SD43 Cyclops? Why the issue?

[Mystro]

No issue with me, I need it. I think with today’s ability to engineer it on the watch, it should be there. Had Rolex been able to have it in the beginning, they would have but were unable with the engineering ability in those days.

[dmash]

Originally Posted by Kel_Solaar

Yes, that bit of the history is true ye, but it doesn't make the dislike obvious. Lots of things on watches change over the years, why not this?

It is incredibly obvious, what are you talking about? It’s practically always been, when one wants a black SS Rolex diver, you’re either a Sub guy or a SD guy, for years and years. Now they’ve taken away, what most consider, the defining charcterisric that differentiates the two. This isn’t something minor to somebody who was a SD loyalist.

Now your option is essentially ‘do I want a 40mm or 43mm Sub?’

[HogwldFLTR]

The cyclops would be OK if it were on a 40mm watch. The 43mm watch with the cyclops makes it an oddball and make the watch unusable for me. The red print is nice but not that nice. As the 116600 is the last SD without the cyclops, the last at 40mm, and the only 40mm SD with a ceramic bezel, it becomes the best of the traditional Sea Dwellers imho. Besides at almost 66 y/o I find myself in a very small niche who don't need reading glasses to see the date. I can go for that!!! I guess one last thing to add is that Rolex doesn't seem worried in the least about the SD tradition, That market segment was too small so now they've really opened the sales up to the more prevalent Sub Date segment.

[FTX I]

I like the watch and dislike what they did at the same time.

[SteelSubmarinerGuy]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

The cyclops would be OK if it were on a 40mm watch. The 43mm watch with the cyclops makes it an oddball and make the watch unusable for me. The red print is nice but not that nice. As the 116600 is the last SD without the cyclops, the last at 40mm, and the only 40mm SD with a ceramic bezel, it becomes the best of the traditional Sea Dwellers imho. Besides at almost 66 y/o I find myself in a very small niche who don't need reading glasses to see the date. I can go for that!!! I guess one last thing to add is that Rolex doesn't seem worried in the least about the SD tradition, That market segment was too small so now they've really opened the sales up to the more prevalent Sub Date segment.

So 3mm’s makes the watch unusable? Or you just don’t like it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[101031-28]

Originally Posted by lovetherolex

“Recognizable” to who, everybody looking at it?

Is that why you buy a Rolex?

First time I ever saw it was in 1987, at a family dinner, my uncle was proudly wearing his first Rolex (a DJ 15000). I was 17 and had no idea was a Rolex was. But that cyclops caught my eye and it has since been one of my favorite features on the watch. So to answer your questions, it makes the watch recognizable to me and even though it is not the only reason I buy a Rolex, the cyclops is among the reasons I like the brand as much as I do

[American Jedi]

I find it innovative, and annoying at the same time. It is endearing that Rolex pushes the envelope In evolution of there products.
It is not as aesthetically pleasing, and can spike my OCD when grime gathers around the cyclops, but hey My eyes aren’t getting any younger, and the Innovations have really made this piece a fantastic watch.

In the long run this model will probably be a little more collectible for its many firsts, and caveats that were made for the sake of advancing it.

Pic!

[siempreko]

Because people do not like change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tmo8320]

I didn’t come with any preconceptions / historical context when I bought my watch and I am no longer what you’d call young. Love my 126600. The cyclops is very welcome and I have roughly an 8” wrist so there are absolutely no complaints for me about size. The red text was nifty, even before I knew what that represented. I like how the dial can change appearance...and have come to understand (if not appreciate) how the dial may age over the coming decades.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fabrice M]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

......But it wasn’t ..........and we had 47 years of Sea Dwellers with no cyclops - a look which gave the SD its distinctive personality and differentiated it from the Sub Date. Its a look that was greatly appreciated by SD devotees. It’s a shame Rolex broke with this look and fitted a cyclops. I personally dislike a cyclops on a dive watch.

I much prefer the discontinued 40 MM 4000 with its traditional no cyclops look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually the cyclops use to be an option on most Rolex models, which is why some early Submariners do not have a cyclops.

