ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

kier333 · 6 January 2015, 11:16 AM

I am sure this has been asked 100's time but what's the general opinion between the 114060 and 116600. I realise one has a far deeper WR rating but who actually dives over 300 meters, one has a date and also a HEV but apart from that the cost.
I guess my question is this, is the sea dweller worth £2000 more for a date, deeper water rating and a HEV?

Speed · 6 January 2015, 11:22 AM

From a BOM perspective? No.

But do you want the tweaked Sea Dweller with a maxi dial and matte finish? If yes, you'll pay the extra.

nick c · 6 January 2015, 11:24 AM

Sd

kilyung · 6 January 2015, 11:32 AM

Yes because I like how it looks

otisc · 6 January 2015, 11:33 AM

Both great watches, but despite the size similarity, they couldn't be more different on the wrist.

The SD sits up higher with a taller caseback and a crystal that sits above the case.

And the fully-graduated bezel on the SD makes the watch look totally different IMO than the Sub.

Also, this is often hard to see at an AD counter, but the SD's matte dial is a big difference in some lighting situations.

elkaholic · 6 January 2015, 11:33 AM

In the opinion of someone who has a 14060m (yes I know it's not the 114060), the SD is not worth the extra money. Tried one on at the AD some time ago and as much as I love the looks of it, it held no extra appeal visually to me than the Sub. Without question the Sub wears more comfortably (to me) than the SD, but that will of course vary depending on wrist size and other factors.

Both are substantial watches that are fantastically designed.

toneafficianado · 6 January 2015, 11:35 AM

I suggest trying them both on..it's the only way to know which one is better for you. Don't think about the price difference, only the look and feel matter every day you wear it.

brandrea · 6 January 2015, 11:48 AM

I was just at my local AD this evening, and saw the Sub, SD side by side. The Sub visually looks a bit larger. I think the case is slightly more square shaped. I could be wrong and I didn't try them on. My 16610 does sit higher on my wrist due to the case back.

mtb · 6 January 2015, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kilyung

Yes because I like how it looks

+1

I really enjoy the fully graduated bezel

CDNWatchNut · 6 January 2015, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandrea

I was just at my local AD this evening, and saw the Sub, SD side by side. The Sub visually looks a bit larger. I think the case is slightly more square shaped. I could be wrong and I didn't try them on. My 16610 does sit higher on my wrist due to the case back.

I agree with this. The SubC wears a bit larger than the SDC, but has a noticeably lower profile on the wrist. I prefer the overall proportions and comfort of the Sub as well as the dial simplicity, but the SDC is also a very, very nice watch. The SDC is worth the premium, but only if you prefer it

AK797 · 6 January 2015, 12:12 PM

not to me.

asmfa5 · 6 January 2015, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toneafficianado

I suggest trying them both on..it's the only way to know which one is better for you. Don't think about the price difference, only the look and feel matter every day you wear it.

+1

Wear them, and if the SD sings to you more, just get it. Maybe the SD feels and looks better on you, and you end up choosing the sub due to price... What happens if that urge for the SD won't go away and you end up needing to flip the sub to get the one you really wanted? It'll probably cost you more money and headache.

BonitaBeast · 6 January 2015, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by otisc

Both great watches, but despite the size similarity, they couldn't be more different on the wrist.

The SD sits up higher with a taller caseback and a crystal that sits above the case.

And the fully-graduated bezel on the SD makes the watch look totally different IMO than the Sub.

Also, this is often hard to see at an AD counter, but the SD's matte dial is a big difference in some lighting situations.

For all these reasons, SD for me.

Hello and happy new year from the tropics!

Mis3 · 6 January 2015, 01:42 PM

I faced the same dilemma a few weeks ago and I finally decided on a SubC ND.

I find the ND version is more clean, simple and total symmetrical. I never care much for the cyclops, how it sticks up above the crystal.

