Is Rolex guilty of misrepresenting their case sizes?

[bmrisko]

My dad recently bought the new Rolex Datejust 41 (not to be confused with the Datejust II, which it replaced). He didn't like the proportions of the DateJust II and has been waiting for the DJ41 to come out and correct those shortcomings. After he was wearing it for a few days, he thought that the case looked and felt a little small for 41mm so he measured it. It measures exactly 40mm (not 40.1 or 40.2 or ..., but 40). Rolex, however, has named the watch the "New Rolex Datejust 41" and lists the case size as 41mm on their website https://www.rolex.com/watches/baselworld/new-datejust-41/m126333-0010.html. Given that the Rolex Milgauss he has is listed as 40mm and measures the same exact 40mm, how can Rolex list the "New Rolex Datejust 41" at 41mm? I would be interested to hear from fellow forum members with their thoughts. Have any other DJ41 owners measured their cases?

[GradyPhilpott]

It has been my observation that case sizes are nominal, like calibers.

[Cerachrom12]

The Daytona doesn't look any way near 40mm. Unless looks are deceiving.

[speedmaster73]

The Daytona doesn't look any way near 40mm. Unless looks are deceiving.


daytona is 39mm:thumbsup:

[AboutTime]

My AD told me he measured a DJ41 in his display case and found it to be 40 mm. I don't know what instrument he used in his measurement.

[anothernewphone]

daytona is 39mm:thumbsup:

The Daytona is listed at 40mm, but is apparently closer to 38.5mm - which is why I like it so much.

[Pict]

Link from another thread posted by TRF member Rolex511

http://www.r-l-x.de/forum/showthread.php/159584-Durchmesser-quot-40er-quot-Daytona-116520

[NCD1979]

Not sure what the motivation is but there does appear to be a difference between advertised size and actual size of some models. Makes no difference to me, I try them on and decide if I like the look.

[R Douglas]

Very interesting, so the new DJ-41 is actually 40mm, does anyone know what the DJII measures ?

[DJTOSUB]

I had no idea Rolex was mislabeling case sizes. Why would they do this?
:thinking:

[wm5382]

Smaller is better for my watches

[DCheeta]

It doesn't matter. It's like a person getting caught up in how many inches their waist is, or how many pounds they weigh. The number doesn't matter. If it looks great, it looks great, the number itself is irrelevant.

On the other hand, if it does look like it could lose a few pounds (DJII, I'm looking at you)...

[dualcarb]

Which is why we should never buy watches sight unseen. Always try them out first and then decide if it is the watch for you. Advertised size doesn't matter to me. So long as it sings to me when I try the watch on...

[DJTOSUB]

The number doesn't matter.

What about simple truth in advertising.

Would it matter if Rolex misrepresented 14 vs 18ct gold, SCOC accuracy, lume material or something else?

[MovieGuy]

This is something I've been meaning to ask my rep but keep forgetting to. I noticed in the Rolex catalogs when they list the diameter of the watch it does have the symbol Ø before it. Does that mean that they measure the case diameter at a 45 degree angle? The next time the Rolex rep comes in where I work I will ask.

[vladi123456]

What about simple truth in advertising.

Would it matter if Rolex misrepresented 14 vs 18ct gold, SCOC accuracy, lume material or something else?

Good point.

[KBM]

This is something I've been meaning to ask my rep but keep forgetting to. I noticed in the Rolex catalogs when they list the diameter of the watch it does have the symbol Ø before it. Does that mean that they measure the case diameter at a 45 degree angle? The next time the Rolex rep comes in where I work I will ask.
Yes. Case sizes are usually measured from 7 to 2 o'clock (of 10 to 4, for that matter).

[vladi123456]

That explains why DateJust 41 felt so small on my wrist..
I wonder as far as the height of Daytona, is it also smaller than advertised? I think the Daytona is supposed to be 40 in width and 46 in height (with lugs)

[BristolCavendish]

It doesn't matter. It's like a person getting caught up in how many inches their waist is, or how many pounds they weigh. The number doesn't matter. If it looks great, it looks great, the number itself is irrelevant.
Bingo. Simply try the watch on and if it looks too big (or small), try another. It's as simple as that.

As far as precise millimeters are concerned, you can always bring a pair of dial calipers along with you to the AD.

[bbuckbbuck]

Does anyone know the lug width on the DJ41? Is it 21mm like the DJII?

[bmrisko]

While some of you may be right that if you like the way a watch looks, then size may be irrelevant. However, what is Rolex trying to gain by being deceptive with the advertised case diameters? For all you machinists and engineers out there, a Ø1.00mm discrepancy is huge, especially in extremely precise assemblies. I'm not quite sure how they could have mis-measured the case diameter using calipers, let alone the 3-D modeling software they likely utilize for component and assembly design.

This questionable advertising raises the question, is the platinum bezel on my wife's Yachtmaster really platinum? How about the material of the white gold hour markers on my GMT? (I realize this is a stretch, but just trying to make a point about truth in advertising)

[Chewbacca]

if they measure crown out, i suppose they're undersizing them.

(but i get what the fuss is about)

[drfaulkner]

This is something I've been meaning to ask my rep but keep forgetting to. I noticed in the Rolex catalogs when they list the diameter of the watch it does have the symbol Ø before it. Does that mean that they measure the case diameter at a 45 degree angle? The next time the Rolex rep comes in where I work I will ask.

Ø is the standard symbol for "diameter"

[DCheeta]

What about simple truth in advertising.

Would it matter if Rolex misrepresented 14 vs 18ct gold, SCOC accuracy, lume material or something else?

Not really a good comparison, as the numbers you cite actually affect the monetary value of the watch.

If you tried on a watch that the manufacturer claimed to be 40mm but it looked ridiculously huge on your wrist, would you buy it anyway just because of the 40mm figure in the advertising material? I suspect not. Because its how the watch looks and feels on your wrist that determines how you like it, not the number printed in the brochure.

Then again, we're all different. Maybe the number does matter more to some people.

[Annan]

I really don't care what my DJ41 actually measures. I love everything about this watch! :thumbsup:

[DJTOSUB]

While some of you may be right that if you like the way a watch looks, then size may be irrelevant. However, what is Rolex trying to gain by being deceptive with the advertised case diameters? For all you machinists and engineers out there, a Ø1.00mm discrepancy is huge, especially in extremely precise assemblies. I'm not quite sure how they could have mis-measured the case diameter using calipers, let alone the 3-D modeling software they likely utilize for component and assembly design.

This questionable advertising raises the question, is the platinum bezel on my wife's Yachtmaster really platinum? How about the material of the white gold hour markers on my GMT? (I realize this is a stretch, but just trying to make a point about truth in advertising)

Agreed. You said it much better than I did.

I'd love to get a statement from Rolex on this misrepresentation.

Why would they do this?!?
:thinking:

[bmrisko]

Not really a good comparison, as the numbers you cite actually affect the monetary value of the watch.

If you tried on a watch that the manufacturer claimed to be 40mm but it looked ridiculously huge on your wrist, would you buy it anyway just because of the 40mm figure in the advertising material? I suspect not. Because its how the watch looks and feels on your wrist that determines how you like it, not the number printed in the brochure.

Then again, we're all different. Maybe the number does matter more to some people.

Technically, the diameter impacts the case size, which could also impact the amount of material used and potentially the monetary value as well...especially on a case machined from a precious metal.

[JacksonStone]

Frankly, I think a 40mm diameter on a DJ would be an improvement over 41mm, but Rolex should still label it accurately, as a matter of principle. In the end, yeah: it looks how it looks and wears how it wears. But if Rolex is going to list the diameter at all - and especially if they're going to put the diameter in the name of the model - they might as well get it right. Otherwise, why bother? Very strange.

[KenR]

Very interesting, so the new DJ-41 is actually 40mm, does anyone know what the DJII measures ?

Interestingly enough, the DJII measures right at 41mm.

[vladi123456]

To me it's just not right - it's a precision mechanism that doesn't have precise measurements? I'm surprised not everybody sees it that way. Rolex could afford a new ruler and to spend a few seconds on measuring the case properly - unless they are misrepresenting on purpose, in which case like others said - what else do they misrepresent? VW's dieselgate comes to mind - they also "slightly" misrepresented some measurements, and look where it got them

[KenR]

To me it's just not right - it's a precision mechanism that doesn't have precise measurements? I'm surprised not everybody sees it that way. Rolex could afford a new ruler and to spend a few seconds on measuring the case properly - unless they are misrepresenting on purpose, in which case like others said - what else do they misrepresent? VW's dieselgate comes to mind - they also "slightly" misrepresented some measurements, and look where it got them

Not everyone may be old enough to remember when GM got slammed for putting Chevrolet engines in Oldsmobiles. Olds buyers weren't real thrilled to learn that.

