case thickness of the new 43mm SD

[Toomanyms]

Does anyone know how thick the new sea dweller is?

[lhawli]

Was thinking the same thing . I guess it's the same as the older SD but this time more proportional with the additional 3mm dia?

Waiting for someone to confirm this...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
----
Rolex Submariner Date (116610LN)
Omega Speedmaster Pro (311.30.42.30.01.006)

[Exploradori]

The FailDweller has a case thickness in between the older SD and the DSSD, I think. Waiting for exact measurements...

[mjclark32]

Oddly enough the thickness isn't posted yet...
https://www.rolex.com/watches/baselw...6600-0001.html
https://www.rolex.com/content/dam/ro...er_English.pdf

[lhawli]

For now this is what I found, putting the previous SD at 15.5mm (2.5mm more than the SubC) but NO update on the new 43mm SD!

http://www.horobox.com/en/review-det...lex-Divers&P=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
----
Rolex Submariner Date (116610LN)
Omega Speedmaster Pro (311.30.42.30.01.006)

[Toomanyms]

I like the the 43mm but pray its not thicker than the SD 4000 .which is 15mm or 15.5?

[Wcdhtwn]

I asked my AD yesterday and they didn't know.

[Nav01L]

Originally Posted by Toomanyms

Does anyone know how thick the new sea dweller is?

From the side view picture, I calculated 16.5mm w/o cyclops, case side is about 7mm. All based on the assumption that the bezel is indeed 43mm across.

Cheers

F

[SeaDweller50]

There's certainly no requirement for it to be thicker than the SD4K, so assuming it's same thickness.

[Smarties]

It would be better if 126600 is not thicker than 116600. Some people may find think watch not comfortable to wear on a daily basis.

[Ben.McDonald7]

The side profile does look rather thick so I wouldn't be surprised if its over 16mm. Looks like it will be pretty close to the dimensions of the Planet Ocean 8900 43.5.

[AK797]

Looks 2/3 mm thinner than the DSSD at 18mm, it looks pretty much par for the course for a 43 Diver in the vids.

[Toomanyms]

So 16-17mm

[Sublovin]

Originally Posted by Exploradori

The FailDweller ..

Nice try...doesn't work. Not funny

[Nav01L]

Originally Posted by Toomanyms

So 16-17mm

Yes, 16.5mm

[JoseD]

At 16.5 with a steel case back, this things over 200 grams...

[Toomanyms]

Is that confirmed ? Why the need to increase the size 1 mm over the out going

[JoseD]

Nothing confirmed yet

[dadonn2]

Any word on the bracelet?

PS- never mind. The bracelet is larger. Just saw it on a video posted.

[Toomanyms]

What's everyone's tipping point on thickness . I'm in if not to thick 15.5-16

[Boaters]

I hope it stays at 15.5 like the old one spreading that over 43mm would be perfect for me probably 30% heavier I guess we will see.

[Atleo]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

Nice try...doesn't work. Not funny

It was funny. Especially when you gave him the reaction he sought.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Manofsteelpt]

Oh I love this! This Will bring me back to Rolex.

[Dr.Brian]

It's definitely thicker than the old one by at least 1mm. You can look at the side shot on line and compare case side with the HRV. The case side is clearly taller. Unless they decreased the size of the HRV, which doesn't seem likely.
So if you were thinking the width will overcome the slightly top heavy nature of the old SD, it might actually be worse.
I can handle a big wide case, 45mm or maybe more, BUT I can't stand unnecessarily thick watches. The DSSD, many of the Tudors, etc.- unnecessary bulk.