|
|
Post by MikeS on Sept 28, 2004 22:35:18 GMT -5
Is the seadweller really worth the money over a Sub?
I guess you get extra depth for diving (but i was on a submarine and i know none of us can survive the Sub rating let alone the seadweller!
Is the movement that much better?
|
|
|
|
Post by LukeMayes on Sept 28, 2004 22:39:30 GMT -5
Good question Mike.... I would like to know the answer as well. The depth, lack of cylops, and helium escape valve are the only differences that come to my mind.
BTW Go Irish ;D
Luke Mayes
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeS on Sept 28, 2004 22:47:58 GMT -5
has always been a Rolex symbol to me!
|
|
|
|
Post by JBHII on Sept 28, 2004 22:53:46 GMT -5
The movement is identical (3135). For the extra money you get the tool kit, the gas release valve, and lots of extra water resistance.
I for one am glad I have both the Sub and Sea-Dweller. If you have several Rolexes, then the lack of the cyclops gives it that little something that makes it distinct from, say my GMT II or Explorer II.
For YEARS I didn't think I liked the Dweler. But then I got it. ;D The extra thickness and heft are great too.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeS on Sept 28, 2004 22:55:13 GMT -5
explore this watch!
|
|
|
|
Post by JamesBond on Sept 29, 2004 9:16:02 GMT -5
The fact that it doesn't have the cyclops makes it worth the extra money - I hate the thing. Its a big watch but I have actually found it smaller to wear than my SMP. Less copied than the SUB, not quite as well known. IMHO this makes it slightly more unique and desireable.  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeS on Sept 29, 2004 9:20:50 GMT -5
it would take me a while to get used to not having one! I agree i never have seen a fake seadweller
|
|
|
|
Post by hebertjb on Sept 30, 2004 10:30:32 GMT -5
The diameter of the dial/crystal is smaller too.
|
|