[samson66]

Personally I love the cyclops. It is very functional and it's a Rolex signature. I think it's one of those things that people get hung up on in photos, but after you wear it for a little while you really appreciate it and sort of forget the "historical significance" part.

I think it looks better to have one on there anyway. If you look at where the date window is located, it sort of unbalances the watch. It sits too far towards the center instead of being on the right edge where it belongs. It's almost like Rolex has been preparing to put a cyclops on there for 40+ years but just now got around to doing it.

Look at where the date window is on the SD4K:



Now looks where it SHOULD be located (in my opinion) when not utilizing the cyclops:



Looks a lot better and more balanced on the Tudor doesn't it?????

So, the cyclops on the SD43 actually balances out the watch in a way, correcting for the placement of the date window:

[05carbondrz]

Because no Cyclops was the SD’s calling card,Simple as that.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by siempreko

Because people do not like change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, we are talking about mechanical watches, which are anachronisms themselves.

[Kel_Solaar]

Originally Posted by dmash

It is incredibly obvious, what are you talking about? It’s practically always been, when one wants a black SS Rolex diver, you’re either a Sub guy or a SD guy, for years and years. Now they’ve taken away, what most consider, the defining charcterisric that differentiates the two. This isn’t something minor to somebody who was a SD loyalist.

Now your option is essentially ‘do I want a 40mm or 43mm Sub?’

Thankyou for elaborating on your original statement. You're making more sense now.

[dmash]

Originally Posted by Kel_Solaar

Thankyou for elaborating on your original statement. You're making more sense now.

See, to begin, we had fought, now, we rejoice


With all that being said, I don’t think the SD is a bad watch. However, I still think it was silly not to at least have an OPTION of a cyclops-less Sub. There’s some guys who don’t own many Rolex, who flat out will not purchase a watch with a cyclops. SD4k gave them an out, now they’re stuck with only a DeepSea, which let’s face it, is a overengineered tank that sucks as a daily.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by SteelSubmarinerGuy

I’m not sure if the case is thicker vs it just has a thicker case back.🤷🏼*♂️


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Both - case and case back are thicker

Personally I'm a fan of the cyclops. It makes the date more legible and helps fix the inset date window issue, that once seen on the 116600 cannot be unseen.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Both - case and case back are thicker

Personally I'm a fan of the cyclops. It makes the date more legible and helps fix the inset date window issue, that once seen on the 116600 cannot be unseen.

I believe we are of the same mindset DD

[037]

Originally Posted by dmash

Now your option is essentially ‘do I want a 40mm or 43mm Sub?’

Spot on. They should have simply made a larger Sub for those who wanted it rather than drastically changing the SD for the longtime SD fans. If anything, they could have engineered a stronger caseback and reduced the overall height since that's historically been the most popular complaint in how the 40mm SDs wore on the wrist.

[douglasf13]

I will say, if they shrunk the thing down to 40mm, it would be a fantastic modern SubDate. The proportions are well done and much better than the current Sub.

[American Jedi]

Originally Posted by samson66

Personally I love the cyclops. It is very functional and it's a Rolex signature. I think it's one of those things that people get hung up on in photos, but after you wear it for a little while you really appreciate it and sort of forget the "historical significance" part.

I think it looks better to have one on there anyway. If you look at where the date window is located, it sort of unbalances the watch. It sits too far towards the center instead of being on the right edge where it belongs. It's almost like Rolex has been preparing to put a cyclops on there for 40+ years but just now got around to doing it.

Look at where the date window is on the SD4K:



Now looks where it SHOULD be located (in my opinion) when not utilizing the cyclops:



Looks a lot better and more balanced on the Tudor doesn't it?????

So, the cyclops on the SD43 actually balances out the watch in a way, correcting for the placement of the date window:

Great illustration

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by samson66

Personally I love the cyclops. It is very functional and it's a Rolex signature. I think it's one of those things that people get hung up on in photos, but after you wear it for a little while you really appreciate it and sort of forget the "historical significance" part.

