Trade Sub 114060 towards a 116600 thoughts?

[ikincooper]

Is the above something you’d consider? My other Rolex is the BLNR and I see that the Sea Dweller would look a little more differentiated from this piece than my Sub. I’m also slightly attracted to the proportions of the Sea Dweller and possible future value retention despite the additional funds that would need to be added.

Appreciate your thoughts on the above...

[SeaDweller50]

If you have the extra cash then I’d say yes. The SD4K is very nice, with thinner lugs, better proportions.

[Ceb]

I wouldn't sell the Sub, I had the same dilemma a few months back, stumped up the cash for the SD4K, great watch and probably good for future value retention as mentioned, so no regrets, however the Sub still gets more wrist time and is the perfect partner to my BLNR.

[HL65]

I wouldn’t but to each his own.

[Wcdhtwn]

While the SD4K has different proportions than the BLNR and Sub, you would be trading a black dial and bezel diver plus cash for a black dial and bezel diver. The important comparison is the SD4K vs. the Sub c LN, is there enough difference in your eyes/on your wrist to trade the Sub plus cash? You don't want to go through all this and put the SD4K on and think "looks just like the watch I had".

[anakyn101]

Absolutely go for it!

[Zippy+]

Yes exactly what I did ..

[Art 1]

I would not.

[joshua08]

I had the same dilemma 2 months ago. Bought a Sub LN in 2012 as my daily. (My GMT II polished links were starting to take a beating and the Sub links were perfect). With the introduction of the 43sea-dweller at last years Basel world show I was drawn to looking at the classic 16600 and 116600 on Chrono 24. Do like the ceramic bezels so focused more on a 116600. Loved the size and weight and have been very happy with my purchase, has not been off my wrist since. The cyclops-less matt face is also a huge draw and makes me want to save for a 16600 even more now to complete the collection. Happy hunting.

[Kneecough]

Originally Posted by HL65

I wouldn’t but to each his own.

Same, I prefer how the sub sits on the wrist.

[travisb]

Originally Posted by HL65

I wouldn’t but to each his own.

Same. Prefer the 114060 regardless of what else is in the collection.

[DoctorA]

You seem to like the SD4k so absolutely go for it
This is one of those situations where there isn’t a wrong choice. It’s all about your liking. So go for it! Good luck

[1William]

If I was wise in the watch trading and buying game, and I am not, I would not do it. The 114060 is a great watch and checks all of the boxes in a 40 mm Rolex Diver. And it is the least expensive. But remember this is from a man that paid more than retail for his SD43 and justified it by saying it was 43 mm, etc. I would hold tight until Basel and see what happens.

[direwolf]

Imho, the SD4K is a truly special piece. I made the mistake of trading it to fund the new SD 43. It is the only watch I missed so much that I bought it again and paid a lit more than I did originally. The matte dial, the slightly more tapered lugs, the bezel reminiscent of the mil sub, and the combo of modern updates on a more toolish looking piece, all add up to a truly special and unique watch that will likely only get less easy to find. I do think this piece works better for wrists under 7.5 inches though.

[AK797]

I like the Subc more and the SD4K is pretty pricey now.

[Vipes]

I would since I like the cleaner look w/o the cyclops and thinner lugs.

[Houston77]

Nope for me. Too heavy and difficult to fit under a cuff.

[Steve36Efc]

It’s a tough call, I have a 114060 which gets most of my wrist time but I have also debated the same trade in the past up to now I have resisted. It would depend on how the figures worked.Good luck

[brandrea]

I’d stick

[CDNWatchNut]

While the SD4K is a beautiful watch, its not as comfortable as the SubC, at least on my wrist (7.5"). The sub is very nicely balanced and not top heavy like the SD. Future value though...my bet is on the SD.

[kilyung]

If it appeals to you, why not. I love my 116600.

[oldman2005]

I'd keep the sub and and buy the SD4k or SD43

[GradyPhilpott]

Only if you can't remember the date from one moment to the next.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Only if you can't remember the date from one moment to the next.

You just described me.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by kilyung

You just described me.

[RHIII]

I wouldn't.

[ikincooper]

Thanks to all for your inputs, much appreciated. Going to go see the SD4K, try it on and take things from there...

[TimeToWatch]

Originally Posted by ikincooper

Thanks to all for your inputs, much appreciated. Going to go see the SD4K, try it on and take things from there...

I traded my 116610LN for a 116600 and don't regret it one bit. As others have said, the tapered lugs, matte dial, and more symmetric bezel make it more aesthetically appealing. IMO it's a more proportional watch for anyone with a wrist under 7" vs the super cases. It is not much heavier than the Sub and fits neatly under a cuff, despite sitting higher than the sub.

The protruding crystal is pretty cool and makes the Rolex laser etching at 6-o'clock much more visible because of how it refracts the light.

I know it's a controversial topic, but I think Rolex made a misstep with the new SD43. The SeaDweller has always been a 40 mm, cyclops-free dive watch. I understand the cyclops was added because of advancements in adhesive technologies, but it is a bold departure from SD lineage. The SD43 looks like an oversized sub, rather than a Sea Dweller. To each their own of course, the 116600 checks all my boxes.

[watchwatcher]

I would for the SD43 in a heartbeat, but not the SDk.

I don't think you get the bang for the buck differential that you're looking for. Just my thoughts.

[sun-dail]

That's a trade I would make