Classic Sea Dweller or Sub C

[HongNinja]

Originally Posted by gwalker

The ceramic bezel is tough as nails and the clasp is awesome. Either way both are great watches. Buy whatyou want!!!!

The new ceramic bezels, although amazingly scratch proof, are hardly "tough as nails." Ceramic shatters, and have heard of this happening on these bezels when dropped.... You won't see that ever happen on an "old" SD/Submariner.

Scratchproof? Yes. More tough? NO.

[speedo]

Originally Posted by HongNinja

You just like the NEW stuff, which is fine, but new doesn't always justify better. You're a Sub-C and a DSSD owner, so of course you're biased. Have you ever owned a "older" Sub? Ever seen a SD in person? Hard to make judgements unless you've owned or closely inspected. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE crispy new stuff, but don't let that go to your head.

I'd take an oldschool Mustang Cobra GT500 any day over the new 5.0. Call me crazy, but SOMETIMES older is better. Like the old saying goes, "They don't make them like they used to." hahaha

in cars you are right. however rolex uses the same movement a bit improved, better materials and has not changed steel to plastic as it happened in case of the mustang eg.
that is why i don't get the bashing. i wish all companies would be that mature with their product development. so far i haven't seen any rolex product falling flat (unlike omega with the coax moevement). to me it seems that rolex does not know the term planned obsolecence.

and a personal opinion: i really don't get the hate topics here. i guess that no rolex is better than the other they are each made with a careful craftmanship and the serve their purpose. it might be that you like one less than the other but it is a question of taste and not quality.

[HongNinja]

Speedo,

Perhaps I am not coming across correctly. I am not intending to "bash" gwalker or anybody else. If I come across that way, I apologize. My intention was purely meant to be in discuss/teasing format, and no where close did I mean to be disrespectful.

I was taking all this as pure hobbyist debate talk. It's like discussing/arguing sports. It's just fun to do, no one is really right... Well, sometimes around here, yes, but in the end who's "right" about what the best watch is? Purely subjective.

All Rolex pieces are AMAZING in their own right, that's why we are such fanboys(or maybe it's just me). I think it's fun to collect, debate, and give each other sh*t sometimes all with best intentions.

[tomfang]

Sd..

[speedo]

Originally Posted by HongNinja

Speedo,

Perhaps I am not coming across correctly. I am not intending to "bash" gwalker or anybody else. If I come across that way, I apologize. My intention was purely meant to be in discuss/teasing format, and no where close did I mean to be disrespectful.

I was taking all this as pure hobbyist debate talk. It's like discussing/arguing sports. It's just fun to do, no one is really right... Well, sometimes around here, yes, but in the end who's "right" about what the best watch is? Purely subjective.

All Rolex pieces are AMAZING in their own right, that's why we are such fanboys(or maybe it's just me). I think it's fun to collect, debate, and give each other sh*t sometimes all with best intentions.

sorry, i wasn't referring to you when mentioning 'bashing'.
i completely agree with your last statement though.

[jwcy]

sd for sure!

[roadie1]

Gosh...this turned out to be a fun topic! Thanks for all of your reply's. Keep um' coming! I'm on the fence!

[buddy13]

Originally Posted by HongNinja

Indeed. There is that element of members that exist here. However, I'm a young buck(29), and still think the SD to be a better watch(out of those two). SD is also discontinued and there's no way you could argue the Submariner is a better dive watch then a SD/DSSD. That's just craziness.

Sub-C is next for me, but SD is the best Rolex sport model ever made.

Ok I will post my last contribution to this thread then I'll let everyone be happy with what he has ...I'm not much into my watch is better than yours discussions but I just want to share my thoughts why I think the SubC is one of the greatest watches Rolex has ever made ....had it been any other watch I would not have bothered to voice my opinion....

I can understand your fascination with the SD my friend....it seems that it is the only Sub/SD model you own..am I correct ? I ask this because you seem to claim that people love the SubC better because they never tried/owned the older models ...

Again I stand by what I said that the SubC just blows any SD out of the water (remeber I have both)...this of course is just my opinion. It means that if a friend asks me for my opinion I will try to convince him to get the SubC..but again this is not to say that the SD is not a great watch..its just that for me its not nearly as great as the SubC ...

Again I own both and the reason why I see the SubC as superior is due to these facts:

1- SubC has a more reliable case for my type of diving (scuba) since it does not have an HRV drilled into the side of the case. Two (one gasket between HRV and case and one gasket within HRV assembly) sites for possible water intrusion are thus removed. Same argument as the one with the old clasp being more reliable remember...?

2- The SubC has brighter and longer lasting in house lume.

3- The SubC has a much more visible minute hand due to it being thicker with more generous lume application.