[donq]

How does this have any effect on the function or value of the watch?

Misrepresentation of the quality of materials, or weight of PM cases I can see, but these measurements hardly equal VW misleading on emissions.

[T. Ferguson]

1mm is not much. Does anyone know definitively from where to where Rolex takes the measurement?

[vladi123456]

How does this have any effect on the function or value of the watch?

Misrepresentation of the quality of materials, or weight of PM cases I can see, but these measurements hardly equal VW misleading on emissions.

In my opinion it doesn't matter whether they misrepresent the measurements or weight of PM. It still amounts to false advertisement. On Rolex website it says "DIAMETER 40 mm" when you look up Daytona - so in theory when you measure 9 to 3 - it should be 40mm.

Personally, it just irks me as I work for a bank, and any misrepresentation of anything results in huge trouble for everyone involved.. Strange to see this from Rolex

[justdate]

Has anyone spoken to rolex about this?

There is arguably some loss of materials, not sure what it would equate to, but on a PM watch may be a little gold missing of value, as your 41mm of gold becomes 40mm or whatever! What about someone who orders a Daytona wanting a 40mm size watch and then it comes too small and they don't like it - but have to face the loss of return / dealer spread etc to return it or sell it on afterwards?

Not sure there is really a claim against them, but I would really like to understand how / why that is happening. I feel like there must be some reason.

[padi56]

I had no idea Rolex was mislabeling case sizes. Why would they do this?
:thinking:

Well after reading the thousands of posts on forum I thought that bigger and heavier was always better,but looks now some are moaning about 1mm difference.

[DJRikki]

Are folks really saying a 1mm difference on the wrist makes all the difference?

[Eva123]

In my opinion it doesn't matter whether they misrepresent the measurements or weight of PM. It still amounts to false advertisement. On Rolex website it says "DIAMETER 40 mm" when you look up Daytona - so in theory when you measure 9 to 3 - it should be 40mm.

Personally, it just irks me as I work for a bank, and any misrepresentation of anything results in huge trouble for everyone involved.. Strange to see this from Rolex

Banks activities are supervised. Accordingly, if bank is involved in any illegal activity is get punished. VW in US was also punished as emission rates were forged by installing special equipment in cars. However, Rolex is private company, which operates in non-regulated industry. If it mislead customers by selling 14K gold watches but advertising as 18K gold watches that would be considered as really misleading and Rolex would be punished (at leas in my country) for false advertising. However, now we are taking about mismatch in measurement, which does not have any impact to watch quality, accuracy, etc.

Of course, in US (where legal practice is very well developed) someone might claim that ordered watch based on advertisement, however, actual watch is too small and not according to specs. However, I really doubt that it would be possible to win such case in court.

[AK797]

My Omega 42mm measured 41mm and I thought the extra 1mm was something to do with how it met the crown/guards. I thought this might apply on some other models such as the Daytona. I don't think there is any intentional misrepresentation, there are just different methods of measuring.

[KenR]

Are folks really saying a 1mm difference on the wrist makes all the difference?

It may matter to some but, putting that aside, the question being asked and few seem to be answering is:

Is Rolex guilty of misrepresenting case sizes?

There appears to be several instances supporting the case that they do. For example, if the Milgauss case and the DJ41 cases are both 40mm, shouldn't they both be listing as 40mm?

If Rolex is guilty of misrepresenting case sizes, is this acceptable? Some suggest that it doesn't matter what Rolex lists the case size at, it should boil down to whether or not you like it or how it feels in the wrist. What's wrong with accurately giving the case size and let the consumer boil it down to whether or not they like how it feels or looks on the wrist?

What other watch manufactures appear to mis-represent their case sizes? I can't find yet any other instances in my collection, across the entire spectrum of prices.

[DJRikki]

If they lie thats not on.

But 1mm wouldnt bother me and I am OCD to the max.

Suppose its like a TV is measured diagonally or hard drives that are 4TB are only formatting down to 3.7TB

[vladi123456]

If they lie thats not on.

But 1mm wouldnt bother me and I am OCD to the max.

Suppose its like a TV is measured diagonally or hard drives that are 4TB are only formatting down to 3.7TB

Also, me working 7 hours a day, but reporting on my time card 8 - wonder if my employer would be as understanding :agree:

But on a serious note, I found several old threads here on this topic - apparently this is a well known issue

[KenR]

This is interesting. I found a pic on the internet comparing the DJII and the DJ41 side-by-side. I've added yellow and blue lines to show the difference in the case sizes. The 2 yellow lines are the same size and the 2 blue lines are the same size. Assuming that the pic I found is legit, then this side-by-side highlights the significant difference in case sizes. Both are listed by Rolex as 41mm.

It would be interesting to include the Milgauss in the lineup, as it is listed by Rolex as 40mm.

[DJRikki]

This is interesting. I found a pic on the internet comparing the DJII and the DJ41 side-by-side. I've added yellow and blue lines to show the difference in the case sizes. The 2 yellow lines are the same size and the 2 blue lines are the same size. Assuming that the pic I found is legit, then this side-by-side highlights the significant difference in case sizes. Both are listed by Rolex as 41mm.

It would be interesting to include the Milgauss in the lineup, as it is listed by Rolex as 40mm.

Cant judge from photos as the angle of the lens to the subject might be off centre or tilted buddy.

[Abdullah71601]

Technically, the diameter impacts the case size, which could also impact the amount of material used and potentially the monetary value as well...especially on a case machined from a precious metal.

Not really. You aren't paying directly for the materials. The watch is priced far higher than the materials represent (even with PM).

This isn't something to obsess over. You don't by a watch by the pound (or the gram). You buy a watch because you love the way it looks and feels. Having already fallen in love with the watch, and having bought it already, I think stressing over a nominal dimension is completely senseless.:cheers:

[KenR]

Not really. You aren't paying directly for the materials. The watch is priced far higher than the materials represent (even with PM).

This isn't something to obsess over. You don't by a watch by the pound (or the gram). You buy a watch because you love the way it looks and feels. Having already fallen in love with the watch, and having bought it already, I think stressing over a nominal dimension is completely senseless.:cheers:

For me, it wouldn't be a matter of stressing over a nominal dimension, it's about the bigger picture of Rolex producing incorrect specifications, as this is sometimes the first screen for a lot of potential buyers. Also, if they misrepresent a case size, it begs the bigger question of what information from them can we trust?

I completely agree that a watch is rarely bought on specifications alone, but that doesn't mean that watch companies should resort to misrepresentation. Should we accept this from ANY watch company?

[R G]

I think that technical information on watches can often be slightly out, it's not exclusive to Rolex, either, as other manufaturers do this.

I think they see it as small detail when you're looking at inaccuracy of a single millimetre, and yes that could be deemed as ironic given that it is 'technical' information

I think that manufacturers see the purchasing process as; buyer goes in to shop, buyer tries on watch, buyer likes watch, buyer purchases watch. Not; buyer likes watch, buyer becomes engulfed in anguish of 1mm regardless of how watch looks, buyer walks out of shop.

Don't forget, most of the people who buy Rolexes are not enthusiasts and do not frequent TRF, and certainly don't get out callipers as part of some sort of QC control before or after purchasing.

[Abdullah71601]

For me, it wouldn't be a matter of stressing over a nominal dimension, it's about the bigger picture of Rolex producing incorrect specifications, as this is sometimes the first screen for a lot of potential buyers. Also, if they misrepresent a case size, it begs the bigger question of what information from them can we trust?

I completely agree that a watch is rarely bought on specifications alone, but that doesn't mean that watch companies should resort to misrepresentation. Should we accept this from ANY watch company?

You seem to be confusing advertising with specifications. Pull up an image from the service manual and show the actual specification and the method of measurement Rolex uses to validate the specs. Without the actual technical data all this discussion is just quibbling over marketing materials, not a real argument about not meeting design and manufacturing specifications.

There isn't any loss of value, as you are paying for an end item, not a tally list of parts. And, while there may be people inclined to look for the DJ41 based on the "41", they will end up buying what catches their eye in the showcase.

[GMT Aviator]

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment, essentially this is a kerfuffle about nothing.

[watchwatcher]

How exactly did your dad measure it and with what instrument?

There is an official method for obtaining this measurement...but as to the word "misrepresenting"...that's kind of harsh.

When I look at my DJ41 I don't sit and think, wow, is that a millimeter shy of it's advertised case size? I look and see sheer perfection. :clap:

Honestly, if owning one of the best watches on the planet doesn't bring you joy but instead brings the stress of worrying about minutia...what's the point? :thinking:

[Rolex511]

Has someone measured a DD 40?