I did consider the SubC with date in the beginning only because most Rolexes have the cyclops.

pampam · 6 January 2015, 02:50 PM

I went to my AD today and I like the 114060 better than 114060

Karbo · 6 January 2015, 04:30 PM

Here is a poll about it :
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...14060or+116600

I had 114060 and now SDC and cdnt be more happy !
I like old style lugs
Crystal
Military insert like a 5517
More confortable than the sub
It wears smaller than the SubC which is a good thing (subc wears too big imo with the new case)
I like the date feature with no cyclop
I like the way SDC is more exclusive

DCheeta · 6 January 2015, 04:37 PM

Yes. The 116600 is perfect in every way (for me), whereas the 114060 is near perfect.

Just look at it. It has that beautiful satin dial, the crystal sans-cyclops, and the fully graduated bezel reminiscent of the MilSub bezel. Then of course there are the perfectly-shaped lugs.

IT Nerd · 6 January 2015, 04:52 PM

116600 all day long!!!

1William · 6 January 2015, 09:56 PM

I prefer the Sub. The dial is well balanced and the fit is perfect for me. For the price difference pick up a Speedy.

Anthon · 6 January 2015, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IT Nerd

116600 all day long!!!

Same here. Huge Sea Dweller fan.

I guess 99,5% of the Sub owners don't dive to 200 meters, so I'm not worried about the even more over-the-top depth rating of the SD. The only thing that slightly annoys me on the SD is the gas escape valve: a very visible piece of complication that will never be used by 99,9% of the buyers.

I really love the SD, but I was afraid that the prominent gas escape valve would remind me every day that I really am no technical diver

Somehow that did not lead me to the Sub, but to the Explorer...but that's a different story.

SC11 · 6 January 2015, 10:57 PM

Well I'd say your last thread sums it up! You were flipping a 114060 for the 16600 but found the bracelet not up to the newer one so isn't the 116600 the logical step?

I have had the 116610LN and 114060 and as much as I loved the simplicity of the dateless dial, the better lug profile and overall more classic look of the 116600 sold it for me!

At one point I had the 114060, 116600 and 116520 together and then realised how the bulkier lugs do give the 114060 a bigger look but not as nice taper, to be honest I could live with both in my collection but if it had to be one or the other then I know which would stay

SC11 · 6 January 2015, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthon

I guess 99,5% of the Sub owners don't dive to 200 meters, so I'm not worried about the even more over-the-top depth rating of the SD. The only thing that slightly annoys me on the SD is the gas escape valve: a very visible piece of complication that will never be used by 99,9% of the buyers.

But then by the same context shouldn't the bezel as it won't be used to time a dive or the glidelock and divers extension as they are not being used over a wet suit be the same!

Actually as we don't dive I best not wear a dive watch

strafer_kid · 6 January 2015, 11:31 PM

The SDc feels slightly bulkier on the wrist but this might not be a problem for many. Some guys including myself, removed the dive link extension so that the watch sits better on the wrist. In all it's a very nice piece but the Subc certainly gives it a run for it's money!

rolex_DateJust · 6 January 2015, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCheeta

Yes. The 116600 is perfect in every way (for me), whereas the 114060 is near perfect.

Just look at it. It has that beautiful satin dial, the crystal sans-cyclops, and the fully graduated bezel reminiscent of the MilSub bezel. Then of course there are the perfectly-shaped lugs.

That is the best picture I've seen of the SDc by far... Man you nailed it taking that pic! This is definitely the pic that makes me want to buy one. Congrats!

Degas · 7 January 2015, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC11

Well I'd say your last thread sums it up! You were flipping a 114060 for the 16600 but found the bracelet not up to the newer one so isn't the 116600 the logical step?

I have had the 116610LN and 114060 and as much as I loved the simplicity of the dateless dial, the better lug profile and overall more classic look of the 116600 sold it for me!

