You nailed the strengths of the 16600, it’s superior to the cyclops Sub Date for me in every way. I have the 1990 16600 and it’s as close to perfection as I can find. I own 4 Submariners and have worn them for decades so I think I can chime in here. The cupped case back plants down in my 7.5” wrist comfortably all day. I rarely have to adjust it during the day. I love the Rolex marked case back that the 16600 gives you and the pre ceramic bezel. Perfection for me
As a UK submariner I went to buy a Rolex submariner in Glasgow. The Rolex dealer couldn’t source a submariner (1997) so offered a 16600 Sea Dweller instead. Absolutely no regrets whatsoever since. It was on my wrist for my last patrols as an engineer and I will never part with it until unable to wear it no more.
Thanks for your informative videos Austin. The information that you provided helped me pick the perfect minty 16600 SD from Hong Kong. It is almost in new condition and a perfect fit on my 7.5" wrist. The only problem is that i keep looking at it on my wrist without actually reading the time! Keep those videos coming!
Magnificent…….it starts to make those other Sub’s irrelevant. Sea Dweller 16600 the quintessential collector from the diver selection of sport watches……congratulations. 👍😁
Indeed big difference. it is mind-blowing how underrated is the Seadweller. Once you wear it you will never be caught again with a common watch like Submariner.
hate to be that guy but 2:29 "there isn't a single professional watch with a date without the cyclops"... i'll take "what is the deepsea" for one thousand Alex.
People who love “Rolex” get the cyclops models. People who love the “Subs” get the non-cyclops models. 16600 and 116600, the two best Rolex’s in my book.
The 1998 “Swiss” dial Ref. 16600 Sea Dweller was my second Rolex purchase, after my first GMT (16710) and it’s still the watch I wear most days. I’ve thought about selling it to help fund the acquisition of a solid 18K gold GMT (16718) but I can’t bring myself to let it go! It’s such a special piece. 4,000 ft. depth rating. No maxi dial. Only Rolex model ever with engraving on the case back, etc. The 16600 is definitely a sleeper…
Like you, I added a 16600 with a 14060 already in my watch box. Your feelings almost mirror my own experience with the SD. The lack of cyclops being a fabulous "feature". It brings a lovely balance to the dial while still retaining that date complication! The dial and bezel proportions being ever so slightly different to the Sub giving it substance for want of a better word....it just feels stocky!? It also changed my opinion on how thick a watch should (or shouldn't) be. Not all watches have to slip under a cuff! I'd dearly love to see a video in the future on whether you think the 14060 and 16600 can live together in a collection please Austin. I often stare at the pair thinking what one or the other could be.....
It didnt have a cyclops because it couldnt. It's two different crystals - and they could put one in and successfully and consistently meet the depth specification. The recent addition of the cyclops is actually a iterative technological improvement (in Rolex's eyes), because they can now meet the depth specs, with the cyclops crystal.
My too, owned my 16600 for over 20 years and my 116520 white dial for 15 years. Will never get rid of them. My son will get the SD and my daughter will get the Daytona.
Rolex had no choice and had to put a cyclops on the SD43. The dial is too large for the caliber used. Without cyclops it would be noticeable that the date window would be too far to the center. Something that is absolutely proportionately not nice. It would be nice if the SD also had a 40/41 case, new caliber, thin lugs and just a bit thicker than the new Sub. I have the 16600, 116600 and 126600, among others, and the one with the nicest proportions is indeed the 16600.
So... Austin do you know why the 16600 dial is smaller? It's because the watch is smaller. You said in your video that the Subs and SD are all 40mm. No... the SD 16600 is actually 39.5mm. I read this on-line and verified it with mine with digital calipers. I know that 0.5mm isn't much, but I can certainly see it when placing the SD side by side with my Sub or GMT.
Thanks for letting us know, Kirk! (I really need to get myself some calipers.) That seems to be something Rolex is terrible about: having the "on paper" case dimension, and then the actual dimension. I wonder why they do that!?