[mikeyyn]

BMW 330d has a 2 litre diesel, 320d has a 2 litre, 318d has a 2 litre, 316d has a 2 litre.

Its just a name.

Same with Rolex, its just a name.

[Maxy]

I'm surprised to read many views in supporting Rolex in distorting facts about the case diameters of their watches. I can understand it helps Rolex to market and sell better if you call Daytona 40mm instead of 38.5mm. But that is clearly misrepresentation of facts whichever way you look at it. :cheers:

[KenR]

BMW 330d has a 2 litre diesel, 320d has a 2 litre, 318d has a 2 litre, 316d has a 2 litre.

Its just a name.

Same with Rolex, its just a name.

In my mind, the issue is not about the potentially misleading DateJust 41 name, it's about the specific and intentional (?) specification of a 41mm case size to a case that has been measured to be 40.0mm.

I don't think that this should be considered to be an acceptable business practice. Apparently, not everybody shares that sentiment.

[DocHorton]

I'm surprised to read many views in supporting Rolex in distorting facts about the case diameters of their watches. I can understand it helps Rolex to market and sell better if you call Daytona 40mm instead of 38.5mm. But that is clearly misrepresentation of facts whichever way you look at it. :cheers:

I've found that blind support is awash on this forum. Seems crazy that so many support and tolerate obvious errors in advertising specifications.

In my world 1mm makes a huge difference in success and failure and I wouldn't pretend to give any other representation except the truth.

Apparently many are ok that Rolex doesn't hold themselves to an honest standard.

For those saying it doesn't matter....then why don't they just say 40 instead of 41 or 38.6 instead of 40? It takes more effort to make a misrepresentation and calls into question their motive rather than just providing honest, truthful information. I think we all know why they do it......it's for marketing and sales.

[DocHorton]

BMW 330d has a 2 litre diesel, 320d has a 2 litre, 318d has a 2 litre, 316d has a 2 litre.

Its just a name.

Same with Rolex, its just a name.

It's not just a name. It's a technical specification and measurement. What if the 2.0 litre engine was actually a 1.5 litre engine? Would it matter then?

[GMT Aviator]

It's not just a name. It's a technical specification and measurement. What if the 2.0 litre engine was actually a 1.5 litre engine? Would it matter then?

I'll bet you'll find they're all probably 1,998cc or close to.

Also bet all the sales's literature for those vehicles states them as 2.0 litres.

[justdate]

I'll bet you'll find they're all probably 1,998cc or close to.

Also bet all the sales's literature for those vehicles states them as 2.0 litres.

Rounding up though that does make sense for simplicity when changing the unit. They don't put 2,000cc just 2.0. Also on technical spec sheets they always put the exact 1,998cc.

If the diameter is 40mm, it makes no sense to write 41mm.

I just would love to know the reason for it, not that I think it affects the watch or value, just want to understand the reason.

[rollee1]

Thanks for the post, I didn't know DJ41 is smaller than DJII, thought that both being 41mm.
I think the DJ41 looks better, and is it available in ss now?

[bmrisko]

How exactly did your dad measure it and with what instrument?

There is an official method for obtaining this measurement...but as to the word "misrepresenting"...that's kind of harsh.

When I look at my DJ41 I don't sit and think, wow, is that a millimeter shy of it's advertised case size? I look and see sheer perfection. :clap:

Honestly, if owning one of the best watches on the planet doesn't bring you joy but instead brings the stress of worrying about minutia...what's the point? :thinking:

He measured with a good set of calipers the case from 3 to 9 (without the crown) and from 2 to 4. This method produced the same dimensions (40mm) as the Milgauss case. Employing this method on the DJII produced 41mm.

By turning the watches over and measuring from the back side makes it easier to measure and also more apparent the difference in the DJII and DJ41 case sizes.

Seems to me whatever type of convention you want to use to measure the case size, the results are the same. The Milgauss and DJ41 are the same size, while the DJII is larger by at least 1mm. Why Rolex assigns the case size (41mm) to the DJ41 when the case is the same size as the Milguass (40mm) is a complete mystery and, quite frankly, is a misrepresentation.

[GMT Aviator]

Maybe the marketing guru's felt the re-proportioned design of the DJ41 was enough of a change from the DJ2 without having to fess up to shrinkage of the case as well?
Regardless, they're all beautiful watches and I would suggest that anyone who buys one doesn't do so armed with vernier calipers at the point of purchase.

[KenR]

I've found that blind support is awash on this forum. Seems crazy that so many support and tolerate obvious errors in advertising specifications.

In my world 1mm makes a huge difference in success and failure and I wouldn't pretend to give any other representation except the truth.

Apparently many are ok that Rolex doesn't hold themselves to an honest standard.

For those saying it doesn't matter....then why don't they just say 40 instead of 41 or 38.6 instead of 40? It takes more effort to make a misrepresentation and calls into question their motive rather than just providing honest, truthful information. I think we all know why they do it......it's for marketing and sales.

Has anyone gone to the Rolex site itself and seen how the DJ41 is described and compared it to how the Milgauss is described? Rolex is obviously making a point to emphasize the size of the case, whereas the Milgauss doesn't say anything about the case size until the bottom of the page in the specs. I'm including the comparison here. It is also useful to know that the DJ41 and the Milgauss both measure the same 40mm and "calls into question their motive rather than just providing honest, truthful information."

[BristolCavendish]

This thread (while entertaining and slightly informative) is about as OCD as it gets. :chuckle:

[KenR]

This thread (while entertaining and slightly informative) is about as OCD as it gets. :chuckle:

If it is OCD to want, let alone expect, others to be truthful in their dealings, then, yes, I guess maybe possibly some people are OCD. Not sure how one would classify those who do not want, let alone expect, others to be truthful when dealing with them. But it sure would be nice to run into one of those people when/if I ever sell one of my pre-owned watches. Would make for a painless sale, for sure.

[Abdullah71601]

If it is OCD to want, let alone expect, others to be truthful in their dealings, then, yes, I guess maybe possibly some people are OCD. Not sure how one would classify those who do not want, let alone expect, others to be truthful when dealing with them. But it sure would be nice to run into one of those people when/if I ever sell one of my pre-owned watches. Would make for a painless sale, for sure.

Ah... the Rolex conspiracy to rob you of a mm.

[R Douglas]

Well, judging from the many previous threads wishing for a 40mm Datejust, it appears that we have one, this is great news.

[donq]

I know in the motorcycle industry (where I work) it's common practice to round engine displacement up. It can be called a 900 when actual displacement is 880cc for example.
No one accuses the manufacturers of misrepresenting their products.

[Andad]

Ah... the Rolex conspiracy to rob you of a mm.

The Daytona has a central seconds hand.
Each second marker is graduated in 1/5th of a second.
But this seconds hand moves in 1/8th increments.
This seconds hand is only on its correct mark every 1/2 second.

But Rolex calls it THE ULTIMATE CHRONOGRAPH.:chuckle:

They should have stayed with 36000 Zenith movement???

[G.D.BeanCounter]

Well, no more guessing on whether there will be a DJ40... apparently, it already exist.

[Abdullah71601]

The Daytona has a central seconds hand.
Each second marker is graduated in 1/5th of a second.
But this seconds hand moves in 1/8th increments.
This seconds hand is only on its correct mark every 1/2 second.

But Rolex calls it THE ULTIMATE CHRONOGRAPH.:chuckle:

They should have stayed with 36000 Zenith movement???

Rolex is not only stealing a mm, they are terribly inaccurate as well. The HORROR. :chuckle:

[brkanand]

Thank you for this post. I hope this 'misrepresentation' is limited to the size of the case and nothing more.

[Dirt]

I know in the motorcycle industry (where I work) it's common practice to round engine displacement up. It can be called a 900 when actual displacement is 880cc for example.
No one accuses the manufacturers of misrepresenting their products.

Agreed.
It's like my latest automotive acquisition with a 6.2 liter engine that's really 6.160 liters.

Do I feel cheated?
Nope, because it goes like s**t off a shovel and I can get good economy relative to it's performance level if I choose to drive it accordingly.

To the OP I say, build a bridge.
Because the DJ 41 is a beautifully proportioned watch and very easy on the eye with a Jubilee bracelet.

Besides, we wouldn't be having this conversation if they'd called it a DJ III.

[padi56]

Just cannot believe all this fuss over 1mm just wish that was all I had to worry about same for the other so called alignment point thread.

[bmrisko]

Just cannot believe all this fuss over 1mm just wish that was all I had to worry about same for the other so called alignment point thread.

I don't think the issue is with the size, but instead the fact that Rolex mentions numerous times in marketing materials that the case is 41mm when it is clearly 40mm. Just odd, that's all...

