Musings on my recently acquired SD4K 116600

[mpcdude]

SeaDwellers have always been my favourite over the Subs. I owned a 16600 for 2years before selling it off early this week to fund a 116600 and boy does it deliver. The SD4K is truly the last of its kind, 40mm and no cyclops. The narrower lugs and modernity of the contemporary sports models really make it one of a kind imo, and it’s truly the best of both worlds. I particularly love the matte dial and how it cuts reflection, making for a substantially more legible watch.

It always astounds and baffles me as to why the SD4K is underrated that it got discountinued in 2.5years due to poor sales. I guess the “common folks” just see it as a thicker, more expensive Sub. However, the very little details that the SD4K possesses make it stand out a lot. Imo, it’s one of the finest watches Rolex has ever made. I own a White DaytonaC and I have to admit, the SD4K is actually a more impressive watch to me. Not to mention, it wears much better for me than a SubC despite it sitting taller and heavier.

[Ferdelious]

I second that.

[roadie1]

Agree! SD4K is a sleeper. Awesome watch!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Looks great on you, enjoy it

[Jrcigar]

My absolute fav Rolex diver

[uansari1]

I wanted to like it, but it was too chunky for my liking and felt like a hockey puck. Different strokes for different folks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nyc2la]

Congrats! It’s a great watch and also my favorite Rolex diver.

[Vinyasa]

Totally agree, OP. I miss mine, sold it a few months ago. I found the fit to be much better than a SubC. And, not having a cyclops makes it appear more refined for business attire, IMO.

[Michael N Q8]

I agree, I also got one recently. I also have the SD43, but I prefer the SD4K.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by mpcdude

It always astounds and baffles me as to why the SD4K is underrated that it got discountinued in 2.5years due to poor sales. I guess the “common folks” just see it as a thicker, more expensive Sub.

This is exactly the reason. Remember 99% of Rolex buyers are not on this forum. They don't get into the history. They don't spend hours upon hours debating lug widths, cyclops, etc. Most buyers (in the old days at least) went into a store, look in the case, try a few on, and buy one. For THEM the SD4K was seen exactly as you suggest, a thicker more expensive Sub. While the rest of us appreciated it, it just never caught on with the general public because there was nothing to really differentiate it from a Submariner other than the price tag, hence the development of the 43 mm edition. Personally I love and appreciate both the SD4K and SD43 and it allows folks to purchase whichever works best for them. Yours seems to fit you perfectly - congrats!

[Vipes]

Completely agree. Nice shot!

[rmlovett1]

I agree A great watch!

[mpcdude]

Originally Posted by samson66

This is exactly the reason. Remember 99% of Rolex buyers are not on this forum. They don't get into the history. They don't spend hours upon hours debating lug widths, cyclops, etc. Most buyers (in the old days at least) went into a store, look in the case, try a few on, and buy one. For THEM the SD4K was seen exactly as you suggest, a thicker more expensive Sub. While the rest of us appreciated it, it just never caught on with the general public because there was nothing to really differentiate it from a Submariner other than the price tag, hence the development of the 43 mm edition. Personally I love and appreciate both the SD4K and SD43 and it allows folks to purchase whichever works best for them. Yours seems to fit you perfectly - congrats!

Thanks! And my wrist is only 6.3”. The fact that I can comfortably pull this off without it close to overhanging is testament to how well it wears!

[Amileon]

Great choice, congrats

[DramaTurtle]

I like the matte dial and general look of it but i just can't get over the height.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shalako]

I liked mine a lot, but sold it because ultimately I preferred - by a huge margin - the SD43. I wonder how much love there would be for the SD4K if it hadn’t been discontinued, if it was in current production and being sold alongside the SD43 I’m pretty sure it would sit unloved in AD windows much like it did before Rolex discontinued it.

[kans86]

Originally Posted by shalako

I wonder how much love there would be for the SD4K if it hadn’t been discontinued, if it was in current production and being sold alongside the SD43 I’m pretty sure it would sit unloved in AD windows much like it did before Rolex discontinued it.

Going by this logic one would then also assume that if the Daytona 6263 or 6265 was in current production and being sold alongside the 116500 then it would sit unsold in AD windows much like it did before it was discontinued....

[RXAPPP]

Aaah a REAL Seadweller for a change, I was beginning to think people were beleiving the Big Sub was a Seadweller

[Nikrnic]

Congrats! With a short and controversial run and many one off and transitional design features being not loved, now loved I'd say you have a winner. It's the ones you don't expect to be collectable that usually are. Yes, a real Seadweller. Enjoy....

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[acfcheung]

I agree with you OP. I own an 116600 as well and it just makes me smile evey time I look at it.... even more so than my 116518LN

Sent from my VKY-L29 using Tapatalk

[SG56]

I wish i had a daytona c to compare LOL

But I recently declined a trade of my SD4K for one.

I really want a Daytona, but wouldn't give up my SD4K for it. Love that watch.

Congratulations!

[superstarmar]

Congrats on a great reference... I love mine !!!

[samson66]

Originally Posted by SG56

I wish i had a daytona c to compare LOL

But I recently declined a trade of my SD4K for one.

I really want a Daytona, but wouldn't give up my SD4K for it. Love that watch.

Congratulations!

Holy smoke you declined a trade of your SD4K for a Daytona C???? Wow, you must really love that SD. I would have done that trade in a heartbeat.

[jfmiii]

the fact is most Rolex buyers arenet WIS like most of us. they want the cyclops. it screams Rolex and for a very large portion of the customer base, showing everyone you have a Rolex is very important. add to the fact that it is more expensive than a Sub, and you see why the SD has never really been popular.

i keep coming back to these, i want one. just not sure how it will wear compared to say, my 16800. i dont like huge, bulky watches which is why i dont own a 6 digit reference.

[SG56]

Originally Posted by samson66

Holy smoke you declined a trade of your SD4K for a Daytona C???? Wow, you must really love that SD. I would have done that trade in a heartbeat.

Would have been a trade plus $$

Might as well buy Grey.

But I wouldn't have done an even swap either. I love this watch that much.

[CoveWatch]

That is a fantastic looking watch!

[Brian Page]

I love this watch too - had it but it didn't work right for my wrist. I think this model in particular requires the "right" wrist. Glad it works for you!

[shalako]

Originally Posted by kans86

Going by this logic one would then also assume that if the Daytona 6263 or 6265 was in current production and being sold alongside the 116500 then it would sit unsold in AD windows much like it did before it was discontinued....

Daft comment, your talking about vintage watches so not at all comparable, most on here are smart enough to comprehend what I meant.

[airpeace]

nice

[faz]

It is a beautiful watch. People who find it easier to wear or more attractive than a SubC are enjoying its curvy 5 digit like log shape vs. the SubC's substantially more squared look and thicker logs.