I’m fortunate to own the Sea Dweller 16600 and 116600 and they are iconic. Not a fan of the cyclops as I sold my Sub Cermit 41mm & Sub 41 and Yacht Master rhodium earlier this yr. Also have the explorer 39 (full lume) I believe Tudor is not only a phenomenal value but they have become what Rolex was 20yrs ago
Great video....I only like the cyclops on the datejust, it really belongs there, but not on a diver.....but what I truly love about the SD 16600 is that awesome vintage feel this watch has, I´ve put mine on a beige canvas strap that even enhances that vintage feel. Cheers!
I started out loving the cyclops back in the 90s. Today my preferance is without. Still own 2 SD16660 today after having sold 6-7 SDs. Yes a cyclop Seadweller is a mistake. Thats why i dont buy new Rolexes anymore, they are mostly mistakes.
The no-cyclops is clean and attractive and your SD looks very much like a pre-ceramic Sub - an extremely good look, as pre-ceramic Subs are some of my favorite Rolexes. (I do love the cyclops on my Datejust, as it is incredibly easy to read the date).
By the way. Since you now have a Sea-Dweller, I guess you longer need that black dial no date Sub anymore. I know you're trying to move that piece now (I don't know that, just saying it anyway). How much do you want for it? Please include the associate's discount.
I love the 16600. It looks amazing. This was my grail when I was a teenager. The badass Sub. However, I prefer the SD43 in every respect, especially the size and the welcome cyclops which was meant to be there from day one in the first Sea-Dweller but couldn't due to technical reasons. I understand the nostalgia of not seeing a cyclops in Sea-Dwellers, some people don't like changes, that's fine. I for one embrace the cyclops in the SD43. The date disc and date window placement in modern Rolex watches are designed with the cyclops in mind. The date window therefore looks misplaced without the cyclops if you decide to remove it. This has been partially addressed with the latest 136660 Deepsea where the window has been slightly increased towards the right to a great effect. This date window issue does not exist in the 16600 where the size and placement look perfect. People criticise these Super Subs "on steroids" but to me the Sea-Dwellers are more satisfying than the Subs. You got yourself a piece of Rolex's most significant history, Austin. Congrats and enjoy this marvelous piece.
Slightly smaller dial of SD in comparison to a 5 digit GMT or Sub makes it feel more vintage and special. The top heaviness seams a flaw but not to me. Because of that it always reminds you that its there with you.
Thanks for sharing these nuances... I have almost the exact same watch but from 2007 I guess the difference would be the solid end links on the bracelet which do make it seat better on the wrist as it's a bit top heavy. I am 59 years sold and I can read the date!! so I noticed that right away. But the length of the hands is news to me and now that you bring it up it's another strong reason why this piece is a keeper. Cheers.
Thanks for watching. The interesting thing about the 16600 is that even the older tritium ones have the solid end link bracelet. Rolex clearly wasn't messing around with the Sea-Dweller, and that's because the people it was made for weren't either. So, it got a lot of the first Rolex tech. The SD was the first model to use 904L steel. And the post 2000 pieces, like your 2007, has a 3135 movement with the Blue Parachrom hairspring. It took Rolex nearly a decade to put those into their other professional models.
@@tiempodesobrahn Nope. Fact is: the very first watch Rolex ever released with both solid end links and solid bracelet links, is the Rolex Sea Dweller.
You nailed the strengths of the 16600, it’s superior to the cyclops Sub Date for me in every way. I have the 1990 16600 and it’s as close to perfection as I can find. I own 4 Submariners and have worn them for decades so I think I can chime in here. The cupped case back plants down in my 7.5” wrist comfortably all day. I rarely have to adjust it during the day. I love the Rolex marked case back that the 16600 gives you and the pre ceramic bezel. Perfection for me
As a UK submariner I went to buy a Rolex submariner in Glasgow. The Rolex dealer couldn’t source a submariner (1997) so offered a 16600 Sea Dweller instead. Absolutely no regrets whatsoever since. It was on my wrist for my last patrols as an engineer and I will never part with it until unable to wear it no more.
Thanks for your informative videos Austin. The information that you provided helped me pick the perfect minty 16600 SD from Hong Kong. It is almost in new condition and a perfect fit on my 7.5" wrist.
The only problem is that i keep looking at it on my wrist without actually reading the time!
Keep those videos coming!
Magnificent…….it starts to make those other Sub’s irrelevant. Sea Dweller 16600 the quintessential collector from the diver selection of sport watches……congratulations. 👍😁
Well said. Super collectors / enthusiasts go SD over Sub.