[RHJ]

Rolex has on the banner "precision and accuracy". As said before a two liter motor has a 1998cc in the specs. And we aren't talking about naming, but about specs!
I don't care about the size of my watch on the wrist, but I do care about correct specs of each product I buy.
Talking about 2/86400 seconds a day while declaring wrong 1/41 mm ???? Here is missing something

[Abdullah71601]

Rolex has on the banner "precision and accuracy". As said before a two liter motor has a 1998cc in the specs. And we aren't talking about naming, but about specs!
I don't care about the size of my watch on the wrist, but I do care about correct specs of each product I buy.
Talking about 2/86400 seconds a day while declaring wrong 1/41 mm ???? Here is missing something

What specs? No one has posted the actual specs for the watch. It's all just advertising.

Search up the actual technical data and post it here. Otherwise, everyone is just blathering on about marketing mumbo jumbo. :cheers:

[KenR]

What specs? No one has posted the actual specs for the watch. It's all just advertising.

Search up the actual technical data and post it here. Otherwise, everyone is just blathering on about marketing mumbo jumbo. :cheers:

Just trying to understand where to draw the line. Is it OK to say whatever one wants for the sake of marketing or should there be some element of truth in that material? What if Rolex, in their marketing material, say that their 2-tone cases and bracelets are 22K gold and SS when, in reality, they're 18K gold and SS. Would this be acceptable for the sake of marketing?

[Abdullah71601]

Just trying to understand where to draw the line. Is it OK to say whatever one wants for the sake of marketing or should there be some element of truth in that material? What if Rolex, in their marketing material, say that their 2-tone cases and bracelets are 22K gold and SS when, in reality, they're 18K gold and SS. Would this be acceptable for the sake of marketing?


Same question was asked in post 14 and answered in post 24. Since this is just looping now, I'll take my leave of the conversation. :bye:

[padi56]

Just trying to understand where to draw the line. Is it OK to say whatever one wants for the sake of marketing or should there be some element of truth in that material? What if Rolex, in their marketing material, say that their 2-tone cases and bracelets are 22K gold and SS when, in reality, they're 18K gold and SS. Would this be acceptable for the sake of marketing?

Well in-fact Rolex does not state there watches are gold regarding the TT watches they state they are made from Rolesor. As in certain countries they cannot state its made from gold unless all the watch case and bracelet is made from solid gold no matter the grade of gold.And IMHO this whole thread is just spitting hairs for hairs sake, time to get back to the important facts about Rolex watches like say the history of the brand,which sadly is now lacking from the forum.

[THC]

No matter if this should be dismissed as much ado about nothing, or why Rolex, as a bellcow for precision on everything, is inaccurate here, this thread is very interesting.
OP.. well done, no matter what

[RHJ]

What specs? ..... It's all just advertising.

The specs are at the bottom of the model page, where I can find also the information about carats, COSC etc... This is not advertising, this is product descrption IMO

[KenR]

Same question was asked in post 14 and answered in post 24. Since this is just looping now, I'll take my leave of the conversation. :bye:

Sorry. My bad. Let me rephrase. Would it be OK for Rolex to list a (clearly) 40mm as 44mm in their marketing material making, in essence, that listed watch characteristic meaningless for most consumers? I'm not asking in a legal sense, I'm asking in a sense of providing informative, reasonable and not misleading information to the consumer.

[MonBK]

Sorry. My bad. Let me rephrase. Would it be OK for Rolex to list a (clearly) 40mm as 44mm in their marketing material making, in essence, that listed watch characteristic meaningless for most consumers? I'm not asking in a legal sense, I'm asking in a sense of providing informative, reasonable and not misleading information to the consumer.

When that happens you're allowed to complain.

[Tomas Eriksson]

40mm vs 41mm
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/EZZYJR/Es%20watches/e%20group%20shot/CIMG8322.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/EZZYJR/Es%20watches/e%20group%20shot/CIMG8330.jpg
Source: http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=188487

[KenR]

I don't think the issue is with the size, but instead the fact that Rolex mentions numerous times in marketing materials that the case is 41mm when it is clearly 40mm. Just odd, that's all...

This fact may or may not present a problem for someone upon resale, depending on how much of a stickler preowned buyers are to the watch description: Do you describe and adhere to the 41mm published case size, or do you list (in YOUR description) that the case size is 40mm? If I had one to sell, what would be the right thing to do? Looking for sincere, not flippant, thoughts, here (the right forum for that?, I dunno). Thanks.

[DocHorton]

What specs? No one has posted the actual specs for the watch. It's all just advertising.

Search up the actual technical data and post it here. Otherwise, everyone is just blathering on about marketing mumbo jumbo. :cheers:

See post #62. :cheers:

As far as comparing to engines....if the watch was 40.8 and Rolex called it 41 then I doubt anyone would have a problem, just like calling a 6.16 L engine a 6.2L. The issue becomes calling a 40 mm case a 41 or a 38.6 mm case a 40 mm. At that point it becomes a blatant misrepresentation.

[J!m]

This is something I've been meaning to ask my rep but keep forgetting to. I noticed in the Rolex catalogs when they list the diameter of the watch it does have the symbol Ø before it. Does that mean that they measure the case diameter at a 45 degree angle? The next time the Rolex rep comes in where I work I will ask.

That symbol is the engineering symbol for diameter. Some place it before the value and others (like me) place it after.

But I'll throw in that old subs usually aren't 40mm either. But the bezel is.

[bmrisko]

When that happens you're allowed to complain.

Then why not 40mm, advertised as 41mm? Where would one draw the line as the appropriate time to complain?

I can understand rounding in engine displacements and decimal places to the next whole number, but in none of my engineering and precision manufacturing experience (surgical instruments and spinal implants) is 1.00mm a rounding error. That is a 2.4% deviation.

[MonBK]

Then why not 40mm, advertised as 41mm? Where would one draw the line as the appropriate time to complain?

I can understand rounding in engine displacements and decimal places to the next whole number, but in none of my engineering and precision manufacturing experience (surgical instruments and spinal implants) is 1.00mm a rounding error. That is a 2.4% deviation.

Ok, then go ahead and complain. :cheers: :chuckle:

[MonBK]

.

[bmrisko]

No matter if this should be dismissed as much ado about nothing, or why Rolex, as a bellcow for precision on everything, is inaccurate here, this thread is very interesting.
OP.. well done, no matter what

Certainly...I did a lot of searching and hadn't seen this discussed before, so I figured I would open it for discussion, fully aware I'd be called OCD for worrying about 1mm. I've checked out my dad's DJ41 in question and it is a fantastic piece (as are all Rolexes I've put my hands on), but I too found this discrepancy to be worthy of an inquiry.

The crazy thought did cross my mind that my dad somehow get a rare DJ41 error that left the factory in a 40mm case... :chuckle:

[KenR]

Ok, then go ahead and complain. :cheers: :chuckle:

I think that maybe some of us are trying to do that here. It would be most wonderful indeed if Rolex themselves would care to comment and provide their POV here.

[MonBK]

I think that maybe some of us are trying to do that here. It would be most wonderful indeed if Rolex themselves would care to comment and provide their POV here.

Unfortunately Rolex is not a member here so you would have to take it further up the chain. :cheers:

[JacksonStone]

Besides, we wouldn't be having this conversation if they'd called it a DJ III.

I think you actually proved the OP's point here: we also wouldn't be having this conversation if they'd called it a DJ40.

[Lovewatches108]

I think it's highly unfair to dismiss the concerns here. It's definitely not right and just because the Watch may look better as a smaller size does not excuse the fact that this is wrong. I would raise a complaint with Rolex.

[AboutTime]

I don't care whether Rolex calls it the "DJ41" or the "DJ40" but I like it! Now let's see those SS and SS/WG versions. What, we have to wait until March?

[KenR]

I think you actually proved the OP's point here: we also wouldn't be having this conversation if they'd called it a DJ40.

Not entirely true. For me it wouldn't matter what they call it, so long as they correctly specify the case size.

[JacksonStone]

Not entirely true. For me it wouldn't matter what they call it, so long as they correctly specify the case size.

Fair enough. If they called it a DJIII, but still listed the case as 41mm when it was actually 40mm, some people would still have an issue with it. My real point was, no one would have any problem with Rolex getting the measurement right.

[Russell44]

It could simply be a matter of avoiding confusion with the DD40.
DD40 & DJ40 or DD40 & DJ41 ? :thinking:

[Bmorelli11]

I'm new around here, and certainly not an expert, but I think millimeters do matter. It's interesting that the new Explorer II at 42mm (vs the previous 40mm version) is now, to some, "too big," but a Date Just that measures one millimeter less is "just a millimeter." No judgment either way and I think it continues to reinforce how important trying a watch on in person is as opposed to buying sight unseen going on only the specifications.

