Sea-Dweller 4000 dimensions?

marchone · Post by **marchone** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:53 am

What is the actual height? Can't find it anywhere. Thanks.

dukerules · Post by **dukerules** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:50 am

14.7 or 14.8 mm. It's somewhat thick, and some think it wears top heavy as a result, but I find it perfect (and I generally prefer thinner watches).

marchone · Post by **marchone** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:19 am

Thanks!

Joeprez · Post by **Joeprez** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:38 am

It wears great even on small wrists.

marchone · Post by **marchone** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:54 am

I handled one but didn't try it on. I suspect the bracelet balances it proportionally well despite its tall height.

dukerules · Post by **dukerules** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:19 am

114060 on top, 16600 on bottom. Really not much difference between the two (maybe 1mm), although the deeper protruding caseback of the 16600 adds a bit of perceived thickness on the wrist. Also, the ceramic Subs I believe are slightly thicker than the pre-ceramics.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1422195545.592752.jpg

marchone · Post by **marchone** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:42 am

I've found that direct comparisons can be deceiving despite preconceptions. I can appreciate why Rolex discourages removing bracelets. It's an integral part of the entire design.

Joeprez · Post by **Joeprez** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:09 am

I wore Mark's (drster) SD on its bracelet and it didn't feel top heavy at all. Pretty comfortable.

Here are some bad pics on my 6.75" fairly flat wrist:

dukerules · Post by **dukerules** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:11 am

Oops, for some reason, I thought you were referring to the 16600, not the 116600. I never really understood why people have adopted the SD4000 monicker for the new one.

marchone · Post by **marchone** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:11 am

Thanks Joe. It looks great on you. My wrist is very similar in size and shape.

JBZ · Post by **JBZ** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:12 am

6.5" wrist. Never found the 16600 to be overly thick or uncomfortable. Don't know about the 116600.

joejoe1225 · Post by **joejoe1225** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:21 am

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1422199209.483313.jpg

It's perfect - just like all Sea Dwellers in my opinion.

blkgsl · Post by **blkgsl** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:12 am

dukerules wrote:14.7 or 14.8 mm. It's somewhat thick, and some think it wears top heavy as a result, but I find it perfect (and I generally prefer thinner watches).

100%. I'm going on 2 weeks straight with mine. I don't even think about wearing another watch now.

JP Chestnut · Post by **JP Chestnut** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:44 am

It's not top heavy at all. The weighty clasp and bracelet make it balance really well. It's also a thicker mid-case and marginally thinner case back, compared to the 16600, which increases stability.

hoppyjr · Post by **hoppyjr** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:32 am

It even wore perfectly on my 8" wrist.

I would like one someday.

Post by **matt.wu** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:41 am

I love it. I'll have another.

marchone · Post by **marchone** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:15 pm

I'm dreamimg and you guys aren't helping.

jtbenson · Post by **jtbenson** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:18 pm

tried one on yesterday at the rolex boutique. really loved it in the metal. the fact that they're offering 12 months interest free financing and five year warranty almost led to me wearing it home. almost. it's certainly on the list now.

marchone · Post by **marchone** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:34 pm

jtbenson wrote:.. they're offering 12 months interest free financing and five year warranty ...

That's interesting on a couple levels.

belligero · Post by **belligero** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:05 pm

Here it is compared to the 116610:

Jeep99dad · Post by **Jeep99dad** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:43 pm

The SDC is thick and sits high for a 40 watch IMhO. Not a bad thing necessarily but worth noting. Not uncomfortable but not as nice on the wrist as the subC.
It also has a smaller dial opening so feels more compact yet taller thicker. It feels like when I wore the MM300 which was a smaller watch from a diameter perspective but thick and somewhat heavy.
The thinner lugs and more fluid case also makes it seem smaller than the SubC with its Maxi case and larger dial opening when looking at it head on.
the one thing I liked least was the shinny bezel and matte dial.

Knome · Post by **Knome** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:49 pm

Great. Adding another one to the want list...

Post by **matt.wu** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:09 pm

Jeep99dad wrote:The SDC is thick and sits high for a 40 watch IMhO. Not a bad thing necessarily but worth noting. Not uncomfortable but not as nice on the wrist as the subC.
It also has a smaller dial opening so feels more compact yet taller thicker. It feels like when I wore the MM300 which was a smaller watch from a diameter perspective but thick and somewhat heavy.
The thinner lugs and more fluid case also makes it seem smaller than the SubC with its Maxi case and larger dial opening when looking at it head on.
the one thing I liked least was the shinny bezel and matte dial.

Everything you mention except the last point (matte dial) is true of the 16600 which you love.

16600 just has a shiny bezel and shiny dial.

Panerai7 · Post by **Panerai7** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:22 pm

Still dreaming of a subC 42mm No Date with normal lugs.
I'll even take the retarded 21mm lug width

marchone · Post by **marchone** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:26 pm

Frankly I was disappointed when the SD400 came out at 40mm. 41, 41.5 or 42mm would take the height effortlessly.

I'm getting fixated on a ratio. Anybody here smarter than me willing to speculate?

The Dive Watch Connection