4- The SubC has a truer in house movement in the fact that the balance spring is now also made by Rolex.

5- The SubC is less susceptible to magnetic fields (proved on you tube video) and less susceptible to mechanical shocks (according to Rolex...I believe them 100%) due to same balance spring.

6- The SubC can be adjusted to the wrist with millimetric adjustments making for a most comfortable fit.

7- I can wear my SubC as lose or as tight as I like during diving. I can adjust extension length to compensate for my 2 different wet suit thicknesses, for gloves etc...

8- You can remove more bracelet links on the 6 o'clock side. So if you have small wrists on the SubC you can still centre the clasp perfectly, with the SD it will never be centred on >6.5 inch wrists.

9- The clasp never digs in the wrist on the SubC (unlike my SD, 14060M, 16610), no matter how tight you wear it, since it has no edges on the side that make physical contact with the wrist.

10- Many claim that ceramic is brittle and the bezel will crack...except for a few G-Shocks no other analog watches has been through more sh** (diving, swimming, gym, running, climbing, cycling, camping, boating...) with me than these two ceramic bezel watches pictured below....I have yet to see a dent on one of these bezels (Fr. John please note that they both have recessed numbers...). I once bumped the OS 300m with a brick wall HARD. I managed to scratch the sapphire crystal and only a very small (barely visible) hairline scratch on the Orient's bezel, the Tuna's bezel remains pristine....





So there you have it...these are just the points I wanted to outline, which I think make the SubC a more attractive watch for me.

Probably you'd be better of having an SD if you...

1- Dive in depths exceeding 300m (probably with sperm whales )

2- Do saturation diving with your watch on (He intrusion)...in which case I would humbly suggest an SBBN015/013 but that's another story.

3- Generally prefer thicker, top heavy watches.

4- Like to buy discontinued/vintage models as compared to new offerings.

5- Hate the cyclops (and like small date windows..which IMHO look a bit out of proportion)...

I hope that I made the choice somewhat easier to anyone that is on the fence of choosing between these 2 watches ....

HAGD all..whether you are SubC or SD fanboys ...I'll leave you with some pics of my fave watch...

[Kanger]

Originally Posted by buddy13

Ok I will post my last contribution to this thread then I'll let everyone be happy with what he has ...I'm not much into my watch is better than yours discussions but I just want to share my thoughts why I think the SubC is one of the greatest watches Rolex has ever made ....had it been any other watch I would not have bothered to voice my opinion....

I can understand your fascination with the SD my friend....it seems that it is the only Sub/SD model you own..am I correct ? I ask this because you seem to claim that people love the SubC better because they never tried/owned the older models ...

Again I stand by what I said that the SubC just blows any SD out of the water (remeber I have both)...this of course is just my opinion. It means that if a friend asks me for my opinion I will try to convince him to get the SubC..but again this is not to say that the SD is not a great watch..its just that for me its not nearly as great as the SubC ...

Again I own both and the reason why I see the SubC as superior is due to these facts:

1- SubC has a more reliable case for my type of diving (scuba) since it does not have an HRV drilled into the side of the case. Two (one gasket between HRV and case and one gasket within HRV assembly) sites for possible water intrusion are thus removed. Same argument as the one with the old clasp being more reliable remember...?

2- The SubC has brighter and longer lasting in house lume.

3- The SubC has a much more visible minute hand due to it being thicker with more generous lume application.

4- The SubC has a truer in house movement in the fact that the balance spring is now also made by Rolex.

5- The SubC is less susceptible to magnetic fields (proved on you tube video) and less susceptible to mechanical shocks (according to Rolex...I believe them 100%) due to same balance spring.

6- The SubC can be adjusted to the wrist with millimetric adjustments making for a most comfortable fit.

7- I can wear my SubC as lose or as tight as I like during diving. I can adjust extension length to compensate for my 2 different wet suit thicknesses, for gloves etc...

8- You can remove more bracelet links on the 6 o'clock side. So if you have small wrists on the SubC you can still centre the clasp perfectly, with the SD it will never be centred on >6.5 inch wrists.

9- The clasp never digs in the wrist on the SubC (unlike my SD, 14060M, 16610), no matter how tight you wear it, since it has no edges on the side that make physical contact with the wrist.

10- Many claim that ceramic is brittle and the bezel will crack...except for a few G-Shocks no other analog watches has been through more sh** (diving, swimming, gym, running, climbing, cycling, camping, boating...) with me than these two ceramic bezel watches pictured below....I have yet to see a dent on one of these bezels (Fr. John please note that they both have recessed numbers...). I once bumped the OS 300m with a brick wall HARD. I managed to scratch the sapphire crystal and only a very small (barely visible) hairline scratch on the Orient's bezel, the Tuna's bezel remains pristine....