[JacksonStone]

It could simply be a matter of avoiding confusion with the DD40.
DD40 & DJ40 or DD40 & DJ41 ? :thinking:

DD and DJ are our shorthand. Rolex calls them the Day-Date and Datejust. Those wouldn't be hard to tell apart.

[Louis (Toronto)]

So does the DJ 41 amd DD40 have the exact same case shape and size?

Any side by side comparisons ?

[Bigsykedaddy]

I don't care whether Rolex calls it the "DJ41" or the "DJ40" but I like it! Now let's see those SS and SS/WG versions. What, we have to wait until March?

Yeah I can't wait to see the SS / WG version of the DJ 41, really looking forward to it! (If it happens, which I assume it will eventually.)

[eonflux]

The DSSD bezel measures less than 44mm
When it was first released, was advertised by Rolex as 43mm
Guess they changed their mind later

Both of these are touted to be 44mm by their mfrs

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v481/flieger3706/Rolex/E975C474-A040-4978-8970-3340D061F8C9_zpsgslaroty.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/flieger3706/media/Rolex/E975C474-A040-4978-8970-3340D061F8C9_zpsgslaroty.jpg.html)

[Dr.Brian]

Rolex's answer to the big watch craze, just tell them it's bigger than it actually is and they'll be happy.
I think some people's wives learned that trick a long time ago.:chuckle:
:cheers:

[Lalfiste44]

My pictures:


http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/16/01/64/19/image16.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/view/16016419/87)
38,5 mm

http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/16/01/64/19/image17.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/view/16016419/88)
40 mm

http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/16/01/64/19/image18.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/view/16016419/89)
43 mm

[KenR]

Maybe the marketing guru's felt the re-proportioned design of the DJ41 was enough of a change from the DJ2 without having to fess up to shrinkage of the case as well?
Regardless, they're all beautiful watches and I would suggest that anyone who buys one doesn't do so armed with vernier calipers at the point of purchase.

Agree with you that they're all beautiful watches. However, if Rolex continues along the path of misrepresenting the case sizes in their specs to the point of being meaningless, then one would be wise to bring along those vernier calipers.

[landroverking]

The Daytona is listed at 40mm, but is apparently closer to 38.5mm - which is why I like it so much.

SS model and PM model are different I believe.

[Juantxo]

Sigh. Rolex is fine, none of the manufacturers represent the size of their watches exactly. Moreover, how and with what instrument are you measuring...? I'm still to see: XYZ case size 39.6896mm.

More importantly, Rolex has managed to keep the size of their watches within the realm of good taste and sense. Contrary to most other manufacturers building grossly oversized blocks of pretentiousness.

[Juantxo]

My pictures:


http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/16/01/64/19/image16.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/view/16016419/87)
38,5 mm

http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/16/01/64/19/image17.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/view/16016419/88)
40 mm

http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/16/01/64/19/image18.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/view/16016419/89)
43 mm

You are measuring bezels.

[liu_watch]

40mm vs 41mm means a lot to me when I make purchase decisions.

Depending on the watch, 1mm may sound minimal, but it makes a very noticeable difference visually and how it looks on wrist.

I'm glad to learn that the actual size is 40mm. Thanks OP for sharing with us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lalfiste44]

You are measuring bezels.

Have you seen the bezel smaller than the case? :thinking:

I did also measure the cases and same results. ;)

[KenR]

Rolex Milgauss (40mm) vs. Rolex Datejust 41 (41mm) vs. Jaeger LeCoultre Master Compressor Chronograph (41.5mm). All red lines are the same length. (Sorry not the best pics)

[AK797]

The DSSD bezel measures less than 44mm
When it was first released, was advertised by Rolex as 43mm
Guess they changed their mind later

Both of these are touted to be 44mm by their mfrs

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v481/flieger3706/Rolex/E975C474-A040-4978-8970-3340D061F8C9_zpsgslaroty.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/flieger3706/media/Rolex/E975C474-A040-4978-8970-3340D061F8C9_zpsgslaroty.jpg.html)

Great pic, just shows even if the diameter measures the same or very similar the case and lugs and dial have a huge amount to say in the real life size and feel.

[douglasf13]

Then why not 40mm, advertised as 41mm? Where would one draw the line as the appropriate time to complain?

I can understand rounding in engine displacements and decimal places to the next whole number, but in none of my engineering and precision manufacturing experience (surgical instruments and spinal implants) is 1.00mm a rounding error. That is a 2.4% deviation.

I find it hilarious that Omega actually listed my first gen Aqua Terra as 39.2mm, but I've never measured it. :chuckle:

[KenR]

I find it hilarious that Omega actually listed my first gen Aqua Terra as 39.2mm, but I've never measured it. :chuckle:

Come to think of it, Patek not too long ago listed their classic Calatrava at 34.45mm. Perhaps too exacting, but they must've felt some need and responsibility to impart some accuracy.

[KenR]

This is interesting. I found a pic on the internet comparing the DJII and the DJ41 side-by-side. I've added yellow and blue lines to show the difference in the case sizes. The 2 yellow lines are the same size and the 2 blue lines are the same size. Assuming that the pic I found is legit, then this side-by-side highlights the significant difference in case sizes. Both are listed by Rolex as 41mm.

It would be interesting to include the Milgauss in the lineup, as it is listed by Rolex as 40mm.

820823

For those of you who still care, the DJ41 bezel measures 39.3mm and the case, measured from 14' to 44' (i.e. as close to the crown as possible) is 39.6mm. So it is a mystery to me how the Rolex specification of 41mm came to be.

[brandrea]

Great pic, just shows even if the diameter measures the same or very similar the case and lugs and dial have a huge amount to say in the real life size and feel.

Exactly:cheers:

[10:10:31 28]

I don't think this would have been much of an issue if Rolex hadn't made the watch size part of the watch name.

[Bigsykedaddy]

I'm happy to find out the DJ 41 is indeed 40 mm. I really like the Day Date 40 so I can't wait to see the SS / WG models (hopefully)

[Blue_Lume]

This is a really weird post and I do not know what to believe because many people want to jump on the bandwagon without real information.

I have a Ceramic Sub, Ceramic Daytona, DJ41 and Explorer 2 42mm.
When I line them up, you most certainly can see the size difference.

Here's a thought - the Yachtmaster (original) looks like the dial is smaller - it's the way the bezel is set up - it just makes it look smaller.

Some people have tools to measure. Some people put red, yellow and blue lines.

I can't do any of that and can only see out of one eye - but this looks ok.

Who can measure a ceramic daytona? Who has the DJ41 to measure?

[Abdullah71601]

This is a really weird post and I do not know what to believe because many people want to jump on the bandwagon without real information.

I have a Ceramic Sub, Ceramic Daytona, DJ41 and Explorer 2 42mm.
When I line them up, you most certainly can see the size difference.

Here's a thought - the Yachtmaster (original) looks like the dial is smaller - it's the way the bezel is set up - it just makes it look smaller.

Some people have tools to measure. Some people put red, yellow and blue lines.

I can't do any of that and can only see out of one eye - but this looks ok.

Who can measure a ceramic daytona? Who has the DJ41 to measure?

Dial size isn't a good measure. If you take a look at this scale drawing, several watches wiith different case sizes have the same dial diameter (Exp1 at 39 mm and Exp2 at 42 mm, for example).

.

[padi56]

Myself buy the Rolex watch I want to own and wear and not by the size or weight, just wish they would bring back the real Rolex wearers of yesteryear.And not those of today obsessed with alignment points and fretting over 1mm case difference.

[MonBK]

Myself buy the Rolex watch I want to own and wear and not by the size or weight, just wish they would bring back the real Rolex wearers of yesteryear.And not those of today obsessed with alignment points and fretting over 1mm case difference.

Let's not forget winders. :chuckle:

[R G]

Myself buy the Rolex watch I want to own and wear and not by the size or weight, just wish they would bring back the real Rolex wearers of yesteryear.And not those of today obsessed with alignment points and fretting over 1mm case difference.

Think you'll find that the same Rolex wearers are out there.

You just have a 'segment' of TRF members who like to talk over and over abou case size.

[padi56]

Think you'll find that the same Rolex wearers are out there.

You just have a 'segment' of TRF members who like to talk over and over abou case size.

Not true in just 12 years since the forum was first started there has been a dramatic change in general with the questions on forum.Most now are alignment points, will this go up or down,plastic stickers,box sizes etc,and far less about the actual watches and history of the RWC..

[Mitch105]

Not true in just 12 years since the forum was first started there has been a dramatic change in general with the questions on forum.Most now are alignment points, will this go up or down,plastic stickers,box sizes etc,and far less about the actual watches and history of the RWC..

