal & matte dial especially, but ultimately i am not a fan of the dssd size.

+1

Cru Jones · 21 January 2014, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by subtona

Article is just entertainment.

For me i pick the SD.

I like features of the DSSD, Domed crystal & Matte dial especially, but ultimately i am not a fan of the DSSD size.

yup.

travisb · 21 January 2014, 07:11 PM

Love both, but Deepsea over the SD.

Rashid.bk · 21 January 2014, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travisb

Love both, but Deepsea over the SD.

x2

Bangel · 21 January 2014, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by subtona

Article is just entertainment.

For me i pick the SD.

I like features of the DSSD, Domed crystal & Matte dial especially, but ultimately i am not a fan of the DSSD size.

Agreed.

I do think it is a fair point that the DSSD is not as "subtle" looking as the SD.

DJWong · 21 January 2014, 08:03 PM

Both :-)

HL65 · 21 January 2014, 08:37 PM

Yes SD is a classic for sure but their assessment of the DSSD is way off!

Baselman · 21 January 2014, 08:47 PM

Sorry the DeepSea totally tramples the previous SeaDweller on every single aspect - now if the previous sea dweller had a superdomed glass and maxi matte dial a glidelock clasp a 60min bezel chromalight blue 120click bezel big crown and been to the bottom of Mariana Trench then it'd be a different story but it doesn't so it isn't and that's that lol
The 1665 however is a different story.

alixg · 21 January 2014, 10:42 PM

Two distinct watches IMO. Both beautiful

powerfunk · 21 January 2014, 11:02 PM

They're just trying to get pageviews. Although I have to admit I mostly agree with their stance on the DSSD.

That's OK, I'm sure there are plenty of people who think my 34mm watches look silly. To each his own.

RolexDivers · 21 January 2014, 11:15 PM

I partially agree with partial statements from the article. Where it states that the DSSD was designed for people to showoff, that is correct indeed. The DSSD was the first watch I think in Rolex's race to be part of the "Make it BIG" fashion.

All other manufacturerers were giving in to the BIGGER IS BETTER trend and ROLEX did not want to be left behind. So to satisfy a certain segment of their customer base, they had no choice but to create something massive.

That being said, the DSSD is a superior watch to SD in all regards. You can like the classic SD all you want but like one poster above said, the DSSD will eat an SD for lunch and then spit out that Titanium He escape valve

I have been complimented on the DSSD more than any other in my collection except for the 16613... people mistake the DSSD for a submariner all the time.
It is a very impressive watch....but the truth is that Rolex can take cow dung and put Rolex on it and we'ld all find that very impressive too!

ferrissteve11 · 22 January 2014, 12:56 AM

And for my 100th post...I too find the Deepsea an am amazing piece. As its been said before....its got the vintage charm, but the modern technology....a win/win for me.

masterserg · 22 January 2014, 01:04 AM

Different watches, different ages, both awesome.

Why is anything this buffoon says important?

sebastien1975 · 22 January 2014, 01:15 AM

I prefer the SD but i disagree with the article.
Writer likes the SD because it is over-engineered. With the same rationale, he should be crazy in love with the DS...

WatchnRoll · 22 January 2014, 01:37 AM

That article is a joke.

The Deep Sea is a step up from the SD. I used to own an SD and as soon as I saw the DS was coming out, I wanted to upgrade.

DS for me all day

polarinda · 22 January 2014, 01:52 AM

The thickness of the ds makes it impossible to wear with any comfort. Otherwise, it's a beauty.
So, *@! you Rolex.

Bucky · 22 January 2014, 01:54 AM

Many people complain about the writing but for those people who own a Deepsea we all know that you don't even notice the writing..these comments must come from people who look at the super imposed pics on the net. Both good watches in there own right..SD is a classic iconic divers Rolex but the DSSD is its younger big brother.

Cc1966 · 22 January 2014, 01:58 AM

I read the article and laughed...the prodigal fool more like it. I have them both, and the DSSD is superior IMHO in every way. It is my dedicated diver hands down (that big piece of "jewelry"-idiot).

21 January 2014, 05:58 AM	#1
Degas "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Middle Posts: 878	The everlasting argument : DS or SD Do you agree? http://www.theprodigalguide.com/2014...er-or-deepsea/ Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

21 January 2014, 06:20 AM	#5
subtona "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: gus Location: East Coast Watch: APK & sometimes Y Posts: 26,599	Article is just entertainment. For me i pick the SD. I like features of the DSSD, Domed crystal & Matte dial especially, but ultimately i am not a fan of the DSSD size. __________________

21 January 2014, 06:45 AM	#10
bayerische "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Real Name: Andreas Location: Margaritaville Watch: Smurf Posts: 19,879	All I'm saying is that I like the Sea-Dweller better. __________________ Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

21 January 2014, 06:49 AM	#12
zama "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Real Name: Craig Location: Sydney Watch: 4 Broken glass Posts: 5,808	If I had SD I would not get rid of it period. I am not a huge fan of DS but I can see why some do like it, and the article is designed as a bit of tongue in cheek I think. I don't believe anyone needs a watch that large but I am sure women will be wearing before the year is out. __________________ Day Date 118206, Daytona 116509 & 116505, AP 25859ST Gone but not forgotten and genuinely missed..... Root Beer GMT, Sub, TT Daytona, YG DD Bark, Datejust(2 his & hers), AP RO, PP Aquanaut, Lange 1, Heuer Monza, Piaget Altiplano, GP Chrono, Seamaster, Tudor Sub, Tudor Chrono, Tudor Black Bay Bronze

21 January 2014, 08:03 PM	#18
DJWong "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: Tom Location: Hongkong Watch: SubC, SD, DSSD Posts: 582	The everlasting argument : DS or SD Both :-)

21 January 2014, 06:13 AM	#3
SixPak "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Real Name: Phong Location: Toronto Posts: 2,718	Also disagree. First I must say the SD is an iconic classic and an original so there's no disputing that fact. But to say the DSSD is "a jewelry and not a tool" watch is bordering on laughable.

