Why I miss the Sea-Dweller and its outgoing brethren

Jan 08, 2010,21:06 PM
 

For most of its life the Sea-Dweller never sold particularly well because it was too thick and too heavy for the ordinary consumer. And the Submariner could be bought for less and it looked nearly identical. In fact, on the secondary market the Sea-Dweller 16600 went for almost the same as the Submariner 16610 for the longest time.

 



 



 

 

Then in 2008 Rolex replaced the Sea-Dweller with the colossal Sea-Dweller Deep Sea, sparking off a rabid but brief frenzy as folks fell over themselves to acquire the departed Sea-Dweller. But deliveries of the Sea-Dweller continued until mid-2009, with the last being V-series Sea-Dwellers delivered in 2009 (Rolex collectors track the serial number letters with an embarrassing obsession), which were the absolute last of the Sea-Dweller.

 

Often one sees the Sea-Dweller being described as being “over engineered”. I dispute that. The Sea-Dweller was an elegant and sufficient solution to a problem, while the neurotically over engineered DeepSea appears to be an answer to a question no one asked.

 

But in some respects the Sea-Dweller is only adequate or even insufficient; the bracelet, for example, could be a lot better. Yet the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

 

The story of the Sea-Dweller is well known: the watch was originally conceived for Compagnie Maritime d'Expertise, better known as COMEX, a French deep-sea engineering firm. The first watches provided to COMEX were stock Rolex ref. 5513 Submariners with a helium escape valve drilled into the side of the case; this was necessary for saturation diving as helium would enter the watch case and require release during decompression.

 



 

From 1970 to 1997 Rolex supplied COMEX with a variety of Sea-Dweller and Submariner models, all of which are outrageously valuable today. Nearly all the models supplied to COMEX (except the ref. 5514) were also sold to civilians with the only difference being the lack of the COMEX lettering and numbers on the dial and back.

 

Rolex’s partnership with COMEX was arguably the last of relationships that created watches made for specific professions. Those included the collaboration with Pan American Airways, which produced the GMT-Master, as well as the Royal Navy and resulting military Submariner. PanAm no longer exists while COMEX has been taken over. Rolex has survived and prospered but it has evolved and makes a different kind of watch.

 



 

 

The Sea-Dweller, along with the Explorer I and II and the steel Submariners, is thus one of the last remnants of the Rolex of the last century, when the company made fairly serious watches for serious minded folk. Oddly enough, the most distinctive feature of these old-style watches is their rinky dink bracelets.

 



 

 

Such bracelets were acceptable forty years ago when the Oyster bracelet was introduced but times changed and they did not. They possess contemptible stamped steel clasps and hollow centre links, and have long been derided by collectors as the weak link in a Rolex sports watch. Yet these bracelets do their job well with little fuss.

 

For the longest time the Sea-Dweller had the best bracelet of all the sports Rolex watches, it was thicker, heavier and generally more solid, and it even sported the much vaunted solid end links since the eighties. As a testament to how glacially Rolex evolves, it took the company another 20 years to add solid end links to the bracelets of the other sports watches.

 

The old style sports watches stand in stark contrast to the current range of Rolex sports models which are beautifully built and beautifully polished. The new spring-loaded clasp found in the GMT-Master II and other sports models is a brilliant design. But the whole watch is so well made and so shiny it feels almost jewel-like, more for passengers in first class than the pilots – not that most Rolex wearers were pilots or deep sea divers.

 

As a wise friend of mine pointed out, sand and grit accumulated from diving and other rigorous activities could be rinsed off easily and the old clasp wouldn’t be any worse for the wear; imagine grains of sand getting stuck in the new spring-loaded clasp and the scraping and scratching that would ensure.

 

Rumours abound that the current steel Submariners and Explorers will be replaced at Baselworld 2010. Imperfect as they are, the outgoing Rolex models have a quaint charm that is extremely and mysteriously compelling. They will be missed.

 

- SJX

 



 





More posts: 116600166001661055135514ComexDeepseaExplorerSea DwellerSubmarinerSubmariner Date

  login to reply

Comments: view entire thread

 

Interesting post, SJX

 
 By: amanico : January 8th, 2010-23:05
A lot of food for thought ! I will be one of those who will regret the Explorers and Subs, IF they are really discontinued, which we'll know soon, well, in a pair of months. They are timeless pieces, whose charm is indeed difficult to describe. A page is ... 