It's a forum. People are passionate and enjoy every aspect of their watch collection. We are also talking mostly Swiss or German watches. Very precise, throughly engineered with nothing by accident. It begs critical analysis when the bar is so high. It's awe inspiring how these watches are designed and made.

I defend and enjoy this thread and feel it's valid. It has no negative reflection on the person that engages. In fact, the opposite. I love some of those diagrams. It shows the enthusiasm and passion that watch making demands.

[mdgrwl]

I have a digital caliper and I am puzzled why Rolex calls the Daytona "40mm" when its not a touch bigger than 38.5mm. Probably because 40mm is a very appealing, happy medium size and some might be put off anything smaller.

[R G]

Not true in just 12 years since the forum was first started there has been a dramatic change in general with the questions on forum.Most now are alignment points, will this go up or down,plastic stickers,box sizes etc,and far less about the actual watches and history of the RWC..



Ok, that's a fair call I guess - you'll know your own forum members.

What I will say is my first paragraph still stands. The same Rolex owners are out there. TRF, as you know, represents a tiny, tiny, fraction of Rolex buyers - let's be real.

For the others, the millions who buy Rolexes, globally, who have no idea about TRF... somehow I don't think they have their callipers out and aren't wondering about what box size was supposed to come with their new Sub.

[KenR]

I went to an AD today who had a DJII and a DJ41 in the case and he was kind enough to take some measurements for me and let me take pictures in the process. The size of the DJII case, listed at 41mm by Rolex, appears to be reasonable. However, the DJ41 is 1mm+ smaller than the DJII. Why Rolex didn't specify the DJ41 case size as 40mm is therefore puzzling.

The OP asked, "Is Rolex guilty of misrepresenting their case sizes?", to which I would have to say that the DJ41 case size is either misrepresented, mis-specified, or they have some splainin' to do.

[saskmh]

Haha. I've tried to start something on this topic a couple of times with no bites...OP has five pages of responses!

I have noticed differences with a number of Rolex's listed sizes in older models as well. For example the 36mm explorer is actually around 35mm. These listed case size discrepancies carry into some Tudor models as well.

[bmrisko]

Myself buy the Rolex watch I want to own and wear and not by the size or weight, just wish they would bring back the real Rolex wearers of yesteryear.And not those of today obsessed with alignment points and fretting over 1mm case difference.

I would consider my father, the one who wanted me to question this, as an original Rolex wearer (of yesteryear). He undoubtedly has watches older that a lot of the members here and is the one who turned me onto mechanical watches. Please don't assume that everyone concerned about case size is part of the Nouveau Rolex movement.

Others seem to get why I posed the original question. As mentioned ad nauseum, yes the watch is great, regardless of size. But what are the motivations behind Rolex not calling a spade a spade? Apparently they felt the need to advertise the DJ41 as 41mm and include the 41 in the name, when the watch clearly struggles to even hit 40mm with the case size. As precise as Rolex claims to be, this is just interesting to me, nothing more...

[Blue_Lume]

i do not want to beat a dead horse but i do not know that rolex dj41 pictured and that probably is my own ignorance.

but i have the rose gold on jubilee and i have no flag to defend, no castle to claim - but i swear it's bigger than my sub and smaller than my exp2. can you measure the dj41 with fluted bezel?

i mean, why would they lie?

[GB-man]

Not true in just 12 years since the forum was first started there has been a dramatic change in general with the questions on forum.Most now are alignment points, will this go up or down,plastic stickers,box sizes etc,and far less about the actual watches and history of the RWC..



That means we need you posting more you old frog [emoji196] :lol: :cheers:

[GB-man]

Funny Rolex lies and makes them sound bigger than they are and AP lies and makes them sound smaller than they are :rofl:

With AP it's less a lie and more the RO case design.

[KenR]

i do not want to beat a dead horse but i do not know that rolex dj41 pictured and that probably is my own ignorance.

but i have the rose gold on jubilee and i have no flag to defend, no castle to claim - but i swear it's bigger than my sub and smaller than my exp2. can you measure the dj41 with fluted bezel?

i mean, why would they lie?

I should be able to get the same AD to do it with the same set of calipers, but it wouldn't be until next week. I'm guessing that it's the same size as the smooth bezel, but am keeping an open mind to another possibility.

[10:10:31 28]

Interesting. It's actually closer to 39mm than 40mm. I wonder if this means the Datejust 41 uses the same case as the Day-Date 40 then? Every watch website states that while Rolex made the Day-Date 40 smaller than the Day-Date II they specifically state that Rolex did not do the same with the Datejust 41 and Datejust II. It seems this was just an assumption based on the '41' in the name.

Some time ago I saw a Datejust II and Datejust 41 side by side at an AD and it really seemed like there was more going on with the Datejust 41 than a better proportioned bezel. I guess that explains it.

[wmoore]

By definition diameter is the measurement through the centre of a circle to the circumference , since the case is not circular in shape there is technically no " diameter" measurement.
And as others have said, what difference does it make either you like it on the wrist or not.
Cheers
Wayne

[KenR]

Interesting. It's actually closer to 39mm than 40mm. I wonder if this means the Datejust 41 uses the same case as the Day-Date 40 then? Every watch website states that while Rolex made the Day-Date 40 smaller than the Day-Date II they specifically state that Rolex did not do the same with the Datejust 41 and Datejust II. It seems this was just an assumption based on the '41' in the name.

Some time ago I saw a Datejust II and Datejust 41 side by side at an AD and it really seemed like there was more going on with the Datejust 41 than a better proportioned bezel. I guess that explains it.

Just out of curiosity, I had the AD measure the Day-Date 40 at the same time as he measured the Datejust 41. The Day-Date 40 case measured 38.7mm. I can't imagine that anyone should have a problem with Rolex representing the case size as 40mm because: (i) it's a beautiful watch, and (ii) it's PM.

[houls61]

My DJ II which is the reason I bought it. I love the size and shape of the case. 36mm does nothing for me.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170207/12723ab375467b346875fcbbafcbb642.jpg

[dba]

I'd love to get a statement from Rolex on this misrepresentation.

Like that would happen. :banghead:

[KenR]

My DJ II which is the reason I bought it. I love the size and shape of the case. 36mm does nothing for me.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170207/12723ab375467b346875fcbbafcbb642.jpg


Oh, how I pine for the long lost days of "yesteryear" when a spade was called a spade. Unless the International Bureau of Weights and Measures has redefined the millimeter, I prefer the olden days and ways.

[Louis (Toronto)]

It's mainly for marketing. Just like a BMW 3 Litre engine has actually less than 3 L of displacement. I agree they should have called it the Datejust 40 and not 41.

Curious why they chose to go with Day Date 40 and Datejust 41 even though it seems that they share the same case size ?

[Solo118]

If it fits, it sits on my wrist.

Ever try on an AP RO? 42mm my :bartmoon:

[KenR]

It's mainly for marketing. Just like a BMW 3 Litre engine has actually less than 3 L of displacement. I agree they should have called it the Datejust 40 and not 41.

Curious why they chose to go with Day Date 40 and Datejust 41 even though it seems that they share the same case size ?

There's a misconception that the Day Date 40 and Datejust 41 share the same case size. Such is not the case (no pun intended).

[faz]

Prior to reading this thread, I (as a newbie) would trust the technical details that appear in Rolex materials (website, booklets, etc.) and would trust that a company that prides itself in precision and accuracy, would report the proper size on its specifications sheets.

Does the 1mm difference make it or break it for me? No, it won't. The fact that Daytona is actually smaller than 40mm has worked for me, as I bought my wife one a few months ago and it looks gorgeous on her hand... one of the reasons being it wears 'smaller' than other 40mm watches (sub, gmt, etc.)

And this is a discussion group, this topic is a valid topic in my opinion, and if anything, at least gives me that little bit of extra knowledge about case sizes and marketing materials.

[dbluevette]

I guess Rolex's marketing worked on me because before this thread I would have just assumed that the DJ41 was indeed 41mm and the DD40 was actually 40mm. I would have never of thought about actually double checking the case size. Not that the size or the name of the watch is a deal breaker by any means. I just feel kind of turned off by the way Rolex handled this marketing scheme.

[U5512]

My AD told me he measured a DJ41 in his display case and found it to be 40 mm. I don't know what instrument he used in his measurement.

Eyeballing. :rofl:

[Pict]

I guess Rolex's marketing worked on me because before this thread I would have just assumed that the DJ41 was indeed 41mm and the DD40 was actually 40mm. I would have never of thought about actually double checking the case size. Not that the size or the name of the watch is a deal breaker by any means. I just feel kind of turned off by the way Rolex handled this marketing scheme.

