Rolex case diversity - what your take on this?

[Rolexsub16610]

Not long ago, if we go to a rolex AD for a men's oyster model, we only have TWO sizes to choose from, 36mm for the DJ/DD & EXP1 and 40mm for all other sport range.

Today, we have SIX to choose from:

36mm - DJ/DD
39mm - EXP1 (grown by 3mm)
40mm - Daytona, YM, Milgause
40mm - Subc & GMT2c (grown visually due to supercase)
41mm - DJ2/DD2 (grown by 5mm)
42mm - EXP2 (grown by 2mm)
44mm - DSSD & YM2 (grown by 4mm)

What do you make of this? Good marketing? Confusing segmentation? Please share your views!

[dddrees]

Variey, if they are able to sell to more people than it is called successfull.

[SaddleSC]

I think variety is a good thing. With more options, Rolex can appeal to more buyers and people will most likely end up with a watch that is a better fit for them.

[springbar]

It's great. I'd like it if every model had its own hands, crown, and slightly different cases, bracelets and clasps. For too long the range has suffered from the appearance of being different permutations of the same parts bin.

[689maple]

When I got my first "Date" in 82, I thought it was a pretty normal sized watch, having traded up from a cheap watch to my first rolex. When I got my GMT II C I thought it was way big for a day or two. I personally like the 40MM size because my eyes are almost 30 years older from that tiny seemingly now "Date". The more variety the wider the appeal. That new YM I have seen on here however is another story. If I had to wear it daily and exclusively, you couldn't give it to me. Others will love it, that is the ting about variety.

[bayerische]

Actually the DSSD is 43mm so one more option.

Diversity is good.

[pawnshopkiller]

The explorer II is 42mm?

[CashGap]

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

The explorer II is 42mm?

The Explorer II② or whatever nomenclature has been officially designated.

[usbzoso]

Rolex trying to cater to main stream? Bigger watches?

[dsio]

My problem:

Submariner should have been upped to 42mm like the Exp2. However, if it was upped to 42mm, its in the same territory as the DSSD, but with a thinner, more comfortable and sensible case, which would limit the appeal of the DSSD from "people that want a big watch" to "people that want a really thick watch for no particular reason".

I think my reasoning there is pretty sound that the DSSD has just stifled the Sub's opportunity to size-up, which is even funnier considering how many SD fans wish the DSSD would size down.

[Tools]

It's become marketing..

Rolex always rounded case sizes off for ease... The Daytona was/is 39mm; the Explorer 39.5; the Sub 39mm and the Sub Date 40mm and so on... They just called them all 40mm.. In years gone by, they might have called the new Explorer 39 a 40mm watch because it's "close enough"

With marketing, we have seen the DSSD go from 43mm up to 44mm since it's release without a single change in actual size...

Although the measurement of the new SubC/GMTIIc is 40mm across it's smallest diameter, the watchs, in every way, (except the dial) are larger than the 16610's and 16710's..

So, there has always been a variety to choose from..... Today they are just marketed differently...

[Dr. Robert]

Good for their biz.....they have watches sell to the people who want newer bigger more in-fashion watches, & they sell to the people who prefer the traditional watches.
Smart, they keep the "modernisti" & "retro-grouch-curmudgeons" happy.

[LWRN]

Originally Posted by Tools

It's become marketing..

Rolex always rounded case sizes off for ease... The Daytona was/is 39mm; the Explorer 39.5; the Sub 39mm and the Sub Date 40mm and so on... They just called them all 40mm.. In years gone by, they might have called the new Explorer 39 a 40mm watch because it's "close enough"

With marketing, we have seen the DSSD go from 43mm up to 44mm since it's release without a single change in actual size...

Although the measurement of the new SubC/GMTIIc is 40mm across it's smallest diameter, the watchs, in every way, (except the dial) are larger than the 16610's and 16710's..

So, there has always been a variety to choose from..... Today they are just marketed differently...

Definitely marketing. I thought the I was the only one who noticed Rolex published sizing of the DSSD change from 43mm to 44mm. I've noticed with other brands as well, that the published size does not match the actual watch measurements, and also depend on where the measurements are taken. I measured the SubC at the local AD, and the bezel diameter was a frogs hair shy of 40mm, while the case size, including crown guards was 42mm and change. I wonder what the actual bezel diameter of the new EXP II is, from the Basel wrist shots, it does not appear to be a true 42mm. After seeing so many post complaining about the published size increase of the new EXP II, instead of getting wrapped up in numbers, one should try on said piece to determine comfort.

[Rollie2011]

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

Good for their biz.....they have watches sell to the people who want newer bigger more in-fashion watches, & they sell to the people who prefer the traditional watches.
Smart, they keep the "modernisti" & "retro-grouch-curmudgeons" happy.

Why can't we be friends?

[horseco]

you forgot the DD masterpiece they are 39mm... I believe they came out in 1999