The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 28 March 2017, 02:39 AM   #1
Toomanyms
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 88
New Sea Dweller case thickness

Has anyone come across the case thickness of the new SD . For me that's will determine if I get one . My speed master professional is 42mm and 14 mm thick so I'm leaning towards yes
Toomanyms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 02:41 AM   #2
Etschell
"TRF" Member
 
Etschell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: FL
Watch: platinum sub
Posts: 15,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toomanyms View Post
Has anyone come across the case thickness of the new SD . For me that's will determine if I get one . My speed master professional is 42mm and 14 mm thick so I'm leaning towards yes
its gonna be more than 14 MM thick prob 15.5
__________________
If you wind it, they will run.

25 or 6 to 4.
Etschell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 03:04 AM   #3
Hwkaholic
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Hawkeye Country!!
Posts: 63
New Sea Dweller case thickness

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etschell View Post
its gonna be more than 14 MM thick prob 15.5


I took the stock photos from Rolex' website, scaled them to 43mm width and the thickness measures at 17mm at the top of the crystal and 18mm at top of cyclops.
Hwkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 03:23 AM   #4
rfiorito
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Real Name: Rob
Location: Chicagoland
Watch: D-Blue
Posts: 90
Same as DeepSea?
rfiorito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 03:32 AM   #5
Toomanyms
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 88
Case thickness

I did the same thing using calipers as scaled the photo to 43mm which gave me 22 mm lugs then 49mm-50mm lug to lug . But came up 15-.5-16 . So same thickness as deep sea makes no sense
Toomanyms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 03:57 AM   #6
Hwkaholic
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Hawkeye Country!!
Posts: 63
New Sea Dweller case thickness

Here are my measurements.
Width: 43
Height to Crystal top: 17
Height to Cyclops top: 18
Lug width: 22
Lug to Lug: 50-51




Here are pics to show to scale.
The last pic of the height looks like it isn't lined up right on the ruler, but I assure you that it is. It's just the angle of the pic.



Hwkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 03:59 AM   #7
AK797
2024 Pledge Member
 
AK797's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Real Name: Neil
Location: UK
Watch: ing ships roll in
Posts: 59,066
It looks quite thinner than the 18mm DSSD, I guess around 16mm.
AK797 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 04:22 AM   #8
waterman1
2024 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 779
I can't see them offering this at same thickness as DSSD. That has been the main complaint about that watch. DSSD has rating to 3900m and sd4k is 1220m at 40mm. My question is do you need to make the watch thicker for same depth rating as sd4k since the pressure will be spread out over a larger surface area. Just seems the smaller the diameter the less thick the watch would have to be to keep same depth rating. The other variable to consider is I believe it has been confirmed that the crystal on sd43 is thicker. All said I'm guessing thickness is 16.5 on sd43.
waterman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 04:38 AM   #9
Hwkaholic
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Hawkeye Country!!
Posts: 63
New Sea Dweller case thickness

I used the stock pics from Rolex. I just did the same with the DSSD and put the width at 44mm and the thickness measured right at 17.7mm. So, seemingly, using the stock pics from Rolex for the SD43, the thickness is right in my measurements.
Hwkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 04:50 AM   #10
MCOSUB
"TRF" Member
 
MCOSUB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: FLA
Watch: A Few
Posts: 535
That would be a huge blow to initial sales if those numbers are accurate
__________________
Rolex Sea Dweller 126600 MK1
Rolex GMT II 126710BLRO
Rolex Submariner 116610LV-C
Rolex Deep Blue Deep Sea Dweller 116660
Oris Great Barrier Reef #845/1000
MCOSUB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 04:50 AM   #11
waterman1
2024 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 779
Sure sounds like you have it correct at same thickness as DSSD. If this is true then I would not be interested and I think it will be a huge mistake, but just my opinion. It would be quite heavy too. Very similar to deep sea.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hwkaholic View Post
I used the stock pics from Rolex. I just did the same with the DSSD and put the width at 44mm and the thickness measured right at 17.7mm. So, seemingly, using the stock pics from Rolex for the SD43, the thickness is right in my measurements.
waterman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 05:02 AM   #12
Toomanyms
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 88
SD case thickness

I used calipers .my AD said it more likely the same as out going . I then used the Stock photos of the outgoing SD to test my theroy and got the correct measurements . I could be wrong but I used calipers . I guess I'm willing this SD to be not as thick as we feared . I like bigger watches I own a speed master and jaeger leCoultre Deep sea chronograph . I'm . Just praying it's not 17 or 18mm
Toomanyms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 05:02 AM   #13
MCOSUB
"TRF" Member
 
MCOSUB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: FLA
Watch: A Few
Posts: 535
Still not sure why one person at Basel didn't measure the thickness of the watch?????? Size is always important information that buyers want to know.
__________________
Rolex Sea Dweller 126600 MK1
Rolex GMT II 126710BLRO
Rolex Submariner 116610LV-C
Rolex Deep Blue Deep Sea Dweller 116660
Oris Great Barrier Reef #845/1000
MCOSUB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 05:05 AM   #14
Hwkaholic
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Hawkeye Country!!
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCOSUB View Post
Still not sure why one person at Basel didn't measure the thickness of the watch?????? Size is always important information that buyers want to know.


Could be that what was at Basel were prototypes and not yet production scaled?

