OK so Rolex Sub with date VS Rolex SD

[markyd3]

Ok Guys,

There seems to be some very good priced Rolex SD's appearing in the SC right now!!

To me they seem very similar to the Subs?

What are the main differences between the two please and is one considered better then the other?

Cheers,

Mark

[SIB]

The Depth rating of the SD is 1220m as opposed to the Subs 300m. Case is a bit thicker on the SD as a result of this

[markyd3]

The Depth rating of the SD is 1220m as opposed to the Subs 300m. Case is a bit thicker on the SD as a result of this

Ahhh ok so not being a diver myself this doesnt really need to be an important consideration for me then :-)

[Retep]

If you want a manly watch, the SD is better. It's a Sub on steroids... :D

[markyd3]

If you want a manly watch, the SD is better. It's a Sub on steroids... :D

lol i like the sound of that!!!!

[verv]

Sd - thicker case, helium escape valve and no cyclops, rated to 1200m
Sub - thinner case, no valve, cyclops, rated to 300m

[studs]

No cyclops on the SD as standard, make it a much better bet for some... me included...

[third time lucky]

If you want a manly watch, the SD is better. It's a Sub on steroids... :D

good description.

[oliverte]

The lack of a cyclops seems to be a key reason why some go for the SD - in that sense it's a matter of preference.

I've never tried an SD but I wouldn't want my Sub to be much larger when wearing it with a suit - only just fits under the cuff as it is!

[Mr Stoat]

Sd - thicker case, helium escape valve and no cyclops, rated to 1200m
Sub - thinner case, no valve, cyclops, rated to 300m

SD has a smaller diameter face than Sub and to me without the cyclops the date on the SD is very small to read. Case back on the SD is more rounded / pronounced too which personally I don't find as comfortable.

[Omegamanic]

Little bit of commercial dive watch history/development behind the Sea-Dweller models too, which I like.

[markyd3]

Cheers Guys...

I actually quite like the cyclops

certainly food for thought!!!!

[Omegamanic]

Cheers Guys...

I actually quite like the cyclops

certainly food for thought!!!!

I like it too - bit also the SD.

The Sub is a fair bit cheaper too and easier to find - although you wouldn't think that looking at the currnet Sales Corner :lol:

[markyd3]

Cheers Guys...

I actually quite like the cyclops

certainly food for thought!!!!

I like it too - bit also the SD.

The Sub is a fair bit cheaper too and easier to find - although you wouldn't think that looking at the currnet Sales Corner :lol:

Yeah there definately seems to be an influx of SD's on SC at the moment!!! definately seems the right time to grab a bargain!!!

[flame]

Hi

I like the Sub....



and perhaps one day I'll try a 1665 SD 8

Best - Neil

[newsboy]

[prexelor]

I dont think you could go wrong with either the Sub Date or Sea Dweller. Both great watches!

Try both on and see which is more comfortable... and if you make a mistake and get the 'wrong' one, selling it on would not be a problem!

[Stu]

Definitely SD if it were my choice. it hasn't got *that* cyclops

[sunster]

I prefer the SD but you really can't go wrong with either. You'd be hard pushed to find better examples of SDs on sale than the ones in the SC at the moment

[SIB]

Oh, I forgot about the lack of cyclops on the SD which is the reason I went for it in the first place!! I've never worn a sub but really liked my SD when I had it

[Richard.]

Either is a great watch, but I like the heft and presence of the SD.

[rgee]

I had a SD which I thought would be the ideal Rolex. classic with no cyclops, but found that it was too top heavy and felt uncomfortable. I really wanted to like it but it ended up going back to the dealer.

[martynw]

Every time I buy a Seadweller I end up selling it because I find it too 'bulky' as others have said. You may of course feel differently, so you're going to need to try them both and see.

Both are great, classic watches of course.

Regards,
Martyn.

[a-new-hope]

Tough one. If you d asked me a year ago I would have said sea dweller but lately the no date sub is looking more and more appealing

[steptoe]

I've got a date sub and an SD.
And i'm buggered if i can see/feel any discernable difference between them when on the wrist.

There was a thread recently comparing the sub, SD and DSSD in pictures, and even their weights and there's very little between the sub and SD.

:D

[organic]

I had 14060 no date in the past and recently have 16600. Dial really looks smaller on SD, but I like the story behind SD (Comex) and it's a real tool. I also don't like cyclops, so IMO Seadweller is an ideal sport's Rolex.

[organic]

I've got a date sub and an SD.
there's very little between the sub and SD.

But you can feel this difference on the wrist, believe me...SD is chunkier

[JeremyO]

Not keen on the cyclops which is why I have a 14060M but if you must have a date then the SD would be the more tempting to me.

[Volvomanuk]

go for the sub, i love the cyclops because i can see the date :shock:, real Rolex have the cyclops only girly less manly watches don't. :lol:

[Complex]

I prefer the SD for the bulk and cleaner face with no cyclops, personally.

[lionheart]

I prefer the SD for the bulk and cleaner face with no cyclops, personally.

Better wrist presence

[lionheart]

I prefer the SD for the bulk and cleaner face with no cyclops, personally.

Better wrist presence

You also see less SD in the wild. The old sub is flatter too but although the SD is 16mm instead of 12mm it doesn't feel top heavy