Classic Sea Dweller or Sub C

[horseco]

Subc

[vrolok]

kidding right? sd all the way!

[toph]

sd for me too, one of the best rolex IMO, only took me 3 years to work that out;)

[Atomant]

Originally Posted by tgoose1

From a modern day metro sexual perspective I agree. However, if both the classic sub/dweller and ceramic sub been available 50 years ago, for the heavy lifting pioneering tasks Rolex Subs/SD were engineered to conquer, chances are better than 99.999999% that the Sub/C would never have seen the light of day, for the two most cited reasons as "improvements". Life saving, mission critical rugged dependability is worth infinitely more than a shiny fragile bezel insert and additional moving parts in a clasp.

[buddy13]

You might want to take a look at this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3lEiFUmVM

The new Parachrom alloy is astonishing IMHO and you only get that on the SubC...

[speedo]

seems like the sd is winning.
i wanted an sd badly then i tried on the gmtc and felt that it was so much superior due to the bracelet and clasp. then i tried on a subc and bought it without hesitation and i am happy with it. i've been wearing it constantly and haven't noticed that the bezel was fragile, the bracelet is superb and to me it is still the classic sub no matter what others say.
the classic sd (yes it is a classic as it has a heir in the dssd) will never be a collectors piece as it is widely available still even brand new so chose whichever you like more.

[speedo]

Originally Posted by Atomant

sorry to say but this is bs.
50 years ago there was no ceramic and rolex did not make a better clasp because it did not have the technology. technology is advancing and to be honest using it wisely how rolex does it suits me very well.
guess that most of the guys here going for the sd drive brand new cars and change them every two or three years for more bhp and advanced leather interior and still refuse minor modifications on a watch in every 25 years.

[East Bay Rider]

Sea Dweller

[Nahligah]

SD for sure

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by skyedog

Tool watch 101 = SD
Honestly you can't go wrong on either one!

you got it right....if could have only one, SD, but, if could have both, SD + Hulk.

[theken]

The classic choice between the old and reliable or the new and improved.
I think the decision is more about your "personality" than it is about the watch.

[SWIMPRUF]

SD.

But I prefer both.

[Antoine B]

None of them.
Sub "no date" (14060M) before it's too late.

[SeamasterGMT]

Originally Posted by psv

The brain says SubC: (slightly) improved movement, much improved bracelet (micro-adjustment) and lume (both hands and hour plots).

The heart says Sea-Dweller: rugged good looks and a true less-is-more classic. Lug holes!

I had both. I still have the SD...

Having said that, if you don't spend your time online and let yourself be influenced by the cult-status of the SD and your plan is only to have and use one single watch, then I think it is hard to beat a new Submariner with full warranty.

what he said.

I love the old SD but the improvements on the SubC are big improvements in my opinion. But, you will not see as many SeaDwellers around.
having said that, the more I think about that high crystal sticking up and the poor quality clasp......sure does look beautiful though.
Bugger it, I can't decide either.

[Clay]

[padi56]

Originally Posted by buddy13

I have both and can tell you that the SubC is superior in both form and function...

the glidelock clasp, larger minute hand and markers, improved in house lume and improved movement take the watch to an all new level...

Having said that however the SD is a classic with a ridiculous depth rating and a useless HRV so I can really understand why some people like it so much...they want to feel all masculine and stuff ....

You will be fine with both...just listen to your heart ...

Hardly a improved movement by just adding the in-house escapement parts its still a cal 3135 that been in production since 1988/9.Myself not a fan of the cyclops so I would choose by favourite sports Rolex the SD.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by speedo

sorry to say but this is bs.
50 years ago there was no ceramic and rolex did not make a better clasp because it did not have the technology. technology is advancing and to be honest using it wisely how rolex does it suits me very well.
guess that most of the guys here going for the sd drive brand new cars and change them every two or three years for more bhp and advanced leather interior and still refuse minor modifications on a watch in every 25 years.

Well regarding ceramic well brands like Rado have been making ceramic watches since the 1960s so its not something new.Today the latest fashion is ceramic thats why many brands now are jumping on the ceramic bandwaggon.

