SD43 - Cyclops Added to Hide Mistake?

[ferrissteve11]

I just came across this video and thought it brought up an interesting point of view regarding the cyclops and its inclusion in the design. Basically the video points out that the Cyclops was added because the movement didn't exactly fit the case, and the date inset was 'off' aesthetically. Seems like an interesting theory....not one I prescribe too, but thought I would share and see what fellow SD43 fans might say. Personally I don't mind the Cyclops as it does aid in seeing the date which my eyes do appreciate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv5sujw4OCg

[Leewae91]

still love every bit of the watch

[Soarer]

I thought there must be something for Rolex to put that ugly cyclops on SD.

[Radbloke]

I always thought this was an odd choice too. I'm on the list for one, first on the to-do list is cyclops delete.

[Centron]

It’s not really a mistake so your title is misleading. The new movement is smaller then the Large 43mm case, so what? I think Rolex did a decent job of adding the cyclops, to make it less obvious. And I like it cause I can see the date better.
Patek has many watches with small movement verse case size. So does almost every brand.

[1665fan]

Sea dweller should never have a cyclops

[Onikage]

Like they would make a different 3 hand date movement specifically for a 43mm watch with greater datewheel circumference. This is the guy who thinks a Seiko mechaquartz chrono movement in a $60 Daytona ripoff has a better designed layout than an actual Daytona. Notice he doesn't own any.

[Likestheshiny]

The movement didn't really fit the 40mm case either -- there's a pretty noticeable gap between the date and the edge of the dial. The difference is more noticeable at 43mm, but I don't know if it's so much more noticeable that it needed to be covered up at 43 but not at 40.

[fishingbear]

Originally Posted by Leewae91

still love every bit of the watch

Me too. Like I said right after it was released and have loved it ever since the moment I got mine, this watch checks and awful lot of boxes for me.

[ferrissteve11]

I'm not overly familiar with the producer of the video, so can't quite attest to any past transgressions or lack of knowledge he may/may not have. But that said the SD43 is my personal daily wearer, love it !!
I had always heard the tech didn't exist and that's why the SD never had a cyclops to start with.

[mmmmp]

Well, with plasma torches, laser micro cutting and repeatable computer plotting templates, I have to assume every single shape, seam and design feature has been: vetted, studied, debated and *tested*. Let's be honest, if ANYONE knows how to design a watch....it's Rolex.



Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

[Old Geezer]

I love my SD43 and it’s cyclops. The cyclops is one of the features that drew me to the watch in the first place. I was never interested in the seadweller without it.

[schoolboy]

I love my Datejust and it’s cyclops! As far as I’m concerned, it’s there so I can see the date when I get older haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[teatea]

Sorry,but I am not buying that story. I am a designer, and I own a SD43 since May 2017, and find the watch very well balanced and well designed throughout. In fact even when looking sideway under the cyclop, I do not find that the date sits off... To me the date window sits in a perfectly "aesthetically", pleasing spot... And frankly, with the money, time, research, Rolex invests, they would not just suddenly add a cyclop to hide a "last minute defect" or what ever you want to call that. Anyway, this is my view, but I find this hard to believe.

[Milsub114060]

Deepsea is bigger and same movement but not the issue he’s harping on about

[waterman1]

Ok so whenever the next Basel is 2021 - the new SD43 option with no cyclops. And no red lettering. Would you buy?

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by teatea

Sorry,but I am not buying that story. I am a designer, and I own a SD43 since May 2017, and find the watch very well balanced and well designed throughout. In fact even when looking sideway under the cyclop, I do not find that the date sits off... To me the date window sits in a perfectly "aesthetically", pleasing spot... And frankly, with the money, time, research, Rolex invests, they would not just suddenly add a cyclop to hide a "last minute defect" or what ever you want to call that. Anyway, this is my view, but I find this hard to believe.

I agree 100% with this.

It’s laughable to think Rolex design engineers gaffed and simply took the easy way out.

[v1triol]

This IDGuy youtuber is an excellent example of armchair expert, hardly he's filming any real watches, his videos are made of photos.
And after watching a few videos I would say he's overthinking things..

[Zakalwe]

I’m also in the “what a load of toss” camp.

Firstly, look at a 116600; it has the same inset date appearance despite having a smaller case. And the reason for that is because the size of the actual dial on the 126600 is almost identical to its predecessor. I don’t own an SD4000 but I’ve just taken a tape measure to my SD43 and crudely, the dial measures 30mm in diameter. By comparison my Sub appears to be somewhere between 29.5-30mm. The extra diameter of the SD43 is almost entirely made up of a wider bezel rather than the dial.