So there you have it...these are just the points I wanted to outline, which I think make the SubC a more attractive watch for me.

Probably you'd be better of having an SD if you...

1- Dive in depths exceeding 300m (probably with sperm whales )

2- Do saturation diving with your watch on (He intrusion)...in which case I would humbly suggest an SBBN015/013 but that's another story.

3- Generally prefer thicker, top heavy watches.

4- Like to buy discontinued/vintage models as compared to new offerings.

5- Hate the cyclops (and like small date windows..which IMHO look a bit out of proportion)...

I hope that I made the choice somewhat easier to anyone that is on the fence of choosing between these 2 watches ....

HAGD all..whether you are SubC or SD fanboys ...I'll leave you with some pics of my fave watch...

I've owned them both on multiple occasions, and no matter this and that, the sub c will never be a sea dweller. In my mind, the sea dweller with it's non supercase retains the tool heritage and stands alone as the consummate diver watch.

[buddy13]

Originally Posted by kanger

I've owned them both on multiple occasions, and no matter this and that, the sub c will never be a sea dweller...

Agreed ....the SD will never be a SubC..we're saying the same thing aren't we ...

[warrior]

All the technical stuff doesn't matter too much at this level.

It ALL comes down to looks and clarity IMO. I like the slimmer lugs, no cyclops, and fact that the SD crystal doesn't suffer too badly from Rolex disease due to the lack of A/R coating.

[Vee-Dweller]

I bought a sea-dweller just as they were discontinued, last of the line v-serial from my friend at the local ad ("get it, it will be a great investment") but as nice as it was it wasn't the watch for me. As soon as he got the new sub c in and i tried it on it felt in a totally different league to me, it wears much bigger on the wrist much more solid and the first rolex of the five i've owned thats doesn't rattle like it's bracelet is made from tin foil. So i guess the moral of the story is buy what sings to you when you try it not what others tell you in their opinion is a "classic" or future "classic"
p.s. the "classic" lost £500 when i traded it............
and since getting the sub c no other watch has turned my head (really unusual).

[subtona]

If the question is purely from a dive watch/tool watch perspective, the only function to be concerned with would be an accurate timing bezel.

That said, the subc has been criticized for rotating when accidentally knocked.

Winner SD.

[Dan2010]

Originally Posted by subtona

Funny!

Now I'm hocking pocket watches.....I would expect an engineer to be able to stick to the topic???????????

Seeing your inability to focus, I hope I'm never in the vicinity of any of your engineering marvels, I fear they may be missing a couple of screws.

Since I am not an engineer, I hope to never be in the vicinity of any of my engineering marvels either.

1) I also choose the SD in this argument
2)I thought it appropriate to add a bit of humor to this 5 page "this watch is better than that watch" thread.

[speedo]

Originally Posted by subtona

If the question is purely from a dive watch/tool watch perspective, the only function to be concerned with would be an accurate timing bezel.

That said, the subc has been criticized for rotating when accidentally knocked.

Winner SD.

are you a diver? how many dives have you had? what was you max depth so far?
just because then you should know that even if bezel rotated (which is a new info again) it would only do it one way thus shortening the dive and not risking your life.

and btw, who are you trying to convince? yourself or the others?

[buddy13]

Originally Posted by subtona

That said, the subc has been criticized for rotating when accidentally knocked.

Really ? Mine's always been nice and firm (the bezel that is )...



I'm also aiming for the Discovery channel...kind of doing a show like American Choppers...this is my first try...

[Dwelldwell]

A few weeks with the sd on my wrist now, and couldnt be happier. Dont know why, but I love the depth rating, its like a really really couldnt do without it... Also the thinner lugs and the fact that not every other person wears it makes it a winner in my book. Its all subjective, but I think the supercase is fugly, and that makes clasp and ceramic worth nothing to me. Good luck in making a decision!

[warrior]

YES exactly. We're arguing about quality and features at this level???? They're all Rolexes. They can dive. Most everyone can achieve a good fit. I find it hard to believe a man can't find a nice fit with a 40MM diameter watch.

Old or new. It doesn't matter. Come on...it's all about how they look to the person buying. ( admittedly subjective) Everything else is simply noise IMO.

Originally Posted by Dwelldwell

A few weeks with the sd on my wrist now, and couldnt be happier. Dont know why, but I love the depth rating, its like a really really couldnt do without it... Also the thinner lugs and the fact that not every other person wears it makes it a winner in my book. Its all subjective, but I think the supercase is fugly, and that makes clasp and ceramic worth nothing to me. Good luck in making a decision!

[TSW]

SD for me!

[zeuloa]

I recently purchased a NOS SD, and don't have a Sub-C but here is my opinion:

If someone offered me both at no expense to me and asked to pick one, I would probably choose the Sub-C for all the right reasons that have been listed previously.

