# Rolex 16600 Sea-Dweller



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2009)

The 16600 Sea-Dweller is a stainless steel automatic dive watch on a bracelet. It is a discontinued model, having been superseded by the 116660 Deepsea in 2008. The original Sea-Dweller (SD), was developed by Rolex and, famously, COMEX, as a higher water resistance verson of the Submariner suitable for saturation diving. The 16600 was introduced in 1978.

The greatest visual differences between the SD and the Submariner are the lack of cyclops over the date and the automatic helium escape valve (HEV) opposite the crown. The SD is the only sports Rolex with date and no cyclops, so lack of cyclops is probably the most obvious differentiator. The HEV is also quite visible, and it is constructed from Titaniun.










The other differences between the SD and Sub are less obvious. The crystal is thicker (which is why a date magnifier was unable to be utilised), and the bezel is deeper to accommodate the thicker crystal. I read that the caseback is also thicker than the Sub, but I can't be sure. The caseback is unusual (unique?) amongst sports Rolexes in that it includes text. The case itself seems very similar to the Sub, apart from the HEV.










There are many great dive watches out there, but only the Subs and Sea-Dwellers can trace direct and continuous lineage to the original dive watches of the 1950s. This aspect of Rolex appeals to me, as does the independence of the company, and the in-house manufacture. These aspects are intangible and of questionable value, but I like them nevertheless.

Many times I have questioned the value of Rolex. I've even nominated them as the most overpriced watches. Well, I wouldn't consider them the _most_ overpriced any more, but only because I am now aware of even more ludicrously priced brands. But seriously, Rolex prices are obscene. As a luxury I guess it is hard to define value for money, and the argument for and against is an old and continuous one. But so much money for a steel dive watch? Come on!

Apparently they haven't always been _so_ expensive (although always on the pricey side), but in the last 20 years or so the prices have steadily increased year on year. And even in the few years since I have been actively interested in watches the prices have climbed substantially. The thing is, if you want a Rolex, then you really don't have any choice other than to pay up. Rolex doesn't discount much, so even used pieces are very expensive. At least the strong resale values mean that overall ownership cost should be reasonable if flipped.

Why go the Sea Dweller over the Sub (the original), or the Sub with date? The choice basically came down to the 'cyclops' date magnifier. I don't like them, mainly because they attract lint and grime. I love the balanced dial of the 14060 Sub, but not the folded endlinks. So the SD won, basically by default. A drilled lugs version was the preferred option, to make strap changes easier.










I think this example may have had a refinish prior to sale, as the case and braclet side polish is very good. The brushed surfaces look about right.

It came with a daggy box made from wood and green pleatherette box, with no cushion, signed Rolex. It may be an original box, but I doubt it. It's not great.

The watch was wrapped in a piece of fabric of some sort. You can fold it so that the watch is wrapped up and material keeps the bracelet and watch head apart. It also came with papers.










The case is formed from one piece from 904L stainless steel. According to old Rolex ads in National Graphic the Oyster cases are initially pressed out of steel bars, and then the cases are machined to the final shape and finished (a combination of brushed upper and lower surfaces, with polished sides). This sounds like a good way to produce a case, and I imagine many dive watch manufacurers use similar techniques.

Rolex is unique in utilising 904L for it's watch cases, as opposed to the more common 316L. A while back I Googled '904L' and after a bit of reading drew the conclusion that is probably better than 316L for certain applications, specifically those where chemical corrosion is likely to be a factor. I can't say I have noticed any of my 316L watches corroding, and if I did I'd be more worried about my hand than my watch. And you can never have too much corrosion resistance.

Apart from being a little trickier to work with relative to 316L, 904L is good stuff. I like that that it is a whiter metal than 316L. The difference is subtle, maybe even psychological, but to my eyes 904L looks better when polished.

Everybody is familiar with the shape - you either like it or you don't. Highlights for me are the curved yet angular lugs, the curves of the crownguards, and the deeper bezel (relative to the Sub). I also think the crown is perfectly proportioned and beautifully machined. I am starting to notice the HEV less. Sometimes the sun catches the bezel and it flashes - bling!










