The new SD makes perfect sense...lets all be honest

[Smarties]

Originally Posted by kangajack

The number of people who prefer the Sea-Dweller sans cyclops is so minimal they discontinued the watch twice in the last decade.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Did you know five digit Sea Dweller was only ~500 (don't remember exactly) more expensive than a sub and was selling very well before they discontinued the model back in 2008 because they replaced it with DSSD (which is too big/thick for many people's liking). Not because 16600 had an unsatisfactory sales record.
116600 had a low sale volume because it look similar to a sub but msrp is 2k higher. In fact, a lot of people choose SD over a sub due to lack of cyclops.

[Bysn]

I for one am excited about this watch. For a big guy I feel weird even putting on 40mm watches, probably also because I've been wearing bigger ones for so long. But still, I always wished Rolex to make slightly bigger watches. They don't have to be huge like 48mm, but at least 42 and up would be great for me. I know some "purist" will try to burn me at the stakes for saying this but get over it. Not everyone has small wrists. I love the submariner, but this SD is right up my alley with it's 43mm.

Now see which bank to rob to fund one :)

Sent from my SM-N910U using Tapatalk

[JadeRaven]

Very excited for this! A little more money, but this, to me, is the ultimate Sub.

1) I told myself I'd wait for the Sub or the BLNR to get the new movement with improved power reserve. Thought I'd be waiting a lot longer.

2) I wouldn't buy a Rolex without the cyclops.

3) I love the Sub but IMO it's just a little too commonplace. Larger size of the SD really sets it apart but stays classy.

4) The red lettering is a nice touch, still subtle.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by JadeRaven

Very excited for this! A little more money, but this, to me, is the ultimate Sub.

1) I told myself I'd wait for the Sub or the BLNR to get the new movement with improved power reserve. Thought I'd be waiting a lot longer.

2) I wouldn't buy a Rolex without the cyclops.

3) I love the Sub but IMO it's just a little too commonplace. Larger size of the SD really sets it apart but stays classy.

4) The red lettering is a nice touch, still subtle.

Couldn't agree more. Ironically enough, while it's a plus that it has the 3235, I have no intention of taking this watch off for any reason (I wear my watches 24/7)...so I'll never come close to its reserve limits. Hell, it could have a 6 hr reserve and it would never stop on me. Man...I can't wait for this watch to hit the public.

[Maltie]

Cyclops, no thank you, very happy with my Sea-dweller 4000

[JadeRaven]

Originally Posted by moby33

Couldn't agree more. Ironically enough, while it's a plus that it has the 3235, I have no intention of taking this watch off for any reason (I wear my watches 24/7)...so I'll never come close to its reserve limits. Hell, it could have a 6 hr reserve and it would never stop on me. Man...I can't wait for this watch to hit the public.

There are times that I put down a watch on a Friday evening, and pick it up Monday morning, and it's dead.

But knowing me, I would hardly take it off too.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by JadeRaven

Very excited for this! A little more money, but this, to me, is the ultimate Sub.

1) I told myself I'd wait for the Sub or the BLNR to get the new movement with improved power reserve. Thought I'd be waiting a lot longer.

2) I wouldn't buy a Rolex without the cyclops.

3) I love the Sub but IMO it's just a little too commonplace. Larger size of the SD really sets it apart but stays classy.

4) The red lettering is a nice touch, still subtle.

Agree with all. Combine this with the tapered lugs and wider bracelet and it's perfect!

[Double_A]

I own the 116600 and I love the new SD. The only reason why I might not end up ordering one is because I have small wrists and even the 42mm explorer II wears big on me. but then again with the new improved dimensions and the proportionate bracelet I will have to try one on to decide.

If my wrists were a bit bigger I would be all over this one! However, for now, I'm glad I have the 116600 which, to me, is the last SD that people cursed with small wrists can pull off

[moby33]

Originally Posted by samson66

Agree with all. Combine this with the tapered lugs and wider bracelet and it's perfect!

I assume the clasp hasn't increased in width, can anyone confirm? Highly doubt they would develop a completely new (and unique only for SD43) clasp, but you never know w/ Rolex. The reason I ask is I remember reading (I believe w/ official Rolex info) they stated it has a "new wider bracelet & clasp".

I hope it tapers to the same clasp as the SubC as I love that width at the clasp. I'm a huge Omega fan, but over the years I've grown to not like the fact that most Omega bracelets have zero taper and their clasps are essentially as wide as at the lugs. That features makes for a cumbersome band that adds unnecessary weight to the watch. Ironically enough when I bought my first Rolex in 2007 (one of those damn SD with no cyclops ) I thought the bracelet was too small because of the taper and "thin" width of the clasp. Years later I've grown to love it and now annoyed with how fat the bracelet/clasps are on my SMP & POC.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by moby33

I assume the clasp hasn't increased in width, can anyone confirm? Highly doubt they would develop a completely new (and unique only for SD43) clasp, but you never know w/ Rolex. The reason I ask is I remember reading (I believe w/ official Rolex info) they stated it has a "new wider bracelet & clasp".

I hope it tapers to the same clasp as the SubC as I love that width at the clasp. I'm a huge Omega fan, but over the years I've grown to not like the fact that most Omega bracelets have zero taper and their clasps are essentially as wide as at the lugs. That features makes for a cumbersome band that adds unnecessary weight to the watch. Ironically enough when I bought my first Rolex in 2007 (one of those damn SD with no cyclops ) I thought the bracelet was too small because of the taper and "thin" width of the clasp. Years later I've grown to love it and now annoyed with how fat the bracelet/clasps are on my SMP & POC.