A couple of points

 
 By: SJX : January 8th, 2010-23:09
Hi Nicolas, A couple of points in response: The Yacht-master also was the first to have the polished case (top and sides) that is now standard on the Daytona, GMT-Master II etc. As for SD vs. Submariner pricing, I was referring to the last 16600 and 16610... 

Thanks, SJX

 
 By: amanico : January 8th, 2010-23:14
You're absolutely correct about the YM... That makes all the interest of this watch, a kind of precursor. I misread you, I thought you were speaking IN GENERAL, about the Sea Dweller and the SUB. I didn't get that you spoke about the modern production, we... 

great post SJX and Nicolas

 
 By: dreamer : January 8th, 2010-23:44
You both offered very interesting points on these models.

With ....

 
 By: MiniCooper : January 9th, 2010-13:18
such a complete review and complete answer is there is not much else to add.... Thanks.... Cheers

There is always something to add, PP.

 
 By: amanico : January 9th, 2010-22:53
What were your favourite Subs and SDs? What do you want to see as a future Sub? What do you think about these models which will maybe disappear? You see? Best, Nicolas

Well....

 
 By: MiniCooper : January 9th, 2010-23:55
true my friend..... So some quick thoughts...... I do not see the current sub disappearing as a lot of them were produced..... They will have their place in the second hand market and the vintage but not in the sense of todays vintage rolex.... My favouri... 

Tssss...PP...Are you telling me that

 
 By: amanico : January 10th, 2010-00:03
There is something " new " to come??? HeHe... You're always where I don't expect for you to be. Best, Nicolas

he.. he.. he...

 
 By: MiniCooper : January 10th, 2010-00:05
I t is nice to be surprised my friend isn't it? I hope that you have a great Sunday...... Cheers

WHAT??? That's ALL you have to say?!!! :))) [nt]

 
 By: amanico : January 10th, 2010-00:09
No message body

Patience......

 
 By: MiniCooper : January 10th, 2010-00:31
my friend..... Soon..... Cheers

Besides.....

 
 By: MiniCooper : January 10th, 2010-00:49
you had plenty of clues..... Cheers

A charming era, but one that is over!

 
 By: Anatol : January 8th, 2010-23:42
The Rolex tool watches originate from a time when precise time keeping under extreme conditions became necessary and was not universally available. Up until the 80ies you could really argue that you bought a tool and this was reflected in the design: matt...  

Tool versus Luxury...Superbly put, Anatol.

 
 By: amanico : January 8th, 2010-23:59
This message has been edited by amanico on 2010-01-09 00:16:56

utilitarian tool

 
 By: Hororgasm : January 9th, 2010-12:27
agree....how past utilitarian tool has now evolved into mass luxury products...similar story for Panareis. bejewelled Rolexes and precious metal PAMs...

Thanks SJX, Nicolas and Anatol for your posts.

 
 By: Z3 : January 9th, 2010-00:25
As Anatol has elegantly put: Rolex, at the end of the day, is a luxury watch, and most people who buy a luxury sport watch would only reminisce about the adventurous lifestyle. To most, it's the embodiment of an adventurous lifestyle, not the actual adven... 

Good point, Anatol! Time has changed... [nt]

 
 By: forumadmirer : January 10th, 2010-08:51
No message body

Thanks for sharing your views/thoughts...

 
 By: Rob : January 8th, 2010-23:50
very NICELY written too!! Indeed, we are witnessing the end of an era...

I am getting old

 
 By: Starman : January 9th, 2010-01:12
I know I am, because I agree with your post. Your arguments are right to me. But of course Rolex must have a good marketing department. They at least try to find out what their customers and new customers want for a watch. And this is probably what they c... 

There's always the Omega Ploprof...

 
 By: chaser579 : January 9th, 2010-05:59
Awesome pics, btw! Thanks. =:^D

Nice post

 
 By: Mostel : January 9th, 2010-08:49
As a heartfelt fan of my Sub LV, I have to agree, that despite the 'crappy' bracelet-clasp, I still vastly prefer the 'old' Rolex's to the new ones. BTW, I never thought or think of the clasp as crappy--I am in the camp who looks upon the clasp as perfect... 

A very....

 
 By: MiniCooper : January 9th, 2010-13:14
thorough review... A long and interesting story..... Cheers This message has been edited by PinkPanther on 2010-01-09 13:16:21

Great post, SJX! Straight to the point, thank you! [nt]

 
 By: forumadmirer : January 9th, 2010-13:45
No message body

Great post that point out the cross roads of Rolex...