The bezel is one aspect that I feel has eluded most of the look-alikes. The edge is a little triangle in profile; polished on the upper (dial) side, brushed on the lower. 60 little cylindrical valleys slice away from the top of the triangle to create 60 little pyramids, with linear upper sides but curvy left and right. And with little ridges at the zenith rather than points.










The cylinders are polished, but not so much as to reduce the sharpness of the pryamid corners too much. And those little ridge-backed pyramids are easy for even dry-skinned fingers to grip securely - a requirement, as the bezel is quite tight to turn on this one. Mine is pretty rough looking through the macro lens, but I don't know if that is how they made them or the result of use.

The Grand Seiko Diver has the smoothest, slickest, most even, most precisely damped bezel I've ever used. Probably the best compromise between oily smoothness and mechanical positivity I've tried. The Rolex trades that superbly damped feel with even firmer, tighter, more positive, more mechanical feeling clicks. Both are good. But the force requried to turn the SD bezel is possibly less constant than the GS, and varies a little, but that could be due to my fingers being in different positions as the bezel is turned.

Considerably more force is required to get the SD bezel rotating compared to the GS. I tried pushing the SD bezel from side to side and it doesn't budge, and is the most solid feeling of my small collection. I didn't push it too hard becasue I didn't want to risk breaking it. I didn't try it with the GS bezel because I didn't own it.

The bezel insert is black printed metal, and slopes down away from the crystal. Fit is good, and the paint is reasonably black. I really like the lume pip, which is framed with metal, domed such that it looks like a tiny clear capsule filled with lume paint, and aligns perfectly. These details contribute to the vintage feel of the 16600, when so many high-end divers (including Rolex) are offered with ceramic inserts. Ceramic would look more modern, but you'd also have to give the case a more modern shape.

The sapphire crystal is flat and thick, and protrudes slightly beyond the uppermost edge of the bezel The side is frosted except for the beveled transition to the upper face. Maybe domed would look better, maybe not. An internal anti-reflective (AR) coating would definitely reduce glare and improve readability in very bright sun. I would rather have inner AR.

The caseback is very nicely machined, and is designed to be opened with a Rolex proprietary caseback opener only - a potential hassle if you ever need to open it up beyond reach of an AD. It is engraved with the words: Rolex Oyster Traditional Gas Escape Valve, and a couple of crowns. I like text on the back of a dive watch, but some technical details IMO would be better than these trademarks. On the plus side, information provided on the dial has not been repeated here, and the paint is still black and showing no signs of wear.

Overall finish of the case is very good but not quite excellent, IMO. The brushing could be finer and more uniform, the edges better defined. The polished areas of the case are, however, excellent. Maybe it's the polishing technique, maybe the 904L, but the polish is even, rich, deep, and seems to hide fingerprints, smudges and swirlies better than other steel watches.

Through the macro lens it is obvious the surface is not perfect, but I don't know if it left the factory that way.










The dial and hands are the aesthetic highlight of the package IMO. The dial is glossy and dark and inky black. It includes the followig markings, all printed quite crisply in white:

[Crown Logo]
ROLEX
OYSTER PERPETUAL DATE
SEA-DWELLER
4000 ft = 1220 m 
SUPERLATIVE CHRONOMETER 
OFFICIALLY CERTIDFIED
SWISS MADE

It is quite a lot of text to include on the dial, and I would prefer at least the Superlative Chronometer spiel was transferred to the caseback instead. Oyster Perpetual Date could also go to the back. I find it more pleasing than the new generation, however, with Rolex engraved around the rehaut, and yet more additional text included on the Deep Sea. White minute / seconds hashes are printed around the dial circumference.

The date window has nice little chamfered edges.

The indices are applied, and comprise whitish lume surrounded by white gold borders. The gold is very white and highly polished. The uniformity and overall quality of the indices is very good (to the naked eye). The hands are also highly polished, and look to be made of S/S. They are very straight, with sharp looking edges and tips.