You forgot to mention the cumbersome Butterfly clasp design on the Omegas.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by Dirt

You forgot to mention the cumbersome Butterfly clasp design on the Omegas.

I've only dealt w/ the divers...but yeah, those butterfly's don't look like a walk in the park.

[Seaotter]

The Omega manual HEV ?
For the manual operators, the watch will feature a separate screw-down crown that you open as you ascend to let gasses escape.
If you forget: The watch crystal could pop out like a champagne cork from a bottle.
bubbles, bubbles, bubbles.

[jrs146]

I very much agree. The old SD was too close to a sub for most non-WIS folks to justify the cost difference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VinnieVegas]

I don't care for the submariner date and always wanted (but don't own) a sea dweller.

While I was cold on the new sea dweller last week, I'm finding the new design does fit that opening in my collection. So I'm warming up to it.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

[kangajack]

Originally Posted by Smarties

In fact, a lot of people choose SD over a sub due to lack of cyclops.

If by "a lot of people", you mean the small fraction of people posting anonymously on an Internet forum, you are correct. But in the real world, consumers weren't actually purchasing. When people don't actually buy a product, manufacturers need to redefine the product to attract customers. I don't think Rolex is particularly concerned with the make believe world of "purists" who want to live in the dream world of the "5 digit or it's crap" crowd.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Smarties]

Originally Posted by kangajack

If by "a lot of people", you mean the small fraction of people posting anonymously on an Internet forum, you are correct. But in the real world, consumers weren't actually purchasing. When people don't actually buy a product, manufacturers need to redefine the product to attract customers. I don't think Rolex is particularly concerned with the make believe world of "purists" who want to live in the dream world of the "5 digit or it's crap" crowd.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So why do you think 16600 sold so well without a cyclops? And do you know what's the difference in price premium between 16600 and 116600 over a Sub? Don't jump to conclusion without knowing the reason behind. Go and ask an AD!

[moby33]

Originally Posted by kangajack

If by "a lot of people", you mean the small fraction of people posting anonymously on an Internet forum, you are correct. But in the real world, consumers weren't actually purchasing. When people don't actually buy a product, manufacturers need to redefine the product to attract customers. I don't think Rolex is particularly concerned with the make believe world of "purists" who want to live in the dream world of the "5 digit or it's crap" crowd.

[Onikage]

Proud member of the '5 digit or it's crap' crowd and I'd have to agree - A big, easily recognisable f-off Rolex with the date bubble thingy will sell very well.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by Smarties

So why do you think 16600 sold so well without a cyclops? And do you know what's the difference in price premium between 16600 and 116600 over a Sub? Don't jump to conclusion without knowing the reason behind. Go and ask an AD!

Asking 1 or 2 (or dozens for that matter) of ADs is hardly a big enough data pool to surmise any useful & accurate info. I don't need to dust off my college statistics books to make that statement. The point that overall sales data drives change (or status quo) is business 1-oh-1. You don't need to be a Rolex fan to understand the SD was updated/changed because it was NOT killing it in the sales dept. How some will sit on a forum and make that claim is a head scratcher to me.

Sure, sure...Rolex analyzed the sales data of the SD4K and raved about how the #'s were crushing it...which in-turn led to them saying, "Since its selling amazingly well, lets change some pretty major things on it just to hopefully slow down the momentum it currently has!" Get real!

[Singslinger]

I like the SD50. Purists may complain about the Cyclops but I like it. I'm even wondering whether it makes sense to flip my Deepsea for it...

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Singslinger

I like the SD50. Purists may complain about the Cyclops but I like it. I'm even wondering whether it makes sense to flip my Deepsea for it...

I'm sure that will be a consideration for some

For me, I'll be keeping my DBlue as the gradient dial, ultra cool 5mm thick crystal and the glidelock clasp make it a special piece to own.

Adding the Rsd will make a perfect 1-2 combo

[boogiebot]

not for me but i think that it will attract some new folks to the brand that like a sub but want something a little bigger

[Smarties]

Originally Posted by moby33

Asking 1 or 2 (or dozens for that matter) of ADs is hardly a big enough data pool to surmise any useful & accurate info. I don't need to dust off my college statistics books to make that statement. The point that overall sales data drives change (or status quo) is business 1-oh-1. You don't need to be a Rolex fan to understand the SD was updated/changed because it was NOT killing it in the sales dept. How some will sit on a forum and make that claim is a head scratcher to me.

Sure, sure...Rolex analyzed the sales data of the SD4K and raved about how the #'s were crushing it...which in-turn led to them saying, "Since its selling amazingly well, lets change some pretty major things on it just to hopefully slow down the momentum it currently has!" Get real!

By "asking an AD" is for the difference in price premium on previous generations of SD over Sub, which is factual information (and not some statistical data) you can ignore but cannot deny. Anyone taken an economic class even at high school level will know how the supply and demand curve work. Our question here (the question I was answering was) why SD4000 had a lackluster sales record.
And by listening to people, not only Rolex lover, but also people who had never owned a Rolex, you'll know they're price conscious (at least most of them are) and perceive SD and Sub are close substitute. To them, SD and Sub look very similar, interior (movement) is the same, but the price tag is ~USD2K higher.
And what do they think when they see the price difference between 16600 and 16610 was only ~USD500, with the very similar look and same movement? Less people were against it and with only 500 more you can get something look a bit different that was considered an upgrade from the base model.
Even a simple supply and demand curve can explain, without the need to do any calculation!