At one point I had the 114060, 116600 and 116520 together and then realised how the bulkier lugs do give the 114060 a bigger look but not as nice taper, to be honest I could live with both in my collection but if it had to be one or the other then I know which would stay

Racerdj · 7 January 2015, 12:26 AM

Not to me in function but in looks yes!

Ferdelious · 7 January 2015, 01:22 AM

I think the SD looks more substantial on the wrist with the thicker case. Plus I prefer the shape of the lugs, fully graduated bezel and it has a date function. It is distinctly different from the other Sub models IMO. So yes, I believe it is worth the extra money, even if you aren't using this tool watch for what it is made for.

Mis3 · 7 January 2015, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karbo

Here is a poll about it :
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...14060or+116600

I had 114060 and now SDC and cdnt be more happy !
I like old style lugs
Crystal
Military insert like a 5517
More confortable than the sub
It wears smaller than the SubC which is a good thing (subc wears too big imo with the new case)
I like the date feature with no cyclop
I like the way SDC is more exclusive

Agreed. I really like the date on a SDC, more elegance without the cyclops.
I did not consider the SDC at all because of its size. 44mm is way too big for my wrist.

c.capt · 7 January 2015, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mis3

Agreed. I really like the date on a SDC, more elegance without the cyclops.
I did not consider the SDC at all because of its size. 44mm is way too big for my wrist.

The SDc4000 is 40mm. The DSSD is 44mm.

kier333 · 7 January 2015, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mis3

Agreed. I really like the date on a SDC, more elegance without the cyclops.
I did not consider the SDC at all because of its size. 44mm is way too big for my wrist.

The SDc is 40mm it's the deep sea that is 44mm

6 January 2015, 11:16 AM	#1
kier333 Banned Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: london Posts: 416	114060 or 116600 opinions please I am sure this has been asked 100's time but what's the general opinion between the 114060 and 116600. I realise one has a far deeper WR rating but who actually dives over 300 meters, one has a date and also a HEV but apart from that the cost. I guess my question is this, is the sea dweller worth £2000 more for a date, deeper water rating and a HEV?

6 January 2015, 04:30 PM	#16
Karbo "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Paris, France Watch: Dayto/5164 Posts: 1,631	Here is a poll about it : https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...14060or+116600 I had 114060 and now SDC and cdnt be more happy ! I like old style lugs Crystal Military insert like a 5517 More confortable than the sub It wears smaller than the SubC which is a good thing (subc wears too big imo with the new case) I like the date feature with no cyclop I like the way SDC is more exclusive __________________ IG : @aka_karbo

6 January 2015, 10:57 PM	#21
SC11 Banned Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: Sam Location: UK Watch: AP ☠️ Posts: 6,151	Well I'd say your last thread sums it up! You were flipping a 114060 for the 16600 but found the bracelet not up to the newer one so isn't the 116600 the logical step? I have had the 116610LN and 114060 and as much as I loved the simplicity of the dateless dial, the better lug profile and overall more classic look of the 116600 sold it for me! At one point I had the 114060, 116600 and 116520 together and then realised how the bulkier lugs do give the 114060 a bigger look but not as nice taper, to be honest I could live with both in my collection but if it had to be one or the other then I know which would stay Attached Images

7 January 2015, 12:26 AM	#26
Racerdj 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Indianapolis Watch: Patek-Philippe Posts: 16,832	Not to me in function but in looks yes! __________________ Rolex and Patek Philippe

7 January 2015, 01:22 AM	#27
Ferdelious 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2013 Real Name: Matt Location: Tampa, FL Watch: Hulk/SD4K/SeaQ/P39 Posts: 3,203	I think the SD looks more substantial on the wrist with the thicker case. Plus I prefer the shape of the lugs, fully graduated bezel and it has a date function. It is distinctly different from the other Sub models IMO. So yes, I believe it is worth the extra money, even if you aren't using this tool watch for what it is made for. Attached Images __________________ Why is it, "A penny for your thoughts," but, "you have to put your two cents in?" Somebody's making a penny.