 
 By: JRAN : January 9th, 2010-16:49
...ultimately, these last changes will pretty much mark the full change of the Rolex line. As your post stated, many people rushed to buy the last of the Sea Dwellers and I followed along - luckily I was able to get a V series. As these forums are all abo... 

respectfully vote that Rolex is doing a good job with new models

 
 By: grigo : January 9th, 2010-23:18
I agree with many of the things that you say in your review, but I personnally consider that Rolex is doing a great job with its new models. It's kind of funny to think that for twenty years people have complained about Rolex bracellets and clasps and tha... 

I agree with you

 
 By: SJX : January 10th, 2010-00:22
as I wrote in my original post, the new Rolex watches, especially the bracelets, are wonderful. I wore a Daytona for the last 2 days and the bracelet is an amazing piece of work, especially for the price (even though the steel Daytona sells at a premium).... 

Rolex never approved by NASA...

 
 By: chaser579 : January 10th, 2010-06:27
..for space exploration/travel. Plus the SD is not a chronograph. Only one watch passed all the rigorous NASA tests and that is the Omega Speedmaster. Of course today we have the Timex Ironman and Casio G-Shock, and now the Seiko Spacewalk approved for sp... 

SJX - you have a point, however, the DSSD to my

 
 By: 219 : January 9th, 2010-23:56
mind is a culmination of Rolex research over the past 50 years - that they can put together a 'street legal' watch that can drop 4km down and still run just fine. The watch retains all that is Rolex. Sure, it might be over engineered, but for most purpose... 

You are right, but

 
 By: SJX : January 10th, 2010-00:21
The SD was originally designed for professionals in mind. It was extremely difficult to sell a SD to a civilian in the 70s, 80s and even 90s. On the other hand, the SDDS - which is an incredible piece of engineering - is clearly designed for the luxury sp... 

Enjoyed reading this, SJX!

 
 By: dxboon : January 10th, 2010-00:24
I think the Sea-Dweller is a fantastic timepiece. Rolex should be proud of their successful design. I wonder where Rolex is heading. I didn't care for the redesigned Datejust (Datejust II) at all, so I'm curious what the future will hold for other models.... 

SJX 5 points!, you definetely hit the nail ! I remembered being shocked when...

 
 By: luc00 : January 10th, 2010-03:24
my father told me back in the eighties that he was not going to replace his 911 by the new 964, claiming it was betraying the model. I tried everything to convince him, even when I bought my first 911, the 993 he did not want to drive it. Today I must be ... 

Five points only?

 
 By: SJX : January 10th, 2010-03:44
Thanks for the reply. The automotive analogy is appropriate, especially given your background. Consumers of different generations perceive products, old and new, differently. The Prince and Bubbleback were really hot once in the eighties. Now they're over... 

I forgot to mention that you get 5 points more after Baselworld 2010...

 
 By: luc00 : January 10th, 2010-03:50
if the future gives you (us) right... cheers Luc

Damn, I never convinced my father to buy any 911 LOL

 
 By: Starman : January 10th, 2010-07:01
So now it's up to me, and even though I'm not that old I prefer the old Carrera 3.2 models over any younger models even though I now the later models are much better cars. You are right, the same goes for watches. So now we discusses cars and watches; wha... 

Maybe we should avoid....

 
 By: MiniCooper : January 10th, 2010-07:26
discussing women..... Besides there is a female moderator.... lol Cheers

You are right Pink Panther, never without my lawyer...

 
 By: luc00 : January 10th, 2010-07:36
but I still want to add that it is Starman that started... LOL Cheers Luc

Well we do have.....

 
 By: MiniCooper : January 10th, 2010-09:07
a friendly lawyer.... Amanico..... Cheers

Excellent and succint write-up.

 
 By: ArthurSG : January 10th, 2010-19:42
fine fine fine.... in due course my friend.

well written...and I have to agree

 
 By: ocwatching : January 11th, 2010-09:44
but with all things...and peopel..we evolve...and we will see how we feel once the new models are released... but I do think the SubND wears very well for a BIG (relative) watch with the bracelet...

lucky I am

 
 By: fifty fathoms : January 13th, 2010-08:25
... I saved one of the last.... great report and statement regards Stephan...  

Beautifully written...

 
 By: chrono24seven : January 16th, 2010-11:31
And I thought to sell my '96 T25 dialed Sea Dweller... It's the desire to move into an '08 DSSD that has me dancing with the notion, I suppose having both couldn't hurt! Thanks for sharing!