I think it looks better to have one on there anyway. If you look at where the date window is located, it sort of unbalances the watch. It sits too far towards the center instead of being on the right edge where it belongs. It's almost like Rolex has been preparing to put a cyclops on there for 40+ years but just now got around to doing it.

Look at where the date window is on the SD4K:



Now looks where it SHOULD be located (in my opinion) when not utilizing the cyclops:



Looks a lot better and more balanced on the Tudor doesn't it?????

So, the cyclops on the SD43 actually balances out the watch in a way, correcting for the placement of the date window:

Yeah, that’s why the snowflake looks better without the cyclops. When it has one, the cyclops is pushed too far to the edge of the crystal.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by dmash

It is incredibly obvious, what are you talking about? It’s practically always been, when one wants a black SS Rolex diver, you’re either a Sub guy or a SD guy, for years and years. Now they’ve taken away, what most consider, the defining charcterisric that differentiates the two. This isn’t something minor to somebody who was a SD loyalist.

Now your option is essentially ‘do I want a 40mm or 43mm Sub?’

Originally Posted by Kel_Solaar

Thankyou for elaborating on your original statement. You're making more sense now.

I disagree. Most SD guys (myself included) are not SD guys just because of the historical lack of cyclops. And if that is what a SD guy considers as the defining characteristic, then they are not, IMO, a true SD guy.

Wearing these watches day in day out, you come to appreciate and understand there is mush more to it than a cyclops on the crystal. 5 Digit SD's had better finished bracelets, smaller dials, more heft, visibly thicker crystals, for example. There is the all important intangible feel good factor too.

Nowadays the question is "do I want a 40mm or 43mm Sub with a fully graduated bezel, a wider better proportioned bracelet, much more elegant lugs, a significantly greater dept rating and the HEV. and of course that single red line of text"

Its not quite as simple as some would have you believe

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by SteelSubmarinerGuy

So 3mm’s makes the watch unusable? Or you just don’t like it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well you asked...

With a 6.5 inch wrist, yes it makes that big a difference. No way I'm paying that much for a watch that doesn't fit me correctly. I can live with it on a less expensive watch but not at the price that is being asked for on the SD43. I've had experience with the 114060 and could stand the feel on my wrist. This watch is both larger and thicker; no need for me to pursue it.

Here's a 41mm SMP Bond; looks dainty on my wrist doesn't it.

2531.80.00



How about the slightly larger Sky D? Here are two shots. It barely fits and some would say is too large.





For me the SD4K is just perfect. No need or desire for 3 extra mms or a cyclops and red print. As a matter of fact quite to the contrary.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by samson66

I believe we are of the same mindset DD

[dmash]

Originally Posted by Devildog

I disagree. Most SD guys (myself included) are not SD guys just because of the historical lack of cyclops. And if that is what a SD guy considers as the defining characteristic, then they are not, IMO, a true SD guy.

Wearing these watches day in day out, you come to appreciate and understand there is mush more to it than a cyclops on the crystal. 5 Digit SD's had better finished bracelets, smaller dials, more heft, visibly thicker crystals, for example. There is the all important intangible feel good factor too.

Nowadays the question is "do I want a 40mm or 43mm Sub with a fully graduated bezel, a wider better proportioned bracelet, much more elegant lugs, a significantly greater dept rating and the HEV. and of course that single red line of text"

Its not quite as simple as some would have you believe

Completely disagree with you, and I think your opinion is biased because you obviously own it. There are A LOT of SD guys who absolutely think the SD was destroyed with the SD43 and think you’re also wrong in saying they don’t consider the cyclops one of the defining characteristics. That’s one of the only watches with a date, Rolex produced, sans-cyclops. It was a diamond the rough, if you will.

Not a big deal, we can simply agree to disagree, but there’s plenty of proof on here and the opinions posted by other members, which agrees with my logic. Even your comment sort of solidified the Sea Dweller died. You examined the situation and still said ‘a 40mm or 43mm Sub’. There’s no true SD option anymore...how in the world does than not aggravate a true to the core ‘SD guy’?