21 January 2014, 06:41 AM	#8
stevedssd "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: UK Posts: 2,205	Agree with the assessment of the SD, shame this 1993 model has had the original dial and hands replaced. Completely disagree with the assessment of the DSSD.

21 January 2014, 06:45 AM	#9
jk88 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Miami Posts: 82	I'd pick the 16600 over the DSSD any day, but that's just me. I will say the DSSD is very striking -- not exactly what I'd want in an everyday watch but to each his own.

21 January 2014, 06:48 AM	#11
psv 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: USA & France Posts: 11,078	Once upon a time I thought these guy were entertaining and spoke intelligently about some watches, but after reviewing a couple of episodes it is clear that isn't the case. I even jumped in an commented on their DSSD crap-post. Their position on many watches is ill-informed and narrow at best, and in the case of the DSSD, devoid of even the most basic understanding of how and why the DSSD was brought to market. Please feel free to comment not only here on this thread, but on their own site better balance some of their hate. I own and enjoy both of these watches. They both stand on their own merits.

21 January 2014, 07:11 PM	#15
travisb 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Real Name: Travis Location: FL / NYC Watch: Yes.. Posts: 33,493	Love both, but Deepsea over the SD.

21 January 2014, 08:37 PM	#19
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 64,006	Yes SD is a classic for sure but their assessment of the DSSD is way off! __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

21 January 2014, 08:47 PM	#20
Baselman "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2013 Location: Switzerland Watch: 1665 GreatWhite SD Posts: 1,527	Sorry the DeepSea totally tramples the previous SeaDweller on every single aspect - now if the previous sea dweller had a superdomed glass and maxi matte dial a glidelock clasp a 60min bezel chromalight blue 120click bezel big crown and been to the bottom of Mariana Trench then it'd be a different story but it doesn't so it isn't and that's that lol The 1665 however is a different story.

21 January 2014, 10:42 PM	#21
alixg "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: France Posts: 114	Two distinct watches IMO. Both beautiful

21 January 2014, 11:02 PM	#22
powerfunk "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Real Name: Rob Location: Boston, MA Watch: 1530 Posts: 3,799	They're just trying to get pageviews. Although I have to admit I mostly agree with their stance on the DSSD. That's OK, I'm sure there are plenty of people who think my 34mm watches look silly. To each his own.

21 January 2014, 11:15 PM	#23
RolexDivers Banned Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: BIG BEAR, CA Posts: 1,468	I partially agree with partial statements from the article. Where it states that the DSSD was designed for people to showoff, that is correct indeed. The DSSD was the first watch I think in Rolex's race to be part of the "Make it BIG" fashion. All other manufacturerers were giving in to the BIGGER IS BETTER trend and ROLEX did not want to be left behind. So to satisfy a certain segment of their customer base, they had no choice but to create something massive. That being said, the DSSD is a superior watch to SD in all regards. You can like the classic SD all you want but like one poster above said, the DSSD will eat an SD for lunch and then spit out that Titanium He escape valve I have been complimented on the DSSD more than any other in my collection except for the 16613... people mistake the DSSD for a submariner all the time. It is a very impressive watch....but the truth is that Rolex can take cow dung and put Rolex on it and we'ld all find that very impressive too!

22 January 2014, 12:56 AM	#24
ferrissteve11 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: USA Posts: 1,116	And for my 100th post...I too find the Deepsea an am amazing piece. As its been said before....its got the vintage charm, but the modern technology....a win/win for me.

22 January 2014, 01:04 AM	#25
masterserg "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Real Name: Serg Location: US of A Watch: AP Posts: 7,437	Different watches, different ages, both awesome. Why is anything this buffoon says important? __________________ How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat????

22 January 2014, 01:15 AM	#26
sebastien1975 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Real Name: Sebastien Location: South East Asia Posts: 788	I prefer the SD but i disagree with the article. Writer likes the SD because it is over-engineered. With the same rationale, he should be crazy in love with the DS...

22 January 2014, 01:37 AM	#27
WatchnRoll "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Florida Posts: 538	That article is a joke. The Deep Sea is a step up from the SD. I used to own an SD and as soon as I saw the DS was coming out, I wanted to upgrade. DS for me all day __________________ Navitimer 01 on Black Leather Strap

22 January 2014, 01:52 AM	#28
polarinda "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Real Name: Trav Location: singapore Watch: it Posts: 2,316	The thickness of the ds makes it impossible to wear with any comfort. Otherwise, it's a beauty. So, *@! you Rolex.

22 January 2014, 01:54 AM	#29
Bucky "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: UK Posts: 601	Have to own one to know Many people complain about the writing but for those people who own a Deepsea we all know that you don't even notice the writing..these comments must come from people who look at the super imposed pics on the net. Both good watches in there own right..SD is a classic iconic divers Rolex but the DSSD is its younger big brother.

22 January 2014, 01:58 AM	#30
Cc1966 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Real Name: Christopher Location: Georgia, USA Watch: ing the Sea... Posts: 6,713	I read the article and laughed...the prodigal fool more like it. I have them both, and the DSSD is superior IMHO in every way. It is my dedicated diver hands down (that big piece of "jewelry"-idiot). __________________ "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way." Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 "*Curmudgeons* " Favorites: 1665 SD, Sub Date, DSSD, Exp II, Sub LV, GMTIIc

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