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by Milsub114060

Deepsea is bigger and same movement but not the issue he’s harping on about

And that’s why it’s a crap argument.

I’m partial to the theory that the SD43 was supposed to replace the Submariner and they got cold feet about killing off the 40mm Sub.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Originally Posted by v1triol

This IDGuy youtuber is an excellent example of armchair expert, hardly he's filming any real watches, his videos are made of photos.
And after watching a few videos I would say he's overthinking things..

Have to agree complete and utter boswellocks the 32 movement is exactly the same size as the 31 movement.

[eonflux]

The movement was designed to be used with a cyclops. Will eventually go into a Sub.

My DSSD and Sub both have 3135 movements.
The calendar wheels are the same.
My guess is that the 3235 date wheel is probably exactly the same as the 3135 since the DSSD switched to the newer movement and I haven't heard of any changes to the DSSD dial.

Which makes the date position and window size less than ideal on the DSSD—date for that watch should be closer to edge of dial with larger numbers, which would be possible with a larger diameter calendar wheel. But I guess it was too expensive to create a separate movement just for the DSSD.
Though my eyes need a cyclops with that date wheel, and I think using it on the SD43 was a good move, I don’t like the cyclops, and that’s one of the reasons I enjoy wearing my DSSD more than my Sub and GMT.

[Mrngrz46]

But why Deepsea that is even bigger do not has this problem?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by ferrissteve11

I just came across this video and thought it brought up an interesting point of view regarding the cyclops and its inclusion in the design. Basically the video points out that the Cyclops was added because the movement didn't exactly fit the case, and the date inset was 'off' aesthetically. Seems like an interesting theory....not one I prescribe too, but thought I would share and see what fellow SD43 fans might say. Personally I don't mind the Cyclops as it does aid in seeing the date which my eyes do appreciate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv5sujw4OCg

I agree with the theory, and i believe i have put my view to the forum in the distant past not long after the reference was released.
It's one of the detracting features of the watch as far as i am concerned

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I agree 100% with this.

It’s laughable to think Rolex design engineers gaffed and simply took the easy way out.

Why Can't the stylists muck it up a little, then smudge it with the addition of a Cyclops and make up a story about it not ever being technically possible before then miraculously they worked out how to do it
The DJ II, 6 digit Sub and the T-rex are prime examples.

Let's face it the SD43 was purely an exercise in style with the only limitation being the layout and scale of the movement which also had to be suitable for smaller watch cases

[joli160]

Wish my DSSD had a cyclops

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Why Can't the stylists muck it up a little, then smudge it with the addition of a Cyclops and make up a story about it not ever being technically possible before then miraculously they worked out how to do it
The DJ II, 6 digit Sub and the T-rex are prime examples.

Let's face it the SD43 was purely an exercise in style with the only limitation being the layout and scale of the movement which also had to be suitable for smaller watch cases

Seems entirely plausible to me

[Rori]

Cyclops is one of Rolex's trademarks or DNA languages same as let's say the fluted bezel which was done that way in the beginning to help screw down the bezel into the oyster case making it water proof "early Oyster cases models' the cyclops serves a purpose, it's not there for decor. it's still beyond me why it's accepted on all Rolex models including Subs but not the Sea dweller. Ah, some would say because it was not there, well, we all know why it was not there don't we? Simply because it was not doable. In 2017 it became technically possible to put it back, back to where it should have been long time ago.
The cyclops to my eyes is one of Rolex's most iconic design features. It looks like a scintillating drop of water on top of the crystal. beautiful.

[alphadweller]

IDGuy was critical of the SD43 when relased. He's just having another go at it.

I don't see much difference in the date window placement between the SD43 126600, DSSD 116660 and Sub 116610.

These pictures come from the Rolex dial catalogue.

[Rori]

There's a big difference between the Sd43 and the other 2 date windows shown in the pictures here.
first the window shape and size is different, secondly and most importantly, the gap between the date window cutout and the edge of the dial is larger on the SD43.
This is done to help centering the date wheel on the larger dial without the need to hide it with a cyclops as the video suggest.

Originally Posted by alphadweller

IDGuy was critical of the SD43 when relased. He's just having another go at it.

I don't see much difference in the date window placement between the SD43 126600, DSSD 116660 and Sub 116610.

These pictures come from the Rolex dial catalogue.