The Mercedes hour hand style is extremely polarising. I don't often notice it. When I do, it's not that great, but it's not that bad either.

A Rolex 3135 calibre beats inside. The 3135 is often described as a workhorse, and is reportedly reliable. With the machined surfaces, rhodium, rubies, yellow text, bronze, and pink, it's quite a good looking workhorse IMO.

'A. Watchmaker', who knows a lot more about movements than I ever will, wrote in 2005 that there aren't too many challengers to the Rolex triple crown of accuracy, durability, and reliability. Good choice for a dive watch, then. He also wrote that there is "absolutely no question in my mind, that I prefer the ETA 2892-2A over the other two".

His excellent review of the 3135 is here:

Rolex Caliber 3135 - Still worthy of the crown after all these years?

According to Watchmaker, the 3135 has received numerous minor 
upgrades over the years, as well as some significant ones. Being an older model, I think mine lacks the Parachrom hair spring of later models. That's a shame, because it has sounds like a good thing.

It feels nice to wind, very mechanical and clicky, and the crown is quite solid. Not as smooth as a Grand Seiko, though, and there is quite a bit of 
drag, perhaps from the crown gaskets.

My favourite movement feature is the 50 hour power reserve.

As far as I know Rolex invented the oyster bracelet. It is a timeless and classic style, suited to work and play. But it is not designed that well on the 16600, IMO. The middle row of links are hollow section steel, which makes the bracelet light and I imagine more susceptible to stretching. The bracelet on this example is still reasonably tight, however.

The clasp is worse than the bracelet, and I really don't like it. It is made from pressed and folded sheet steel. Aesthetically a solid machined clasp would be much preferrable. It is smooth and quiet, but it doen't make a reassuring, positive, tight and sharp 'click' when I close it, or when I latch the safety catch. I don't know if it would ever open unintentionally, but I don't trust it not to 100%. I would trust the clasp better if such a locking feature was utilised.

Although I don't agree entirely with the construction of the bracelet, it is quite well made. The polished endlinks are mirror-like, and fit together so snugly that ithe bracelet edges are very smooth and feel nearly as one piece when I run a finger over them. The endlinks are solid and very well made, in that they slide into the case with amazingly tight tolerances. They put my Sumo to shame, and many other watches.

Despite the precision and build quality of the braceklet, the bracelet and especially the clasp really are the weakest links in the 16600's armour IMO. I think the bracelet looks great, but I'm looking forward to experimenting with some straps.










The deeper bezel, the thicker crystal, and thicker caseback give the SD slightly more presence on the wrist than the Sub. Not so much as other people would notice, but enough that I notice.

Currently the watch seems to want to ride up my wrist twards my hand. I'll try tightening the bracelet soon and see if that keeps the watch more firmly in position.

The other comfort issue is that the head naturally settles too far toward the upper side of my wrist, rather than in the middle of the wrist. This is possibly due to the relative lengths of each side of the bracelet, and is another aspect I'll experiment with in due course.

Compared to my recollection of wearing a Sub, the watch head sits a little bit higher maybe, but otherwise feels like a 11610 / 14060 Sub. Apart from the issues mentioned above it is comfortable and a nice weight. Although I generally like larger dive watches in general, I think that the 40 mm case is a nice diameter everyday watch for my approx. 7.25 inch wrist. I have no idea of the lug-to-lug length but it works for me.

I haven't timed this watch and don't intend to. I'll be annoyed if it is really innaccurate, and dont want to be forking out for a service just now.

The high polish of the indices and hands increases visibility in some light situations. It also can be quite glarey in very bright sunlight, especially combined with the glossy dial, and an AR crystal would probably remedy this to some extent.

The date so far always seems pretty much centred in the date window. The rapid date change at 12 is also pretty cool.

The lume is pretty good. It is quite bright at first, fading fairly rapidly to a duller glow. But I could just read the time at 5:30 am, with my eyes adjusted to the dark.