Indeed big difference. it is mind-blowing how underrated is the Seadweller. Once you wear it you will never be caught again with a common watch like Submariner.
hate to be that guy but 2:29 "there isn't a single professional watch with a date without the cyclops"... i'll take "what is the deepsea" for one thousand Alex.
Only Sea Dweller I really like. I owned the 16600 for awhile and really enjoyed it. Cheers Austin🍻
People who love “Rolex” get the cyclops models. People who love the “Subs” get the non-cyclops models. 16600 and 116600, the two best Rolex’s in my book.
Agree! Love my 116600 (also love the classic 16600). Not having a cyclops was a key advantage & top reason why I made the purchase.
The 1998 “Swiss” dial Ref. 16600 Sea Dweller was my second Rolex purchase, after my first GMT (16710) and it’s still the watch I wear most days. I’ve thought about selling it to help fund the acquisition of a solid 18K gold GMT (16718) but I can’t bring myself to let it go! It’s such a special piece. 4,000 ft. depth rating. No maxi dial. Only Rolex model ever with engraving on the case back, etc. The 16600 is definitely a sleeper…
Like you, I added a 16600 with a 14060 already in my watch box. Your feelings almost mirror my own experience with the SD. The lack of cyclops being a fabulous "feature". It brings a lovely balance to the dial while still retaining that date complication! The dial and bezel proportions being ever so slightly different to the Sub giving it substance for want of a better word....it just feels stocky!? It also changed my opinion on how thick a watch should (or shouldn't) be. Not all watches have to slip under a cuff! I'd dearly love to see a video in the future on whether you think the 14060 and 16600 can live together in a collection please Austin. I often stare at the pair thinking what one or the other could be.....
If I must sell one Rolex which one should I sell. I have a Batman, a Starbucks, JC, SD43 and this 16600 all in full set ?!
It didnt have a cyclops because it couldnt. It's two different crystals - and they could put one in and successfully and consistently meet the depth specification. The recent addition of the cyclops is actually a iterative technological improvement (in Rolex's eyes), because they can now meet the depth specs, with the cyclops crystal.
Wrong!
Hey Austin, the Deepsea is a professional Rolex watch with a date and no cyclops, isn‘t it!
Was thinking the same.
Nice - I forgot about that one!
I have owned my 16600 for over 20 years. I have added a couple of watches to my collection since but I will never part with my Sea Dweller.
My too, owned my 16600 for over 20 years and my 116520 white dial for 15 years. Will never get rid of them. My son will get the SD and my daughter will get the Daytona.
Its easer to tell the time, just glance down quickly and look away.
Rolex had no choice and had to put a cyclops on the SD43. The dial is too large for the caliber used. Without cyclops it would be noticeable that the date window would be too far to the center. Something that is absolutely proportionately not nice. It would be nice if the SD also had a 40/41 case, new caliber, thin lugs and just a bit thicker than the new Sub. I have the 16600, 116600 and 126600, among others, and the one with the nicest proportions is indeed the 16600.
So... Austin do you know why the 16600 dial is smaller? It's because the watch is smaller. You said in your video that the Subs and SD are all 40mm. No... the SD 16600 is actually 39.5mm. I read this on-line and verified it with mine with digital calipers. I know that 0.5mm isn't much, but I can certainly see it when placing the SD side by side with my Sub or GMT.
Thanks for letting us know, Kirk! (I really need to get myself some calipers.) That seems to be something Rolex is terrible about: having the "on paper" case dimension, and then the actual dimension. I wonder why they do that!?
I’m fortunate to own the Sea Dweller 16600 and 116600 and they are iconic. Not a fan of the cyclops as I sold my Sub Cermit 41mm & Sub 41 and Yacht Master rhodium earlier this yr. Also have the explorer 39 (full lume) I believe Tudor is not only a phenomenal value but they have become what Rolex was 20yrs ago
Great video....I only like the cyclops on the datejust, it really belongs there, but not on a diver.....but what I truly love about the SD 16600 is that awesome vintage feel this watch has, I´ve put mine on a beige canvas strap that even enhances that vintage feel. Cheers!
Love your videos brother !!