However, I would not pay $2000 more than I payed for the SD for the SubC (Would much rather use that towards a vacation with my watch!). And I can happily say that when I tried on the Sub C after wearing the SD for a few weeks, it didn't leave me with that "I need that watch!" feeling.

As for collectivity, who knows if sport models will be the ones to have. It seems to me that gold Rolex are becoming more and more popular, and who knows if an old Datejust with a rare dial will be the one to have!

[Blokewurm]

A few years ago I used to love the SD over the Sub. I didn't like the cyclops on the Sub and just found the SD more legible and clean-cut. I also respected the SD's improved engineering and admired it for generally being less popular and more individual as a result. However, after buying a Sub C earlier this year I've changed my mind and grown to love it. It's of such high quality over anything that went before.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Dan2010

Let me just come out and say it................my Rolex can beat up your Rolex. There. Have a nice day.

Originally Posted by Dan2010

Since I am not an engineer, I hope to never be in the vicinity of any of my engineering marvels either.

1) I also choose the SD in this argument
2)I thought it appropriate to add a bit of humor to this 5 page "this watch is better than that watch" thread.

sorry Dan,
i only meant to acknowledge your wit

my additional comments were for a quote that didn't appear and at time of discovery, it was too late to correct.... was trying to follow along on my cel phone... disastrous

[subtona]

Originally Posted by speedo

are you a diver? how many dives have you had? what was you max depth so far?
just because then you should know that even if bezel rotated (which is a new info again) it would only do it one way thus shortening the dive and not risking your life.

and btw, who are you trying to convince? yourself or the others?

the topic is not about cars or pocket watches as you have been trying to distract this thread.

I've dived enough to know that my 20 year old sub is more than adequate for me.

i know that if i set my bezel, i want it to stay put, not make excuses for it.

my reasons to support the SD are simple and practical...
i do not have confidence in the subc clasp (tiny spring and welded bits) and the ceramic bezel replacement cost (if needed) is excessive.


btw the SD has a depth rating to 1220M not 600M, would you care to gather up some ambient magnetic field information that supports your unwavering devotion to the parachrome spring?

additionally, from many accounts parachrome comes in 2nd to the silicone balance spring being used by other manufacturers (developed in part by rolex), if rolex switches next year how fast will you dump your subc for the latest and greatest?


http://www.omegawatches.com/spirit/w...balance-spring


i dig the SD because it doesn't have a cyclops
i dig the SD because it achieved an incredible depth rating in a modest package
i dig the SD because it doesn't have a super case, a toy bezel and a jewelry clasp.


not to say i don't like the subc, i do, i just ain't buying into the hype.

[Dan2010]

Originally Posted by subtona

sorry Dan,
i only meant to acknowledge your wit

my additional comments were for a quote that didn't appear and at time of discovery, it was too late to correct.... was trying to follow along on my cel phone... disastrous

No problemo.

[gregmoeck]

i owned a subc and sold it, because it lays funky on your wrist, see this pic how the lugs stick out and the side does not fit. its a great looking face but the rest of the watch is funky. save some money and get a sea dweller, its more tight and flows correctly.

[Jannal]

I sold my SD.

[Stellite]

great thread. I noticed that the majority by a long shot prefer the Classic SD. I will throw my vote in here for what it's worth. But first I want to add that I am looking at the new SubC LV as my next watch. Ordered from my local dealer and should be in by Friday for my pickup. So I will be an owner of both by friday, currently own SD. I have looked and carried the SubC and like it. However, I am hoping that the new lugs grow on me, because they definitely make the watch uglier and give it a bulky square appearance. The older sub's and the SD have clean beautiful lines that are hard to beat. The new Sub has a better bracelet in feel anyway. But if I had to choose one I think it would still be the SD.

Either way from a quality standpoint I don't think you can go wrong with either, it is more a matter of taste and preference. Oh, and I am a Mechanical Engineer and seem to be wrong quite often

[masterkiller]

Do not listen to them -get the SubC and leave the dweller behind, I did it and I do not look back, the bracelet and the overall quality feel is way superior on the SubC, the Dweller is a cool piece but for me it feel outdated!

my 2c

/masterkiller

[HongNinja]

Originally Posted by masterkiller

Do not listen to them -get the SubC and leave the dweller behind, I did it and I do not look back, the bracelet and the overall quality feel is way superior on the SubC, the Dweller is a cool piece but for me it feel outdated!

my 2c

/masterkiller

Are any Rolex timepieces really "outdated"? They've had the same designs for eons...

[buddy13]

Originally Posted by gregmoeck

save some money and get a sea dweller, its more tight and flows correctly.

Already have one ...but the SubC gets all the SD's wrist time ..