[Devildog]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

VicLeChic says the Rolex master catalog lists the SD43 dial diameter as 29mm, and the Sub and DSSD dial diameters as 28mm. Given Rolex's liberty with measurements (we all know the DJ41 is really 40mm, for instance), I'll take that with a grain of salt. Even if Rolex's figures are correct, though, proportionally the SD43's case is 16% larger than the Sub's by top-surface area, whereas the SD43's dial is only 7% larger than the Sub's by the same standard. In other words, the SD43's dial is proportionally smaller relative to its case and bezel. I can already see Padi yelling about how hung up we are on picky details, but the numbers do confirm some subjective observations that the SD43's dial appears "small" compared to the case. At the very least, we can objectively say that the proportions of the SD43 are different from that of the Sub's.

Comparison with the Explorer II raises another question. When Rolex beefed up the Exp. II from 40mm to 42mm, they not only made the dial bigger, but they actually created a larger movement specifically for the watch, so the date window would not be too far inboard and throw off the dial layout. The SD43 uses the same size movement as what's in the current Sub (the 3235 is the same size as the 3135). If they made the SD43's dial too much bigger, without also enlarging the movement, the date window would be out of place and screw up the look. So the question is, why would Rolex develop a larger movement for the 42mm Exp. II, but not the 43mm SD43? Was that a conscious design choice, a functional consideration (due to WR requirements), or a cost-cutting measure?

In the 5 digit cases, the SD always had a smaller dial than the Sub did, so in a sense the current SD is no different in that respect.

And there's no doubt in my mind having owned both a ceramic sub date and the SD43 that the SD's dial is bigger than the sub's dial.