Well when the Dj41 was introduced everyone was like, hey it looks smaller than the DJII due to the thinner bezel, thinner lugs etc but no, as it turns out it looks smaller because it is smaller :chuckle: I would have thought if Rolex said 41mm, then it would be 41mm too.

[Louis (Toronto)]

There's a misconception that the Day Date 40 and Datejust 41 share the same case size. Such is not the case (no pun intended).



Ok, so what's the difference in size and shape between the DD40 and DJ41?

Anyone have side by side pics ?

[Cerachrom12]

Case sizes should be exactly as advertised. I do not agree with the term " nominal". If Rolex advertises 40mm, it should be exactly that and not any more or less.

[rjstuf001]

In the grand scheme of things, we pretty much all agree that 1mm doesn't matter much when it comes to how the watch fits on one's wrist. You try it on, and if you like it then that's the end of the story. You don't like it, you move on and find something else.

However, it's still legitimate to ask why Rolex misrepresents the size of some of its watches. The SS Daytona is clearly 38.5mm. Why do they advertise it as 40mm? The DJ41 is barely 40mm, so why do they advertise it as 41mm? Again, legitimate questions.

My take: the Daytona would be dismissed as too small by a significantly large number of potential customers if it were advertised as 38mm, therefore hurting sales. So I guess they chose 40mm as a sweet spot that's regarded by most people as not too big, not too small. Regarding the DJ41, I think the people they targeted with the DJII in the first place was the "big blingy watch" crowd, so Rolex decided "let's just tell them the DJ41 is as big as the DJII but just slightly redesigned" so as not to hurt sales with that segment.

[KenR]

In the grand scheme of things, we pretty much all agree that 1mm doesn't matter much when it comes to how the watch fits on one's wrist. You try it on, and if you like it then that's the end of the story. You don't like it, you move on and find something else.

However, it's still legitimate to ask why Rolex misrepresents the size of some of its watches. The SS Daytona is clearly 38.5mm. Why do they advertise it as 40mm? The DJ41 is barely 40mm, so why do they advertise it as 41mm? Again, legitimate questions.

My take: the Daytona would be dismissed as too small by a significantly large number of potential customers if it were advertised as 38mm, therefore hurting sales. So I guess they chose 40mm as a sweet spot that's regarded by most people as not too big, not too small. Regarding the DJ41, I think the people they targeted with the DJII in the first place was the "big blingy watch" crowd, so Rolex decided "let's just tell them the DJ41 is as big as the DJII but just slightly redesigned" so as not to hurt sales with that segment.

I have a feeling that you're right with your take. On the flip side, there may be that segment who were turned away by the advertised 41mm size of the DJ41 (perhaps because they felt the DJII, which actually was 41mm, didn't quite work), thereby hurting their sales of the DJ41.

It still belies any logic why Rolex wouldn't just tell it like it is. I like the fact that Omega lists their large Planet Ocean as 45.5mm and it actually measures 45.5mm. That's good useful information for me. Wish other watch manufacturers felt the same. Apparently they like "Alternative Facts".

[JacksonStone]

It still belies any logic why Rolex wouldn't just tell it like it is. I like the fact that Omega lists their large Planet Ocean as 45.5mm and it actually measures 45.5mm. That's good useful information for me. Wish other watch manufacturers felt the same. Apparently they like "Alternative Facts".

When I measure my SubC using calipers, the bezel diameter is spot on at 40mm. The case is more challenging to get right, due to both the crown guards, and the fact it flares slightly from top to bottom. As best I can tell, though, it's at least 40mm in diameter (from 2 o'clock to 8 o'clock), or even slightly larger. Based on that, I'm satisfied that the Sub is listed more or less accurately at 40mm, or at least isn't misrepresented as being larger than it actually is. Prior to reading this thread, I would have assumed that was the case for all Rolex models, making Rolex like Omega in that regard - as well as Breitling, for that matter. I wonder why the Sub gets that treatment, but so many of the other models are off.

[Corsair66]

What difference does the actual measurement make? One either likes the appearance when the watch is tried on or not.

[Louis (Toronto)]

It appears as though the lug to lug length of the DJ41 is also less than the DJII by perhaps 1-2mm. This is significant. The DJII is slightly too big for my wrist so the DJ41 may be more acceptable. This can make a difference for people who want a DJ larger than the 36mm DJ but feel that the DJII is a tad too big.

Pic borrrowed from previous page.

[JacksonStone]

What difference does the actual measurement make? One either likes the appearance when the watch is tried on or not.

There are people who care about measurements, and people who don't. Rolex provides measurements for the people who care about them, not for the people who don't. As such, the measurements should be accurate. If that is not self-evident to you, consider yourself part of the group who doesn't care.

[KenR]

There are people who care about measurements, and people who don't. Rolex provides measurements for the people who care about them, not for the people who don't. As such, the measurements should be accurate. If that is not self-evident to you, consider yourself part of the group who doesn't care.

Very well said. And I would add that those who don't care shouldn't feel in any way threatened by those who do want to see case sizes accurately represented.

[wolffram]

All numbers matter, otherwise they wouldn't use them. 41mm means, (or should mean), 41mm. Isn't that the point of giving a number in the first place?

[JacksonStone]

All numbers matter, otherwise they wouldn't use them. 41mm means, (or should mean), 41mm. Isn't that the point of giving a number in the first place?

Exactly.

[DJTOSUB]

Does anyone have measurements for 5 digit Subs and Daytonas vs 6 digit ceramic versions?

[JacksonStone]

Does anyone have measurements for Sub 16610 and SubC 116610.

116610:

- Bezel diameter: 40mm

- Case diameter (2 o'clock to 8 o'clock): ≈ 41mm*

- Case height (caseback to top of crystal, excluding cyclops): 12.5mm

- Lug to lug (excluding endpieces): 48mm

- Endpiece to endpiece: 51mm

*This measurement is a bit tricky, due to the large crown guards, and the fact the case flares out at the bottom. But my measurements come out pretty consistently around 41mm, so that's what I'm going with.

Sorry, don't have the 16610.

[Melchizedek]

I have a friend who is a tool and die maker and he talk me go to use a micrometer. I get 40mm and 12.5mm for the 116610.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[padi56]

What difference does the actual measurement make? One either likes the appearance when the watch is tried on or not.

Exactly afraid some today like making mountains out of mole-hills, I sometimes wonder why these types buy Rolex watches, perhaps to give them something to moan about.

[Dirt]

Exactly afraid some today like making mountains out of mole-hills, I sometimes wonder why these types buy Rolex watches, perhaps to give them something to moan about.

It's the same mentality of some of the owners of German cars or motorcycles.
As an example, they think the TPM(where fitted) and parking sensors are absolutely accurate and definitive and can't comprehend the fact the technology is only intended as a reasonable guide with some limitations.
When they run into a sloping retaining wall that is terraced or has an irregular rock face, they complain bitterly they were somehow deceived about the quality of the vehicle, or believe the vehicle is faulty which has to be repaired under warranty instead of accepting a reasonable measure of responsibility due to operator error.

It's symptomatic of the level of consumer expectations in this modern age and an age of entitlement.

In some ways they also buy Rolex watches because they believe they are the very best watches.
They may be correct up to a point, but to the experienced watch collector Rolex watches can in some ways be as flawed or even more so than any other watch brand.

In summary, some people's expectations are sadly way over the top but the responsibility ultimately lies with the manufacturer of the item because of the embellished nature of the marketing.

[JacksonStone]

Exactly afraid some today like making mountains out of mole-hills, I sometimes wonder why these types buy Rolex watches, perhaps to give them something to moan about.

Do you think anybody would object to Rolex getting their measurements right?

[TG3N]

Very well said. And I would add that those who don't care shouldn't feel in any way threatened by those who do want to see case sizes accurately represented.

Well said.

Watch collectors are by nature obsessive over the smallest, inconsequential details – metres first & underline dials, degrees of fade/patina, font types, alloy performances, minute levels of movement finishing – so why should this aspect be any less interesting or valid?

Truth be told, I don’t really care about this size issue, but it is an interesting discussion, and I am certainly of the opinion that if you’re going to quote figures, why wouldn’t you do it correctly, otherwise what is the point?

However, as soon as someone on here deviates from the Rolex party guidelines, some start frothing at the mouth and overreact as if the poster were stamping on kittens.

Some people like the intricate mechanics of watches, some are fascinated by marvellous mechanical accuracy, some like them as jewellery, and some buy them to impress girls in a bar or those in the club-house.