[warrior]

SD owners really ought to be happy about the fact that the dials/faces generally show less glare than the other Rolex divers. This was my pet peeve of Rolex divers...so I really paid attention to that aspect. As mentioned, I think the slightly smaller diameter and thickness of the flat crystal on the SD
" cut in" to the glare. I think it's a great benefit...

[ManUtd]

Right now I'd go with the SubC.

[speedo]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well regarding ceramic well brands like Rado have been making ceramic watches since the 1960s so its not something new.Today the latest fashion is ceramic thats why many brands now are jumping on the ceramic bandwaggon.

this is what i mentioned. rolex did not experiment with a brand new material which only used ceramic after it has been proved in many ways in many industries. this is the development i like.
if it is not bling on a ferrari or porsche brake or used in a nasa shuttle it shouldn't be considered bling on a rolex either.

[capote]

Originally Posted by Clay

[jmsrolls]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well regarding ceramic well brands like Rado have been making ceramic watches since the 1960s so its not something new.Today the latest fashion is ceramic thats why many brands now are jumping on the ceramic bandwaggon.

Yes, Swatch pioneered ceramic watches with Rado.

Omega took advantage of those decades of ceramic experience, added Liquidmetal technology, and came up with a "better mousetrap":



Fr. John†

[padi56]

Originally Posted by jmsrolls

Yes, Swatch pioneered ceramic watches with Rado.

Omega took advantage of those decades of ceramic experience, added Liquidmetal technology, and came up with a "better mousetrap":

Fr. John†

Afraid Swatch was not around when Rado first made the first ceramic watch back in the mid 1960s Swatch was not started till around 1985.

[Lion]

My vote goes to the SD!!!

[jmsrolls]

Originally Posted by padi56

Afraid Swatch was not around when Rado first made the first ceramic watch back in the mid 1960s Swatch was not started till around 1985.

That still doesn't erase decades of experience that Omega could draw on when developing its ceramic bezel.

Fr. John†

[Payesrob]

Sub-C all the way....

[subtona]

to the OP... how are your eyes? would you need a cyclops to see date?
SD date can be hard to read.... but all things being equal =
SD all the way

Originally Posted by speedo

sorry to say but this is bs.... rolex did not make a better clasp because it did not have the technology. ...guess that most of the guys here going for the sd drive brand new cars and change them every two or three years for more bhp and advanced leather interior and still refuse minor modifications on a watch in every 25 years.

the technology used in the new clasp seems to consist of a delicate spring (hardly new technology... imho: a step backwards, for a part that is likely to be subjected to grit and sand) and a welded bit that has failed on at least several occasions recorded on these pages

imho: I would wager the guy wearing the SD be more inclined to drive a car with the same soul as the SD rather than the latest and greatest

[speedo]

Originally Posted by subtona

the technology used in the new clasp seems to consist of a delicate spring (hardly new technology... imho: a step backwards, for a part that is likely to be subjected to grit and sand) and a welded bit that has failed on at least several occasions recorded on these pages

imho: I would wager the guy wearing the SD be more inclined to drive a car with the same soul as the SD rather than the latest and greatest

my dj has the old style clasp. it works perfectly but i would not hesitate a minute in picking the new one. the problems you mention happened to the early gmts not with the subs.
for me the soul of the watch is the movement and as both models have the same old sturdy 3135 i don't really see why one of them has got the soul the other does not.....had i bought the sd i'd be just as happy with it as i am with my soulless blingy, non-tool subc.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by subtona

to the OP... how are your eyes? would you need a cyclops to see date?
SD date can be hard to read.... but all things being equal =
SD all the way



the technology used in the new clasp seems to consist of a delicate spring (hardly new technology... imho: a step backwards, for a part that is likely to be subjected to grit and sand) and a welded bit that has failed on at least several occasions recorded on these pages

imho: I would wager the guy wearing the SD be more inclined to drive a car with the same soul as the SD rather than the latest and greatest

Originally Posted by speedo

... my soulless blingy, non-tool subc.

your words, not mine. (it pertained to your car reference... as an example of an SD owner, my choices for cars/motorcycles are the more classic, not the newest). i picture a SD wearer in a fj cruiser

my focus was on the technology you called new? a fine spring and welded bits are not new technology.

[Dweller of the Sea]

<<<<<-------------------- this one