Rolex Seadweller 16600, with or without?

From time to time there’s a discussion anywhere on the web about the Rolex Seadweller’s pin holes. Should a ‘real’ Seadweller 16600 have pin holes in the casing, or shouldn’t it?

Rolex Seadweller pin holes

The first 16600 Seadwellers must have hit the market in the eighties (production started in 1986), and from that time on they always had pinholes in the casing for the bracelet spring bars to fit in. Only in 2005 Rolex came with a casing of which the lugs had no external pinholes anymore. I saw Rolex indicating these ‘new’ models on their documents as 16600A.

Production of the 16600 was ended in 2008, so in my perception the Seadwellers without pinholes – which have been produced for only three years – are way more exclusive and exceptional than the ones with pin holes. However still I hear people saying that they prefer a Seadweller to have pin holes…

Is that because it’s not sleek but more hard core or so? I’m puzzled; what’s your opinion?


2 Responses to Rolex Seadweller 16600, with or without?

  1. Robert-Jan on May 19, 2011 at 18:05

    Opinions are like pin holes, all Sea-Dweller ref. 16600s from 1986-2005 have one.

    As it is all about preference, I prefer to have pin holes in a Rolex sports watch. It just looks good in my opinion, but there isn’t much usage for it, unless you want to change to a leather strap or NATO-strap instead of the Oyster bracelet. The Sea-Dwellers from 2005 – 2008 without pin holes are more ‘exclusive’ indeed, although this definition is always relative when discussing Rolex.

  2. Joost de Wildt on May 19, 2011 at 18:21

    I’d say no pinholes. It’s my believe that vintage Rolex watches should have pinholes…

    16600 is not vintage.