Austin, would a Datejust with Jubilee (and perhaps an extra Oyster bracelet) not satisfy your collection more?
I started out loving the cyclops back in the 90s. Today my preferance is without. Still own 2 SD16660 today after having sold 6-7 SDs. Yes a cyclop Seadweller is a mistake. Thats why i dont buy new Rolexes anymore, they are mostly mistakes.
The no-cyclops is clean and attractive and your SD looks very much like a pre-ceramic Sub - an extremely good look, as pre-ceramic Subs are some of my favorite Rolexes. (I do love the cyclops on my Datejust, as it is incredibly easy to read the date).
By the way. Since you now have a Sea-Dweller, I guess you longer need that black dial no date Sub anymore. I know you're trying to move that piece now (I don't know that, just saying it anyway). How much do you want for it? Please include the associate's discount.
Hey man - throw out an offer! ;)
I have the Seadweller 43mm - which I love. That said - I could do without the cyclops.
I love the 16600. It looks amazing. This was my grail when I was a teenager. The badass Sub.
However, I prefer the SD43 in every respect, especially the size and the welcome cyclops which was meant to be there from day one in the first Sea-Dweller but couldn't due to technical reasons. I understand the nostalgia of not seeing a cyclops in Sea-Dwellers, some people don't like changes, that's fine. I for one embrace the cyclops in the SD43.
The date disc and date window placement in modern Rolex watches are designed with the cyclops in mind. The date window therefore looks misplaced without the cyclops if you decide to remove it. This has been partially addressed with the latest 136660 Deepsea where the window has been slightly increased towards the right to a great effect.
This date window issue does not exist in the 16600 where the size and placement look perfect. People criticise these Super Subs "on steroids" but to me the Sea-Dwellers are more satisfying than the Subs. You got yourself a piece of Rolex's most significant history, Austin. Congrats and enjoy this marvelous piece.
glad I'm not the only one that thinks the minute hand should touch the indices ... have a 1016 and the new Explorers lack this detail! :(
Fabulous attention to detail, Austin. I'm on the look out for a Sea-dweller now ! 😂 Thanks 👍🏼
Hey Austin, something you said isn’t correct. Rolex has the Deepsea Seadwellers which have the date without the cyclops
Thanks - that one totally slipped my mind!
Leave it to you Austin, to sus out the finest of details for us. Thank You… and congratulations on your performance in the Royal Rumble:)
Lol, thanks!
14060M actually.
Why wouldn't you remove the Cyclops if you were that way inclined.
Hi Austin! Could you please tell me where can I get an explorer 2 (second hand)around Tokyo? thank you
Hi when was 16600 last production?
No date sub that’s been doing push ups….love it Austin….great stuff!
Slightly smaller dial of SD in comparison to a 5 digit GMT or Sub makes it feel more vintage and special. The top heaviness seams a flaw but not to me. Because of that it always reminds you that its there with you.
Going beyond most dive watches in depth is what like as I feel like I can handle pressure of difficulties
Thanks for sharing these nuances... I have almost the exact same watch but from 2007 I guess the difference would be the solid end links on the bracelet which do make it seat better on the wrist as it's a bit top heavy. I am 59 years sold and I can read the date!! so I noticed that right away. But the length of the hands is news to me and now that you bring it up it's another strong reason why this piece is a keeper. Cheers.
Thanks for watching. The interesting thing about the 16600 is that even the older tritium ones have the solid end link bracelet. Rolex clearly wasn't messing around with the Sea-Dweller, and that's because the people it was made for weren't either.
So, it got a lot of the first Rolex tech. The SD was the first model to use 904L steel. And the post 2000 pieces, like your 2007, has a 3135 movement with the Blue Parachrom hairspring. It took Rolex nearly a decade to put those into their other professional models.
@@watchsymposium really? and I thought only the Z serials had solid end links!!
@@tiempodesobrahn Nope. Fact is: the very first watch Rolex ever released with both solid end links and solid bracelet links, is the Rolex Sea Dweller.
Yeh, larger pecs. Beautiful watch!
Phecond!!
Meh, my 2255.80 kills both sub and DS. Nothing here is special enough to warrant a video.
hey, great contribution to the thread, really worth reading.
And nothing you said really warrants a comment.