6 January 2015, 11:22 AM	#2
Speed "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: USA Posts: 19,706	From a BOM perspective? No. But do you want the tweaked Sea Dweller with a maxi dial and matte finish? If yes, you'll pay the extra.

6 January 2015, 11:24 AM	#3
nick c Banned Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Canada Posts: 26,846	Sd

6 January 2015, 11:32 AM	#4
kilyung 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cave Watch: Sundial Posts: 33,940	Yes because I like how it looks

6 January 2015, 11:33 AM	#5
otisc "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Austin, TX Watch: 116610LV HULK Posts: 639	Both great watches, but despite the size similarity, they couldn't be more different on the wrist. The SD sits up higher with a taller caseback and a crystal that sits above the case. And the fully-graduated bezel on the SD makes the watch look totally different IMO than the Sub. Also, this is often hard to see at an AD counter, but the SD's matte dial is a big difference in some lighting situations.

6 January 2015, 11:33 AM	#6
elkaholic "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: ATL Watch: Rolex Posts: 683	In the opinion of someone who has a 14060m (yes I know it's not the 114060), the SD is not worth the extra money. Tried one on at the AD some time ago and as much as I love the looks of it, it held no extra appeal visually to me than the Sub. Without question the Sub wears more comfortably (to me) than the SD, but that will of course vary depending on wrist size and other factors. Both are substantial watches that are fantastically designed.

6 January 2015, 11:35 AM	#7
toneafficianado 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Real Name: Alan Location: Australia Posts: 2,204	I suggest trying them both on..it's the only way to know which one is better for you. Don't think about the price difference, only the look and feel matter every day you wear it.

6 January 2015, 11:48 AM	#8
brandrea 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Brian (TBone) Location: canada Watch: es make me smile Posts: 78,120	I was just at my local AD this evening, and saw the Sub, SD side by side. The Sub visually looks a bit larger. I think the case is slightly more square shaped. I could be wrong and I didn't try them on. My 16610 does sit higher on my wrist due to the case back.

6 January 2015, 12:12 PM	#11
AK797 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: Neil Location: UK Watch: ing ships roll in Posts: 59,369	not to me.

6 January 2015, 01:42 PM	#14
Mis3 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Canada Posts: 357	I faced the same dilemma a few weeks ago and I finally decided on a SubC ND. I find the ND version is more clean, simple and total symmetrical. I never care much for the cyclops, how it sticks up above the crystal. I did consider the SubC with date in the beginning only because most Rolexes have the cyclops.

6 January 2015, 02:50 PM	#15
pampam "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: NYC Posts: 179	I went to my AD today and I like the 114060 better than 114060

6 January 2015, 04:37 PM	#17
DCheeta "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Real Name: Dave Location: NYC Posts: 7,181	Yes. The 116600 is perfect in every way (for me), whereas the 114060 is near perfect. Just look at it. It has that beautiful satin dial, the crystal sans-cyclops, and the fully graduated bezel reminiscent of the MilSub bezel. Then of course there are the perfectly-shaped lugs.

6 January 2015, 04:52 PM	#18
IT Nerd 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: VA Watch: me flip Posts: 1,021	116600 all day long!!!

6 January 2015, 09:56 PM	#19
1William 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: North Carolina Watch: Rolex/Others Posts: 47,787	I prefer the Sub. The dial is well balanced and the fit is perfect for me. For the price difference pick up a Speedy.

6 January 2015, 11:31 PM	#23
strafer_kid "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Real Name: Kenny Location: northern ireland Watch: SDs, Subs & GMTs Posts: 5,136	The SDc feels slightly bulkier on the wrist but this might not be a problem for many. Some guys including myself, removed the dive link extension so that the watch sits better on the wrist. In all it's a very nice piece but the Subc certainly gives it a run for it's money!

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