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by dmash

Because it’s has historically never been there? Kind of obvious....

this.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by dmash

Completely disagree with you, and I think your opinion is biased because you obviously own it. There are A LOT of SD guys who absolutely think the SD was destroyed with the SD43 and think you’re also wrong in saying they don’t consider the cyclops one of the defining characteristics. That’s one of the only watches with a date, Rolex produced, sans-cyclops. It was a diamond the rough, if you will.

Not a big deal, we can simply agree to disagree, but there’s plenty of proof on here and the opinions posted by other members, which agrees with my logic. Even your comment sort of solidified the Sea Dweller died. You examined the situation and still said ‘a 40mm or 43mm Sub’. There’s no true SD option anymore...

No, my opinion is based on having owned both 5 and 6 digit subs and Sea Dwellers on and off for 18 years. And having spoken with fellow enthusiast over that period of time.

You originally stated that the cyclops was the defining characteristic. It is not, it is one of many.

TRF is not always representative of real life. People with a problem will always be more vocal than those without one. That's the nature of forums such as these.

My take on your comment was not to confirm that it is "just a big sub". It was to highlight the significant differences between the two, and demonstrate that to say it is, is somewhat ridiculous.

You often take comments on here too literally and hence out of context. My apologies if English is not your primary language

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Devildog

You originally stated that the cyclops was the defining characteristic. It is not, it is one of many...

This. The lack of cyclops is one of several defining characteristics. Even though the new watch looks great, the size of the SD43 annoys me more than the cyclops, although both are big changes.

[dmash]

Originally Posted by Devildog

No, my opinion is based on having owned both 5 and 6 digit subs and Sea Dwellers on and off for 18 years. And having spoken with fellow enthusiast over that period of time.

You stated that the cyclops was the defining characteristic. It is not, it is one of many.

TRF is not always representative of real life. People with a problem will always be more vocal than those without one. That's the nature of forums such as these.

My take on your comment was not to confirm that it is just a big sub. It was to highlight the significant differences between the two.

You often take comments on here too literally and hence out of context. My apologies if English is not your primary language

I don’t believe I take things too literal........I just interpret what is said at face value....that’s kind of the normality of when one reads a post, no?

I don’t personally know a bunch of SD owners, but it definitely seems the increase of size and addition of cyclops was a total no-go for a bunch of guys who were SD owners. It’s funny, it seems that instead of having SD lovers be enamored by the SD43......it really just attracted a lot of Sub guys who wanted a bigger Sub. I understand hat you love the watch, as you continuously voice on here, but just as you stated some other TRFers stating they dislike it isn’t representative of the entire situation.....you alone feeeling the way you do as an owner for 18 years also isn’t representative....

If Rolex is keeping the Sub at 40mm as it’s always been, idk why they made the SD larger. They don’t see the SD being as historically significant, thus not necessitating them to maintain its heritage???? I still think it was a silly move. Yes, the lineup needed this option, but not at the price of losing a ‘traditional’ Sea Dweller.

All my opinion. As I said prior we can simply agree to disagree, there’s nothing wrong with me having an opinion and you disagreeing.



*also, I should have phrased it, that the cyclops is ‘one’ of the major defining characteristics. Alongside of course, the HEV, crystal and different case/lugs.

[ccaballero]

I agree with Scott.

I think you have to keep in mind that the SD43 was designed as a specific commemorative anniversary watch. Rolex clearly gave a lot of thought to the SD43. Hence the perfect proportions and balance of the watch, with flawless integration between the case and bracelet. (Note that the width of the lugs on the SD43 are narrower than in the SD4K, which is much more consistent with the lug and case design of the 5 digits).

Then, add to that the features of the watch that look back to the original design intention of the single red sea dweller (cyclops, red text etc.)

The 43 mm aspect of the watch does not alter the aesthetic in any meaningful way.

I love the SD43 and look forward to its limited run in its current form ending as the reference will be a unique and highly regarded classic in the upcoming years.