SD43 - Cyclops Added to Hide Mistake?

[GoingPlaces]

Why not just a larger date wheel? Same movement.

[samson66]

The only mistake was having an inset date window without a cyclops, like the previous generation Sea Dweller. I would be fine with no cyclops if Rolex would put the date window to the far right where it belongs.

[HNS]

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.

Good point
Very informative, the difference is actually negligible to be called a flaw. The SD 43 dial to my eyes is obviously not 3 mm bigger than the SD 4000. Much of the difference seems to go in the thicker bezel of the SD 43.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by HNS

Good point
Very informative, the difference is actually negligible to be called a flaw. The SD 43 dial to my eyes is obviously not 3 mm bigger than the SD 4000. Much of the difference seems to go in the thicker bezel of the SD 43.

I always heard the SD43 dial is roughly 1 mm larger in diameter than the SD4K and Sub dials.

[HNS]

Originally Posted by samson66

I always heard the SD43 dial is roughly 1 mm larger in diameter than the SD4K and Sub dials.

It seems about right.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by samson66

I always heard the SD43 dial is roughly 1 mm larger in diameter than the SD4K and Sub dials.

Originally Posted by HNS

It seems about right.

I measured mine with a ruler, it's somewhere between 27 and 28mm, just like the Sub / YM / DSSD. I couldn't see a significant difference between my SD43 and YM 116622 dials.

Calipers on a dismounted dial will be the only way to know for sure down to a tenth of mm or two.

For hose interested you can download the Rolex dial catalogue here.

IDGuy is suggesting that the cyclops on the SD43 is an afterthought but it's the other way around, Rolex dials with a date window are designed with a cyclops in mind from the start. This is the reason why the Sea-Dweller range without a cyclops have the date window looking oddly inset. Rolex were not going to make a different movement size just for the no-cyclops Sea-Dweller range. With the SD43, things go back to normal as they should be when the date window is meant to be seen though a cyclops.

The day they make a movement with a date disc meant to be seen without a cyclops, they'll put the date window further to the right. But I doubt this will ever happen as the cyclops is part of Rolex's DNA.

[911991]

As with any manufacturer cost savings parts sharing is always considered even for Rolex. They know their demographics for the SD and chances are 99% of SD buyers never dive that deep in the lifetime of owning the watch or even Sub owners. I'm sure if customers had complained they would have switched back to non cyclops.

[singe89]

Originally Posted by Mrngrz46

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

Ring Lock ring takes up the extra space so the dial doesn't look off. Plus it actually servers a technical purpose.

Rolex put a cyclops as well as a larger bezel onto the SD43 to try and take up that extra space and not make the proportions look off.

[gaeleus]

If such is case with a disproportion of movement/case for a 43 mm watch, how come the 44 mm DSSD does not have a cyclops?? Just pondering..

Thanks for sharing

[swish77]

SDs always had a date window that looked slightly "inset" and not flush/closer to the minute marks, going back to the DRSD. Nothing new here, and that video .... could the guy get to the darn point a little faster, please!? (Skip to the 4-minute mark, if you haven't clicked on it yet.)

I don't buy the theory at all. A cyclops is iconically Rolex. They simply updated the "anniversary" SD, like they've done with a lot of their watches. Bigger cases, thicker hands, updated movements, etc ... Just part of the evolution. Some love it, some don't, like everything else in the watch world.

[Greg 59]

Originally Posted by samson66

The only mistake was having an inset date window without a cyclops, like the previous generation Sea Dweller. I would be fine with no cyclops if Rolex would put the date window to the far right where it belongs.

They can't which is what IDGuy was eluding to.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[samson66]

Originally Posted by Greg 59

They can't which is what IDGuy was eluding to.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Not with the existing movement and date wheel. If using a cyclops, the position of the date window is perfect. If not, it isn't, just like the SD4K

[Nanasaka90]

Originally Posted by 1665fan

Sea dweller should never have a cyclops

Why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LigerBelair]

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.

I'm a fan of the cyclops myself and likely wouldn’t have bought my SD43 if it didn't come with one.

[Maxy]

Youtuber is talking BS.

