or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...) - Page 2460  

post #36886 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterloo 360T View Post
 

First post over here. Hoping for your learned opinions. Do you guys think the premium for the new SD4000 over the SubC ND is worth it? Looks like it will cost me $2400 more for the 116600 (33%). No, I don't dive but the date would be nice and I like the look without the Cyclops. It is a little more exclusive but very subtle in that department, which I like.

 


Thanks

Sounds like you answered your own question to me.

If you think the date without cyclops and exclusivity is worth the $2,400, then yes by all means get the SD4000.

Either way, you wont be picking a loser.

post #36887 of 48312
This is a question only you can answer. We can give you reinforcement if you like, but whether its worth the bump is really dependent on your desires.
post #36888 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterloo 360T View Post
 

First post over here. Hoping for your learned opinions. Do you guys think the premium for the new SD4000 over the SubC ND is worth it? Looks like it will cost me $2400 more for the 116600 (33%). No, I don't dive but the date would be nice and I like the look without the Cyclops. It is a little more exclusive but very subtle in that department, which I like.

 

The devil is in the damn details with Rolex divers - it is the case with vintage divers, as well as modern pieces.

 

There are several differences that justify the SD4000's higher price in the minds of collectors who prefer it over the SubC ND:

 

1.  The different shape of the lugs and the crown guards render the SD4000 looking "less square/boxy" than the new generation of cerachrom bezel Submariners.  Note that I have taken a caliper to these lugs and determined that the difference is only half a millimeter on each side - but that half millimeter at the bottom, how it tapers from the crown guards, etc, really add up visually.

 

2.  The crystal of the SD4000 is raised, whereas the crystal of the SubC ND lies flush/flat against the bezel, giving the SD4000 a bit more "presence."  Of course it also means some friends of mine have chipped their SD4000's raised crystal.  Such are the risks of actually wearing a watch.

 

3.  The matte rendering of the SD4000's dial is appealing to collectors who feel that it is more understated compared to the lacquered black dial of the SubC ND.

 

4.  The SD4000 is 15mm thick because of the titanium case back.  The SubC ND is only 2.5mm thinner at 12.5mm but we all know this game is measured in millimeters.  The DSSD is only 2.5mm thicker than the SD4000 but it is a whole different level of beastly insanity.

 

5.  Of course there is the HEV technology, and greater depth rating.  Yeah yeah, I've heard all the arguments about "well, will you really dive 4,000 feet and need to protect your watch against helium popping the dial open" and sh*t.  That's not the point.  Will you really use your watch to tell the time or that of other time zones if you have your iPhone or computer doing that for you?  Whatever.  We've gone over that many times before.  

 

Fans of the SubC ND will tell you that:

 

1.  It's cheaper than the SD4000

 

2.  The lacquered dial actually works very well when set against the cerachrom bezel insert, which will for its entire life retain that "shiny" look.

 

3.  Hard to beat the symmetry.  

 

4.  The "squarish" look actually harkens back to some of the earlier Submariners, and it is a decidedly heftier, more macho look compared to the "sleeker" lugs - I've had friends who got used to the "chunky lugs" and actually prefer it now, even though they weren't fans before.  

 

5.  Some of the "pluses" for the SD4000 above like "greater thickness" and "more presence" actually can be viewed negatively: "greater thickness" may translate to "WTF I can't fit this thing into my shirt cuff" and "more presence" may translate to "there's a hump on the caseback that's pushing painfully against your wrist after a few hours" or "holy sh*t I can't believe how heavy this feels at the end of the day."

 

6.  Also, it's cheaper than the SD4000. Have I said that already?

 

Again, it's a highly personal thing.  Honestly, I got myself a SubC ref 114060 a few months before getting a SD4000 and thought that once I got the SD4000 I wouldn't reach for the SubC anymore.  Guess what?  It's still part of the rotation, I love the subtle variations it offers, and I think it may well be a keeper for me - even though I have a bunch of other modern Rolex divers like the DSSD and the D-Blue.

 

My two cents.  Again, not exactly leaning one way or another (unless you count the "well, get both!" option), but stuff to think about.

post #36889 of 48312

I think Frills really gave you a great response listing the various pros & cons. 

 

Whether something is worth the additional money is something only you can decide.  I really like the SD4000, mostly for its matte black dial.  Its different from any of the Rolex watches I currently own.  That being said, I do think the price difference between the SD4000 and the SubDateC and ND Sub is a bit ridiculous, and I'm just not sure I think its worth it.  Years ago the price difference between a SD and a Subdate was only around $300...I'm just not sure I see enough of a difference (yes they are subtle) to justify the difference...but that's just me.  Most likely if my next watch ends up being a Rolex, I'll either go with a BLNR GMT2 or an Explorer 2, as the extra time zone would come in more handy than another dive watch (I have an older Submariner Date). 

 

Good luck with whatever you decide. 

post #36890 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post


Fans of the SubC ND will tell you that:

4.  The "squarish" look actually harkens back to some of the earlier Submariners, and it is a decidedly heftier, more macho look compared to the "sleeker" lugs - I've had friends who got used to the "chunky lugs" and actually prefer it now, even though they weren't fans before.  

Aren't the squarish lugs actually a departure from every Sub that came before it?
post #36891 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Bourne View Post

Aren't the squarish lugs actually a departure from every Sub that came before it?
IMO, yes.
post #36892 of 48312
i really have to say this is what I love about this site. I, an unknown, asks a quick question and I get extremely thoughtful and thorough replies from jbarwick, bkostko, no frills Dino and others. Amazingly helpful.
I went to look at the SD4000 and the SubC. Really liked them both and I would probably have gone with the SD had the price difference been 10-15%. I made an offer on the SubC, it was accepted and I pick it up Friday.

Thanks again for the help.
post #36893 of 48312
1945.

post #36894 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterloo 360T View Post

i really have to say this is what I love about this site. I, an unknown, asks a quick question and I get extremely thoughtful and thorough replies from jbarwick, bkostko, no frills Dino and others. Amazingly helpful.
I went to look at the SD4000 and the SubC. Really liked them both and I would probably have gone with the SD had the price difference been 10-15%. I made an offer on the SubC, it was accepted and I pick it up Friday.

Thanks again for the help.

For what it's worth, I would have picked the SubC ND too. Regardless of price, I think it is the purer design. First of all, the original Sub had no date. Second, a date indicator seems silly on a watch ostensibly meant for diving, in which context it is far more important that the minute and second markers be clearly legible.

Anyways, I'm glad you weren't tempted by increased exclusivity. That's no way to live.
post #36895 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpooPoker View Post

1945.

A legendary watch. Nice.
post #36896 of 48312
Very nice. Used to be able to pick those up for a couple of hundred bucks in the 90s. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.......
post #36897 of 48312
Superb combo of blues, Spoo.
post #36898 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

4.  The "squarish" look actually harkens back to some of the earlier Submariners, and it is a decidedly heftier, more macho look compared to the "sleeker" lugs - I've had friends who got used to the "chunky lugs" and actually prefer it now, even though they weren't fans before.  
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Bourne View Post

Aren't the squarish lugs actually a departure from every Sub that came before it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tifosi View Post

IMO, yes.

I think an argument can be made for both sides. To my knowledge, the more agressive, squarish lines of the case came with the ceramic Subs, but I believe frills is referring to the overall balance of the watch. The new ones have gotten critique for losing some elegance of the models that came just before, where the case flowed more subtly into the bracelet (and compared to my 14060 I agree), but when comparing with even older models, the ceramic ones aren't really that dissimilar, especially when looking at the balance between case and bracelet:



Personally, I prefer pre ceramic models, but I also believe that the differences (much like the rolexrolex rehaut which I *really* hate) is much more noticeable in macro photos and much less so on the wrist.
Edited by Kaplan - 10/23/14 at 4:41am
post #36899 of 48312
Audemars Piguet Royal Oak 15450 to complete my Holy Trinity!





post #36900 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by wurger View Post

Audemars Piguet Royal Oak 15450 to complete my Holy Trinity!






Awesome, and Congratulations!!!!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)