Submariner or Sea-Dweller? Pictures please!

jrpippen · Feb 2, 2015

I've recently picked up my first Sea-Dweller. I've had umpteen subs, ND, 16610 a few GMT masters, Explorers 2 and 2 and even a Yachtmaster at one time or another. (I have flipper-itis!!)

I'm really enjoying the Sea-Dweller though, this is a 1998 so still has tritium which I like. It's also been worm and polished a bit so I'm not worried to wear it or scratch it a bit.

I also love that there is no date bubble. I can't get on with a ND, as I use the date all the time but the bubble gets in my wick!

Happy for now!

calalum · Feb 2, 2015

Here are a couple. I too prefer the SD, although I have a lot of love for the 7928.

Nobel Prize · Feb 2, 2015

Depends on the use and on what other watches you have. The Sea-Dweller is a statement, the sub a classic. Both are great watches and have a place on any collection but If I had to choose only one to wear it would be the Sub.

alam · Feb 2, 2015

calalum
Here are a couple. I too prefer the SD, although I have a lot of love for the 7928.

👍 The one on the last picture is a sexy beast! 🥰

noelekal · Feb 2, 2015

I've always wanted to ask this question of the Rolex knowledgeable folks.

Where does the Sea-Dweller fit in relationship to the Submariner?

Canuck · Feb 2, 2015

The Sea Dweller would be ideal for people working in an underwater environment in which scuba equipment is not worn. Scientists working in an underwater environment under increased atmospheric pressure, breathing Heliox. Heliox is oxygen and helium, with no nitrogen. Helium under pressure has been known to penetrate watches, especially ones with acrylic crystals. Such watches can explode when returned to normal atmospheric pressure. On the 9:00 side of a Sea a Dweller is a helium release valve. I have often had occasion to wonder if this feature is as necessary on a Rolex with a sapphire crystal!

jrpippen · Feb 3, 2015

The dweller is a little thicker, as it has a 1200M resistance rating as oppose to 300m. It's still amazingly thin for that rating though, when you compare it to say a GP Sea Hawk with the same ,

The Seiko MM600 is just enormous for a 600m rating!

To be honest, the only real immediate difference to your eye is that there is no magnifier. Which although a tiny difference, is in my opinion a biggie. How many people have you heard whinge about the thing, and even have them removed from new watches! Just buy a dweller!

Nobel Prize · Feb 3, 2015

A little bit like the difference between the seamaster pro and the Planet Ocean.

Yeah the cyclops never became anyone's favorite feature, but somehow it has become iconic.

jrpippen · Feb 3, 2015

They stick to their guns. I suppose like any great design, they keep selling them so like it or not it's there.

In fairness after a couple of days you don't notice it anymore anyway. But i prefer without.

flw · Feb 3, 2015

Here's a photo of my Sub, which I just bought two weeks ago. It is a perfect companion piece for my SMP Diver. I prefer it to the Sea-Dweller for its iconic status, although for a professional diver the Sea-Dweller would probably be more appropriate. That said, however, I recently saw that an Egyptian military diver just set the new Guinness world record for deepest scuba dive at about 1,040 feet or thereabouts. He did it in the Red Sea, and apparently it took him about 15 minutes to descend, but 15 hours to return to the surface! (With assistance and lots of extra breathing tanks, etc.) So I'm wondering: Why would any diver need a depth rating on their watch deeper than about a thousand feet? That's what the SMP and the Submariner have, but the PO line has 2000, the Sea-Dweller has twice that, and the Deepsea has about 12,200. I suppose it's important for any diver to make sure their watch is still working long after they've died of pressure! (Or maybe the whole thing is a huge industrial-design pissing contest!) Any thoughts?

jrpippen · Feb 3, 2015

I think there is a lot of Pissing going on.

I really like your sub, it's a stunner and so iconic. My issue when I had my 16610's (I've had more than one go at getting on with them) is that so many people have them. I took my lad to rugby tots and 4 of the other dads were wearing them!

I suppose I just like to be a little different. The dweller, although keeping the iconic look, is a little rarer in the wild.

flw · Feb 3, 2015

Absolutely true. I have a friend at work who chose the Sea-Dweller for exactly that reason ... it's everything the Sub is and quite a bit more, and as you say, a good deal harder to find out there on the wrist.

jrpippen · Feb 4, 2015

Someone else surely must own a sub?

Traveler · Feb 4, 2015

MMMD · Feb 4, 2015

Here's mine.

And with tropical dial...

C73BD329-A626-4596-AD26-86AE15798D6E-462-00000030A18C6EA8_zps3d1b8d1e.jpg

everestx · Feb 4, 2015

jrpippen · Feb 7, 2015

Mines off to St Jakes square next week. Only £430 for a service. Doesn't seem so bad!

STANDY · Feb 7, 2015

MMMD
Here's mine.

And with tropical dial...

Great tropical dial shot 👍

omegastar · Feb 7, 2015

jrpippen
Someone else surely must own a sub?

How did you know ?

iLuveketchup · Feb 9, 2015

Love Subs / Rolex with no white gold surrounds on the 5min markers (pre '83?). The WG ruins the watch IMO. And this is coming from a 16610LV owner, which I don't like and will be in the chopping block.

Also, I consider the SD the same watch as the Sub, only with a deeper rating. So the SD falls into the same ubiquitous issue as a 'sub'.

Submariner or Sea-Dweller? Pictures please!

jrpippen

calalum

Nobel Prize

alam

noelekal

Canuck

jrpippen

Nobel Prize

jrpippen

flw

jrpippen

flw

jrpippen

Traveler

MMMD

everestx

jrpippen

STANDY

omegastar

iLuveketchup

Similar threads

Modern Rolex Sub or Sea Dweller

Rolex 14060M Sub or Sea-Dweller 16600 Luminova with lug holes