Or maybe Rolex henchmen "eliminated" all people walking in with calipers.
Hwkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 05:09 AM   #15
GMT13
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: LA
Posts: 165
Supposedly same thickness as SD4K.
GMT13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 05:16 AM   #16
taylor
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: StL
Posts: 447
anyone have a source saying whether the caseback is titanium?
taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 05:21 AM   #17
oneev
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 14
The picture is slightly tilted, so one should not measure the curve at the bottom (it's part of the other side of the watch, the bottom is flat). Taking this into account, the thickness is 16.1 mm (without cyclop).
The SD4k measures 15.1 mm.
oneev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 05:27 AM   #18
SC11
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Sam
Location: UK
Watch: AP ☠️
Posts: 6,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by taylor View Post
anyone have a source saying whether the caseback is titanium?
I initially thought it had a Ti case back like the DSSD from pictures but I believe it to just been the lighting and recent pics show a normal SS caseback.
SC11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 05:35 AM   #19
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by taylor View Post
anyone have a source saying whether the caseback is titanium?
That is currently reserved for the flagship DSSD, along with the curved crystal and clasp.
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 05:45 AM   #20
Hwkaholic
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Hawkeye Country!!
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneev View Post
The picture is slightly tilted, so one should not measure the curve at the bottom (it's part of the other side of the watch, the bottom is flat). Taking this into account, the thickness is 16.1 mm (without cyclop).

The SD4k measures 15.1 mm.


Here is an adjusted side view. I would agree with that statement. And it measures them at 16.1 and 17.1.

Hwkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 05:52 AM   #21
lhawli
"TRF" Member
 
lhawli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 1,256
Common sense states that if you have a larger surface area you need to thicken up to withstand the same depth. So I wouldn't be surprised if the thickness is greater than the 40mm SD4K.

But hey I'm no expert.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
AP Royal Oak [15400ST.01]
Rolex DateJust 41 [126334]
Rolex Submariner Date [116610LV]
Rolex GMT Master II [116710BLNR]
Rolex Cosmograph Daytona [116500LN]
lhawli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 06:22 AM   #22
taylor
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: StL
Posts: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC11 View Post
I initially thought it had a Ti case back like the DSSD from pictures but I believe it to just been the lighting and recent pics show a normal SS caseback.
interesting--possibly as thick as dssd and more massive if lacking the Ti case back
taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 06:26 AM   #23
breitlings
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Bethesda
Watch: Apple TV
Posts: 5,744
everyone is assuming it is actually 43 mm, if it is a bit smaller like 42.x then the case thickness would be smaller too...
breitlings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 06:32 AM   #24
Toomanyms
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by breitlings View Post
everyone is assuming it is actually 43 mm, if it is a bit smaller like 42.x then the case thickness would be smaller too...
Agreed . Don't see the sense in making a dive watch same just 1 mm smaller
Toomanyms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 06:33 AM   #25
taylor
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: StL
Posts: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by breitlings View Post
everyone is assuming it is actually 43 mm, if it is a bit smaller like 42.x then the case thickness would be smaller too...
Hwkaholic used a known measurement (lug width is 22mm), so I'm inclined to believe his numbers. Of course, the case in the photo may not represent the final product that gets released.
taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 06:56 AM   #26
Toomanyms
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 88
My head hurts . I did the exact same thing but used calipers . And got measurements closer to the out going SD his lug to lug is slightly off by mine I got 49-50. but looking at his last post I think that he is spot on. I'm in . I personallly always thought 40 too small .
Toomanyms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 07:33 AM   #27
Psmith
"TRF" Member
 
Psmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Clive
Location: Exoplanet
Watch: spring-driven
Posts: 38,856
16 mm sounds about right to me.
Measuring to the top of the Cyclops is irrelevant imho - a bit like measuring diameter to include the crown, or crown guards.
__________________
Psmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 07:43 AM   #28
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toomanyms View Post
Agreed . Don't see the sense in making a dive watch same just 1 mm smaller
Yes, but the other side of the coin is that one would finally have a functional date display.

You can't have everything and sometimes it doesn't pay to ask for more does it.
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 07:49 AM   #29
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by taylor View Post
interesting--possibly as thick as dssd and more massive if lacking the Ti case back
As I predicted a couple of days ago.
The watch wont be much thinner than a DSSD and virtually not enough to tell between them on the wrist in all practicality.

The big down side will always be the protruding nature of the Case-back on the SD depending upon wrist shape.
That's why the DSSD sits flatter on the wrist due to the ingenious design of the Titanium Case-back. This inevitably improves the wear-ability of the DSSD
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 March 2017, 08:00 AM   #30
MCOSUB
"TRF" Member
 
MCOSUB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: FLA
Watch: A Few
Posts: 535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt View Post
As I predicted a couple of days ago.
The watch wont be much thinner than a DSSD and virtually not enough to tell between them on the wrist in all practicality.

The big down side will always be the protruding nature of the Case-back on the SD depending upon wrist shape.
That's why the DSSD sits flatter on the wrist due to the ingenious design of the Titanium Case-back. This inevitably improves the wear-ability of the DSSD
Agree. This is why I sold my SD for my current DSSD. Case depth doesn't bother me in the least as I don't wear dress shirts for work and my wrist is 8.25" but it seems to be a big deal to many on TRF.
__________________
Rolex Sea Dweller 126600 MK1
Rolex GMT II 126710BLRO
Rolex Submariner 116610LV-C
Rolex Deep Blue Deep Sea Dweller 116660
Oris Great Barrier Reef #845/1000
MCOSUB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

Bobs Watches

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

DavidSW Watches

Coronet


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.