Who cares? Someone else’s point of interest or view shouldn’t threaten yours, or your enjoyment of your Rolex. Live & let live. It’s perfectly possible to buy, own, wear & madly love your Rolex and yet not treat it as some sacrosanct icon immune from criticism. I love my wife, but it doesn’t mean she’s flawless.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

[Dirt]

I have a friend who is a tool and die maker and he talk me go to use a micrometer. I get 40mm and 12.5mm for the 116610.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Also a tool and die maker will tell you there will be a clearance between the punch size and die that's used the punch out the Mid-case from the bar stock.
At that point in the manufacturing process the Mid-case is in the rough with some serious finishing required to bring it up to standard.
The amount of material removed in the finishing processes could quite conceivably account for the discrepancies in advertised case sizes and the finished product.

It may well be the most accurate way for Rolex to advertise the watch size based upon the diameter of the die.

Anyway I think if it's such a big issue, then those most aggrieved by the discrepancy in the size of their watch compared with the advertised specs should sue Rolex.
A good old fashioned class action or something along the lines as has happened with VW in recent times should do the trick:chuckle:

[Dirt]

Do you think anybody would object to Rolex getting their measurements right?

That's a valid point.
But it's not like the sun won't come up tomorrow if they(Rolex) don't get it absolutely right.
After all, one should try the watch on just like one would do with any other piece of jewellery before buying it.
If it doesn't measure up on the wrist despite the expectations, then nobody is forcing one to buy it.
Try before you buy.

[KenR]

That's a valid point.
But it's not like the sun won't come up tomorrow if they(Rolex) don't get it absolutely right.
After all, one should try the watch on just like one would do with any other piece of jewellery before buying it.
If it doesn't measure up on the wrist despite the expectations, then nobody is forcing one to buy it.
Try before you buy.

Try before you buy and an accurately represented case size do not have to be mutually exclusive. They should be able to peacefully coexist.

[Ragna]

I find it interesting that someone would learn about this and say something that implies "you are whining"...

That looks like a person who works for Rolex.. and is trying to shut down the conversation.

Let the people speak their mind.

I myself think Rolex is getting better at the game.

You see, they can fix this just by changing the name.

Much cheaper than making longer hands for the explorer I.

[jmiicustomz]

If Rolex is guilty and should be made to change then so should every motorcycle and car company. Most 50 cc bikes are 48 or 49, the old ford 302 was closer to 4.9 than the 5.0 they badged it with, etc. It's not an in stone number but simply a reference. How many people really notice 1 mm or care anyway?

To know the future is to be trapped by it

[Devildog]

Well in-fact Rolex does not state there watches are gold regarding the TT watches they state they are made from Rolesor. As in certain countries they cannot state its made from gold unless all the watch case and bracelet is made from solid gold no matter the grade of gold.And IMHO this whole thread is just spitting hairs for hairs sake, time to get back to the important facts about Rolex watches like say the history of the brand,which sadly is now lacking from the forum.

Sorry to be pedantic but they do, in fact, state 18 ct gold.

MATERIAL
Yellow Rolesor - combination of 904L steel and 18 ct yellow gold


Rolesor (as I'm sure you know) is Rolex's term for the combination of steel and gold, not just the gold :cheers:

[Andad]

Sorry D, I'm with Pete on this one.

That does not state 18K gold on TT Rolex watches.

It says a combination of 904L stainless steel and 18K yellow gold where the gold plate is laminated to the stainless steel.

Do Rolex TT watch bracelets have a gold hallmark?

Didn't think so.......

[Devildog]

FYI - From the website :read:

While Rolex makes its best efforts to include accurate and up to date information on the Website, it makes no warranties or representations with respect to the content of the Website, which is provided "as is". To the fullest extent permitted by law, Rolex shall not be liable in any manner for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, loss of data, income or profit, punitive damages and/or claims of third parties resulting from the use of, access to, or inability to use the information and/or the products offered on the Website or any damages arising out of or in connection with the use of the Website. Furthermore, Rolex assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable for any damages to or viruses that may infect your computer equipment or other property on account of your access to, use of or browsing in the Website or your downloading of information from the Website.

[Devildog]

Sorry D, I'm with Pete on this one.

That does not state 18K gold on TT Rolex watches.

It says a combination of 904L stainless steel and 18K yellow gold where the gold plate is laminated to the stainless steel.

Do Rolex TT watch bracelets have a gold hallmark?

Didn't think so.......

I may be misinterpreting your post, but what part of "combination of 904L steel and 18 ct yellow gold" does not state 18ct gold on TT Rolex watches ? :thinking:

Nor incidentally, does it state "where the gold plate is laminated to the stainless steel"

The reason there is no hallmark is explained clearly on this very forum :cheers:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showpost.php?p=7231193&postcount=7

[Abdullah71601]

Also a tool and die maker will tell you there will be a clearance between the punch size and die that's used the punch out the Mid-case from the bar stock.
At that point in the manufacturing process the Mid-case is in the rough with some serious finishing required to bring it up to standard.
The amount of material removed in the finishing processes could quite conceivably account for the discrepancies in advertised case sizes and the finished product.

It may well be the most accurate way for Rolex to advertise the watch size based upon the diameter of the die.

Anyway I think if it's such a big issue, then those most aggrieved by the discrepancy in the size of their watch compared with the advertised specs should sue Rolex.
A good old fashioned class action or something along the lines as has happened with VW in recent times should do the trick:chuckle:

It's chronic disappointment disorder (CDD). The more something costs, the more important your perceptions of perfection become, and the more important that others share in your disappointment that your purchase doesn't meet your standards of perfection.

I doubt a law suit will accomplish anything. Rolex will say the values are marketing titles, not actual engineering specifications. And, as the watch is priced based on the luxury watch market, not size/weight of materials, the customer has not incurred any loss.

[KenR]

FYI - From the website :read:

While Rolex makes its best efforts to include accurate and up to date information on the Website, it makes no warranties or representations with respect to the content of the Website, which is provided "as is".

Well, there you have it. Rolex made their best efforts to list 39.5mm as 41mm. Somehow I missed the "best efforts" part and have been thinking all along that they somehow exerted less-than-best efforts in their case size representation. Silly me.

[THC]

So a few pages back, I saw a DD40 is more like a DD38.7 .. OCD maybe, but I am in the "you should get what you pay for" camp..

[KenR]

So a few pages back, I saw a DD40 is more like a DD38.7 .. OCD maybe, but I am in the "you should get what you pay for" camp..

Actually 38.8, as measured by an AD (see post #145). Darn it, I keep hearing Salt-n-Pepa in my brain ... Push it. Push it real good. :agree:

[THC]

Actually 38.8, as measured by an AD (see post #145). Darn it, I keep hearing Salt-n-Pepa in my brain ... Push it. Push it real good. :agree:

Yes, post 145 was what i was referring to... great post Ken :cheers:

[bmrisko]

I find it interesting that someone would learn about this and say something that implies "you are whining"...

That looks like a person who works for Rolex.. and is trying to shut down the conversation.


I agree, especially when it is stated over and over. Obviously the person thinks the size issue is irrelevant, so why not just excuse themselves from the thread? Other owners obviously have an interest in the discussion, so let them discuss without the belittling one-liners.

With that being said, I'm surprised this topic garnered so much attention. Lots of interesting information and pictures in here!

[eterna]

It appears as though the lug to lug length of the DJ41 is also less than the DJII by perhaps 1-2mm. This is significant. The DJII is slightly too big for my wrist so the DJ41 may be more acceptable. This can make a difference for people who want a DJ larger than the 36mm DJ but feel that the DJII is a tad too big.

Pic borrrowed from previous page.

Visually the DJ41 does looks a tad smaller to me based on the pic.

[Pix]

This reminds me of all the posts regarding the 2.5x magnification issue, after Rolex put a smaller mag cyclops on. That little bit sure made a big deal!

[jd57]

As a big wristed guy the actual measurements are consistent with my observations - the daytona and the DD40 seemed to wear very small for me and now it turns out that is because they are small!

This is useful since I had thought that perhaps bezel and dial size or dial color were causing me to perceive the watch as smaller than billed, and thus I have tried on other versions but, unsurprisingly, didn't find them any better. I do love my DeepBlue even if it is not quite 44mm and perhaps I will look to a DD2 if I decide I need a dress rolex substantially bigger than my 36mm DD, since the DD40 is only a couple mm bigger.

[KenR]

Visually the DJ41 does looks a tad smaller to me based on the pic.

Not only does it look a tad smaller, it is considerably smaller which many, including myself, may argue is for the better. Why Rolex feels the necessity to compel us to believe that they are actually the same size (by listing both as 41mm) is, in my (and maybe only my?) mind conduct unbecoming of such a revered watch brand.

[DJTOSUB]

Never try to change someone's opinion based on logic or reasoning.
:dummy:

People either believe OJ is guilty or innocent.

People either believe the Patriots intentionally deflated footballs or not.

People either believe Rolex should accurately state the correct watch sizes or not.

People either believe this forum needs a "like button" or not.

:rofl: