Sea-Dweller 16600 vs 116600

[subprimero]

I am considering adding a Sea-Dweller to my collection. I generally prefer 5 digit references but I don't have anything against 6 digit references if they don't stray too far from the older models, e.g. the 118239 and the 116520. What are your thoughts?

[swish77]

Originally Posted by subprimero

I am considering adding a Sea-Dweller to my collection. I generally prefer 5 digit references but I don't have anything against 6 digit references if they don't stray too far from the older models, e.g. the 118239 and the 116520. What are your thoughts?

For a Sea-Dweller, the 16600 is by far my favorite sapphire/modern version, but I'm more of a classic/vintage Rolex guy.

I've tried the newer versions over the last couple of years, including the 40MM SD-C (too top heavy), and the 43mm version (too big/heavy period), and I always go back to the 16600. The size, weight, feel, thickness, etc .... everything about it, just perfect.

[Strummer25]

Love my 6 digit. Guess you need to try them both on and go from there

[Token74]

I’ve had both and at one point he both at the same time. The 16600 was my first Rolex and so I was pretty determined to keep it forever, but after a few months of zero wrist time following the arrival of the 116600, I let it go.

The slightly smaller case and less robust bracelet on the 16600 made it feel more too heavy than the better balanced 116600.

I also prefer the fully graduated bezel on the 116600 but I do wish the bezel was steel rather than ceramic.

Both nice watches, but having owned the 116600 for over six years, I wouldn’t trade it back for a 16600. Despite some fierce competition (including a Pepsi, white gold Daytona, a Nautilus, and five AP’s, the 116600 still gets at least 20% wrist time. I’m not convinced the 16600 would get any given what it’s up against.

Please don’t get me wrong though, the 16600 is a great watch and if you prefer the 5-digit models then it’s a great option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[subdateII]

I own both the 16600 and the 116520 that you are mentioning. I have tried on the 116600 and like it as the proportions are very classic for a Sea Dweller. Bracelet is more solid and clasp more engineered on the 6 digit references than the 5 digit 16600.

Purely subjective but I prefer the aluminum bezel on the dive watches. So my vote goes for the 16600.

[Jackie Daytona]

I haven’t tried the 6 digit version, so I guess I’m likely a bit biased. Wearing my 16600 today, and it just a fantastic and under appreciated piece.

For me at least my wrist is not very flat, so the extra bulge at the back actually increases the comfort for me. I generally appreciate the 5 digit dimensions, and aluminum bezel look as well, especially on divers. Lastly like I had mentioned the under appreciatedness of it, the quality of the watch for what they currently goes for is a great deal price wise. Especially in comparison to the newer ceramic watches. You can buy a 16600, and fit a decent 4 or 5 digit datejust in with the difference if you find them at a good price.

[JP.]

You can't go wrong with either. Great watches!

Here's my blog of my 16600. You might want to check it out (just for inspiration).

Sea-Dweller review

[Seddyspaghetti]

i prefer 5 digit due to sleekness

[Ferdelious]

6 digit for the newer clasp and glidelock extension alone.

[Lamontsanders]

I owned a 16600 and now have a 16660. I haven't had the opportunity to try on a SD4k. That being said...if it's anything like my 114060 then that's one hell of a watch. I love the 5 digit Sea-Dweller but glidelock makes a big difference.

[Raffles]

I have the 16600 and prefer the size. But I do love the glide lock on the newer watch.
I think that the case is too big for my wrist, I prefer the slimmer lugs on my watch. That is just a personal opinion. They are both fantastic watches.

[101031-28]

The Sea-Dweller has been my favorite Professional from day one. Between the 116600 and 16600, I choose the 16600. I have owned the 116600 and sold it as it did not sing to me the way I had hoped it would.

[wohlfecc]

I'm surprised at the recent price inflation of the 16600, which might push you to more seriously consider a good deal on a 116600. With the SD4k, they did a great job of bridging the gap between the understated qualities of the 5-digit models and the more garish 6-digit attempts. I'm looking at you, SD43! Plus, you get other nice touches like the fully graduated bezel, matte dial, etc.

[Wrist Watcher]

Great thread. In for more feedback.

[Ketler]

I feel the 16600 is FAR better then the 116600...And I've owned both...

The mistakes Rolex made, in my opinion, are as follows...

1) They increased the thickness without increasing the case width
The watch is in fact as thick as the SD43 (Which is 3mm wider of course)

2) They widened the lugs, thus squaring off the case...

3) The bezel pearl no longer sits recessed in the bezel but sticks out like a boil...Making it prone to damage...

Again these are only my own thoughts...

[iTreelex]

Originally Posted by Ketler

I feel the 16600 is FAR better then the 116600...And I've owned both...

The mistakes Rolex made, in my opinion, are as follows...

1) They increased the thickness without increasing the case width
The watch is in fact as thick as the SD43 (Which is 3mm wider of course)

2) They widened the lugs, thus squaring off the case...

3) The bezel pearl no longer sits recessed in the bezel but sticks out like a boil...Making it prone to damage...

Again these are only my own thoughts...

So much hate for the SD4k lol

1) It's 0.5mm thicker than the 16600

2) The lugs are probably the most proportionate of any modern Rolex

3) ??? The crystal protrudes further than the pearl and it a moot point

Anyway, OP my vote is for the 116600. It's more proportional weight-wise since the 16600 will feel more top heavy due to the hollow links it has. The 116600 has a better bracelet to accommodate the weight. Also, the matte maxi dial is a beauty.

[accountank2000]

Originally Posted by 101031-28

The Sea-Dweller has been my favorite Professional from day one. Between the 116600 and 16600, I choose the 16600. I have owned the 116600 and sold it as it did not sing to me the way I had hoped it would.

For me it absolutely had to be a Seadweller rather than submariner as it was the only way to avoid the cyclops; fine for a Datejust or Daydate when you're some old man with failing eyesight, but spoiling the clean lines of the crystal to make the date bigger (while obscuring it entirely from some angles) does not seem relevant for a dive watch...

I considered the 16600 and 116600 a few years ago trying them both on for quite some time with the same dealer, I kept going back and forth about three years ago. The 6-digit was a little more expensive but not a lot in the grand scheme of things, and obviously was newer so it was fair to spend more on a two year old model instead of a seven year old one - so the price didn't really come into it.

Technically, the 6-digit is 'better' - the glidelock is an excellent feature compared to having to make an adjustment with a toothpick, and the ceramic bezel is nice.

However comparing the two back and forth, I decided I preferred the more classic look of the older model - the face was more 'elegant' without the beefed up indexes of the maxi dial, lugs were a bit different, I didn't really require the bezel to have second markers all the way around it... the older version seemed more 'pure', and I had no problem with a glossy dial. I'm not doubting the 6-digit version could have been more comfortable with a different weight distribution and that excellent glidelock, but was very happy with the 16600 and wore it a lot.

I ended up selling the SD to help fund an Oysterflex Daytona a month or two ago - but that wasn't driven by any disappointment with the SD - it was just me trying to be a little cautious and not commit another £8k of cash into watches with Covid in full swing and who knows what lies around the next corner for the economy. I don't do any saturation diving so on a practical level the Daytona will be fine for my daily, and fits like a glove. I miss having a date, but do have that covered with a couple of non-rolexes.

[Wrist Watcher]

FWIW, I still have not tried on the 16600 but I did own the 116600. I liked it a lot, but I would say that it wore thicker than the Sub but also smaller. It's hard to describe, but while the lugs were slimmer the case was thicker. Both wear good for me.

It wouldn't shock me if the 16600 wore smaller than the 116600 and the six-digit sub, but again I haven't had a chance to see that one in person ... I really want to though and am tempted to buy one just to try it haha.

[eskiserkan]

I own both and they are great watches. 16600 sits a bit higher but it has more vintage feel. 116600 more comfotable and one of a kind with its proportions. Produced in lower quantities too...

[triple.lindy]

I have the 116600 and wear it more than anything else. I love the proportions and how robust feels. I also love the glidelock clasps so it's an easy choice for me.
Actually just picked up an SD43 so we will see if the SD4K still gets all of the wrist time.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Ferdelious

6 digit for the newer clasp and glidelock extension alone.

Yes Sir, plus the 116660 to the mix.

[aknajera]

The 116600 is a special watch due to the limited release timeframe and great clasp. I do like the fact that if you keep the 16600 for a long time it's possible the bracelet will fade, something I think looks great. Especially when you have owned it since it looked new. SD43 is heavy and only for real men ;-)

[aknajera]

Originally Posted by triple.lindy

I have the 116600 and wear it more than anything else. I love the proportions and how robust feels. I also love the glidelock clasps so it's an easy choice for me.
Actually just picked up an SD43 so we will see if the SD4K still gets all of the wrist time.

Am curious which you end up wearing more. I have considered trading my SD43 for a 116600.

[Whitewolf777]

I own both.
They both have their advantages.

I tend to prefer the slicker shape of the 16600. I find the proportions of this watch close to perfect it might be the best proportioned Rolex Diver to my tastes.

But the 116600 has plenty of appeal as well, with the full marking ceramic bezel, the rarity and the glidelock adjustable clasp.

On the 116600 The case is closer to the maxi case look and the end link flare out.

The 16600 has a recessed endlink where it attaches to the case and and embossed clasp that gives it a specific look.

One has mat dial, the other glossy. One has ceramic dial, the other aluminum.

As always with Rolex, my perfect watch would be a combination of both.

The case shape, endlinks from the 16600, combined with the ceramic, full minute bezel from the 116600, with the clasp from the 16600 but with glide lock. A mat dial, eventually some red text. Hey, that looks like a 126600, doesn’t it? But the 126600 is 43mm.

Sometimes I wonder if Rolex does not purposely play with our frustration.

[rmurphy]

16600 for me




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[painexpert]

5 digit for sure. Had one many years ago. Never should have sold it.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by subprimero

I am considering adding a Sea-Dweller to my collection. I generally prefer 5 digit references but I don't have anything against 6 digit references if they don't stray too far from the older models, e.g. the 118239 and the 116520. What are your thoughts?

Speaking for myself not a fan of ceramic inserts my own 16600 SD had a very hard life working as a real tool watch underwater for over 5 years.Yet it has one insert change it was not badly scratched but I was back in the UK so decided to change it cost at that time £35 and watch now 24 years young.

[MrWhy]

Great pieces! Tend to go down the 116600 route.

Thanks




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Saoirse32]

Owned both.
Of the two, I’d go with the 6 digit. Glidelock puts it over the top for me.

Frankly, I know some can’t get over the cyclops, but the SD43 is “better” than both if your wrist is 7+ IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Watchman001]

5 digit always > 6 digit. Always. And I’ve owned many of both, including the 116600.