The 16600 has a classic, nearly vintage style, but can be found in great condition and with the solid feel of a modern watch. It also has some modern features such as sapphire and solid endlinks, which might be harder to come by on some vintage pieces. It looks great, and feels great, apart from the slight bracelet adjustment required.

It feels damn good to be wearing a Rolex diver, with all the history, heritage, and innovation that comes with the brand. Much the same as I feel about Seiko divers.

But it also feels good to be wearing the Rolex diver because it is a Rolex. The original dive watch, the dive watch I was in awe of as a little kid. The watch that has been unobtainable for so long, and that to me symbolises reaching a new and positive stage in my life.

And it would feel good if somebody realised it is a Rolex, because they might perceive that maybe you have your act together. Maybe! But people don't comment on watches much in my social circle.

The 16600 makes an undeniable impression of solidity, ruggedness, and fine mechanical tolerances. The finer details of finish are not bad, but are a secondary priority. I can believe that it is constructed with the same precision and strength as quality firearms. It seriously feels like something that could take a beating, yet is simultaneously a precision instrument. It feels how I imagine mil-spec should feel.

It also has a vintage style IMO. I really like the combination of vintage style and modern(ish) technology. And no-nonsense hardware.

As much as I like the Deep Sea, for an everyday watch I would prefer something around 40-42 mm diamater, as I think this looks better on my wrist. I think Rolex officially calls the 116600 the Deepsea, so they have left room in the current range for a smaller Sea Dweller, upgraded as per the latest generation of Subs, and sized at 42 mm. Here's hoping!


----------



## Nolans (Feb 10, 2009)

Excellent review Toby, very well written. 

Congrats on your new watch again, may it last as long as your new wedded bliss ;-)


----------



## jiminpotomac (Feb 20, 2009)

Very well done. One of the better, informative reviews I've read in ages.

Congratulations on an heirloom piece, a timeless icon of diving history. :-!

Congratulations on the nuptials as well. 

The 16600 is an all-time favorite of mine. I hope to add one to my collection some day soon.


----------



## xinxin (Sep 28, 2010)

very informative review. someone is selling me his SD (2002 model) for $4K. Is that a reasonable price in your opinion? thanks


----------



## hooyah22 (Sep 27, 2009)

very informative and thorough. Thanks for a review of one of my all-time favorite watches!!


----------



## WatchFiend1 (Jun 3, 2010)

Great review Toby! Love the sea dweller. GMT mater is still my fave but this one is up there.


----------



## Navitimer (Feb 2, 2009)

I owned an 16600 Sea Dweller for a while so I'd like to chip in.

First a correction - The watch crystal thickness has nothing to do with it not having a cyclops magnifier. This was proven a poster on TRF who actually removed a 16610 magnifier and it worked out just fine on the Sea Dweller with no noticable difference in magnification.

It seems it was simply removed to give it a different look.

The Sub / SD is THE iconic dive watch and I loved the look. However the weight and fit of the Sea Dweller just didn't do it for me. The watch is noticably heavier than a regular Submariner and the case back surface that contacts with your wrist is much smaller. That means you feel more pressure on your wrist and it became quite uncomfortable. As my wrist swelled with heat it became either too tight or too loose, never just right. I had no problems with my Datejust because the weight is so much less.

Further, the bracelet is incredibly cheap feeling especially when compared to other high-end brands. For a watch at this price it was unacceptable.

I loved the look but had to wear it on either a Nato band or a rubber strap for comfort. I ended up selling the Sea Dweller, something I've never regretted. I'll probably end up getting either an older Sub complete with rubbish bracelet simply because it is such a beautiful watch.

If you're on the fence about choosing a Sub or an SD then I would strongly advise you see if you can try one on first.


----------



## novedl (May 20, 2009)

great review toby, again huge congrats my friend.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Great review, very informative :-!


----------



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2009)

Thanks everybody. Navitimer, thanks for the correction regarding the cyclops. I read the bit about the crystal thickness online somewhere. Who would have thought there is incorrect information on the web, eh?