SD4K has date issue and it was released as such. They could have done the same for SD43 but from marketing point of view - if they want more sales and that's what will get them sales - they will add cyclops.

Checkout SD4K pics. Same issues and always been there! Once they increased the size, the date place was messed up.

[Maxy]

IWC has date floating same place as SD4K. No one calls it a mistake!

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by swish77

SDs always had a date window that looked slightly "inset" and not flush/closer to the minute marks, going back to the DRSD. Nothing new here, and that video .... could the guy get to the darn point a little faster, please!? (Skip to the 4-minute mark, if you haven't clicked on it yet.)

I don't buy the theory at all. A cyclops is iconically Rolex. They simply updated the "anniversary" SD, like they've done with a lot of their watches. Bigger cases, thicker hands, updated movements, etc ... Just part of the evolution. Some love it, some don't, like everything else in the watch world.

Very well said ... and beautiful reference you have

[singe89]

Originally Posted by gaeleus

If such is case with a disproportion of movement/case for a 43 mm watch, how come the 44 mm DSSD does not have a cyclops?? Just pondering..

Thanks for sharing

Domed crystal and the Ring Lock takes up the extra space but at least has a technical purpose.

[DaveDhc]

Wow, that's amazing. Rolex screwed up with the SeaDweller in trying to make the crowds happy with a bigger watch. How dumb. It reminds me of the Explorer using 36mm hands on a 39mm watch.

Thanks for the video, I think it was informative.

[crazycarlitos]

didn't watch the video

Don’t care why Rolex did it
Just glad they did

Sure, I sometimes think what if the sd43 didn’t have the cyclops and look super-clean like the drsd.
But I rather have the iconic cyclops than the odd date placement (sd4k)

A home-run by Rolex
Love mine

[Nanasaka90]

Originally Posted by DaveDhc

Wow, that's amazing. Rolex screwed up with the SeaDweller in trying to make the crowds happy with a bigger watch. How dumb. It reminds me of the Explorer using 36mm hands on a 39mm watch.

Thanks for the video, I think it was informative.

I don’t think Rolex redesigning the SD to have better proportions and a more balanced feel on the wrist is comparable to them the using explorer 36 hands on the MK1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[samson66]

As an aside from all of this, I'm glad the cyclops is on there just so my damn 50 y/o+ eyes can read the date!

[mwc5k]

The Sea Dweller has the largest dial, and the most inset date window. I don’t know if that was a design consideration but I personally think the cyclops looks awesome on it. I assumed that was the reason when I first saw it. It would be silly for Rolex to make a larger movement just for a slight change in the date window on like 2 models.

[Kisara]

Originally Posted by samson66

As an aside from all of this, I'm glad the cyclops is on there just so my damn 50 y/o+ eyes can read the date!

Me too. I love it. The SD43 was a gift to myself for my 50th birthday; I finally have a watch with a date that I can easily read without reading glasses.

[franktehtank]

Isn't this the guy that talks endlessly on multi hour streams about watches, but doesn't actually own any of these pieces? Why do people hold his opinion so highly? Maybe I'm misinformed.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but just because he says his job is "industrial design" doesn't mean his opinion is gold.

[Macnavara]

I never liked how small the case back looks....

[Macnavara]

He sounds like a robot

[eonflux]

Originally Posted by Maxy

IWC has date floating same place as SD4K. No one calls it a mistake!

That date placement is even worse than on my DSSD!

That movement, or at least the calendar wheel, is too small for that dial.

The Timezoner Chronograph I had also suffered the same issue, but not quite as significantly.

[Wcdhtwn]

I don't understand all this hand wringing over the cyclops on the SD43. Maybe the mistake was NOT putting one on for 49 years! If the cyclops is so unpopular why does the Sub Date, Day Date, SkyD, DJ, Exp II, etc. have one? If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple. The watch is what it is, and IMO what it is, is outstanding.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by samson66

As an aside from all of this, I'm glad the cyclops is on there just so my damn 50 y/o+ eyes can read the date!

Excellent point, but it's all good with me and the DSSD since I got my new looking glasses which were long over due in retrospect