:-d

Whatever the reason, I'm so glad that Rolex ditched the magnifier for this one.

I agree wholeheartedly that the feel of the bracelet is unacceptable on a watch in this price range. Too bad it looks so good!

I'm going to fit a rubber strap in the new year, then I think this watch will be hard to fault.

I don't notice the smaller contact patch and increased pressure, but I have read of other people having this issue. To me, this watch is quite small and light, similar to a Monster in feel, and I find it generally quite comfortable.


----------



## pjsayer (Nov 16, 2011)

Sorry to drag up an old thread, but what a fantastic review of a great watch. Some really nice insight and personal angle to an all-time classic time piece. Well done ;-)


----------



## pjnix (Sep 23, 2013)

Really well written - very much enjoyed the review.


----------



## watchvic (Aug 15, 2013)

I enjoyed the review as well. Thank you.


----------



## lxxrr (Jul 25, 2013)

I just want to say - Great review.


----------



## charleswtch (Aug 27, 2015)

Great review i enjoyed it, got one but its not for long.


----------



## Em1224 (Oct 31, 2015)

Nice review.


----------



## ccm123 (Feb 8, 2010)

Nice review!


----------



## DrMizzou (May 31, 2010)

Great review! Joined the new dssd club with the release of the James Cameron edition.


----------



## Ginzy1234 (Sep 17, 2015)

Great review, I'll have a Sea Dweller some day.


----------



## jbellmd (Apr 19, 2014)

Wow... Fantastic job of a classic watch. Thanks
jonathan


----------



## rony_espana (Nov 30, 2007)

Awesome review! The case on these watches is literally perfect and flawless! Someday...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Simplyvl (Jan 3, 2016)

Good review. It's probably my favourite model out of Rolex.


----------



## zayn7 (Feb 24, 2016)

Very informative...thanks for sharing.


----------



## Forrestx (Oct 2, 2007)

Navitimer said:


> I owned an 16600 Sea Dweller for a while so I'd like to chip in.
> 
> First a correction - The watch crystal thickness has nothing to do with it not having a cyclops magnifier. This was proven a poster on TRF who actually removed a 16610 magnifier and it worked out just fine on the Sea Dweller with no noticable difference in magnification.
> 
> ...


A small kick for an old but perfect review.
There are some pretty plausible clarifications for the abscense of the cyclops.

also from TRF:
1.


> Now there is not a problem with the cyclops as long as the diver remained in high pressure environments. But when divers started to go deeper and breathing gases with helium.And the chamber was decompressed, it was not possible for the helium to escape from the watch as rapidly as the chamber was decompressing . The air pressure now in the watch would blow the crystal or the cyclops straight out of the case hence the HRV.But because the cyclops is just glued to crystal,and because the helium molecules can get under the cyclops it would just blow off when the chamber was decompressed.Submariners are fine for atmospheric" dives,but for saturation dives SD must be used without cyclops.




2.


> It has nothing to do with the pressure... the crystal on the Sea-Dweller is thicker than that of the Submariner. Thus, the cyclops would be farther away from the date aperature, albeit only a couple mm's, resulting in improper magnification. The proper size cyclops would be MUCH bigger and would look out of balance on the crystal.__________________




I am pretty sure the removing the cyclops from a 16610 and place it on the original 16600 crystal will not give the same spotless result...if even possible!

I tend to go with a combination of the two above and agree with the TS review that an obvious reason for the abscense of the cyclops lies within the thickness of the glass and the overall watch dept rating...


----------



## bishop76 (Apr 12, 2014)

Nice review! The 16600 is the perfect SD if you don't want it too vintage and you don't wish to go ceramic... yet. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mindaddy (Jul 16, 2009)

These are going up in price. A great piece. But the new SD is hard to pass up. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hedgehog_ (Aug 30, 2015)

Awesome review! Thanks for taking the time and sharing


----------



## jonE5 (Oct 11, 2014)

Awesome review.


----------

