I dont get the Skydweller frenzy

[tomchicago]

Originally Posted by Manofsteelpt

"Comically large"??? Soooooooooo, your GMT thats 40mm (mind you, only 2mm smaller), is what, just "really large"? DJ41 must be really really large, and, SkD of course comically large. Got it!

You must have 5" girly wrists, in which case, I understand.

Yes I am a weak, girly man of low worth and caste. I hail thee, o mighty Man of Steel! Forgive my girliness! Please help me be strong like thee!

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Manofsteelpt]

Originally Posted by tomchicago

Yes I am a weak, girly man of low worth and caste. I hail thee, o mighty Man of Steel! Forgive my girliness! Please help me be strong like thee!

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Never said "weak", please read my post again.

You stated the 42mm SkD was "comically large", which is ridiculous and rude to say, unless you have 5" wrists... in which case, you have comically small wrists.

Next time, just say "it's too big for my taste" and move on.

I never understood why ppl feel the need to bash another model or brand. No one is going to like every watch out there, but, no reason to insult an owner of that piece/brand.
*OP, that was NOT directed at you.

[Hard_Six]

Fun read. I like the SD. Definitely see the appeal. I'd love to buy one but there are a few other models I think I'd like to acquire first (really want a DD40!).

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by superdog

3. You accuse someone of attacking you personally, and judge his character. Fwiw, I might have missed it, but I didn't see where anyone attached you personally.

Originally Posted by AK797

It is accurate though, you used the derogatory term "laughable" and then when it was used back at you, you didn't like it. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, Judge Rules, so no need to feel hard done by.

For clarity, "Your statement is laughable" is a comment on what was said and not the individual whom I'm beginning to think is quite sad. It has occurred to me that this thread has gone exactly as the OP wanted by making him the center of attention. At this moment a line from "War Games" comes to mind; I believe it goes "the only way to win is not to play."

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

For clarity, "Your statement is laughable" is a comment on what was said and not the individual whom I'm beginning to think is quite sad. It has occurred to me that this thread has gone exactly as the OP wanted by making him the center of attention. At this moment a line from "War Games" comes to mind; I believe it goes "the only way to win is not to play."

I personally think your new watch is a beauty! Enjoy it and don't let anyone steal your happiness.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

I personally think your new watch is a beauty! Enjoy it and don't let anyone steal your happiness.

Thanks, I love it and ill thought out negatives can't detract from that. Thanks!!! It's a great watch for any on the fence about it.

[emersm]

Originally Posted by keylargotime

It's a tranquil departure from mainland America- let's enjoy a cold one if you make it to KL

Boy, that sure sounds good!

[tomchicago]

Originally Posted by Manofsteelpt

Never said "weak", please read my post again.

You stated the 42mm SkD was "comically large", which is ridiculous and rude to say, unless you have 5" wrists... in which case, you have comically small wrists.

Next time, just say "it's too big for my taste" and move on.

I never understood why ppl feel the need to bash another model or brand. No one is going to like every watch out there, but, no reason to insult an owner of that piece/brand.
*OP, that was NOT directed at you.

O great, man of steel pt, my original pronouncement was thusly: "It's a comically large watch except for those with truly huge wrists."

Please excuse that my Ynglishe is not as learned as thou, for thou art of steel, but to my lowly learnedness, the exception for those, dare I say such as thou, bless-ed with wrists and stature truly large, seemed clear.

Please teach me, o great one of steel, how a lowly, feeble one such as I, could have written it better, so that I may, possibly, one day, attain the esteemed graces of a great one of steel such as thou!


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Manofsteelpt]

Originally Posted by tomchicago

O great, man of steel pt, my original pronouncement was thusly: "It's a comically large watch except for those with truly huge wrists."

Please excuse that my Ynglishe is not as learned as thou, for thou art of steel, but to my lowly learnedness, the exception for those, dare I say such as thou, bless-ed with wrists and stature truly large, seemed clear.

Please teach me, o great one of steel, how a lowly, feeble one such as I, could have written it better, so that I may, possibly, one day, attain the esteemed graces of a great one of steel such as thou!


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Presumably YOUR 40mm GMT is a good fit. So, I would LOVE to hear how a piece that's a mere 2mm larger would be considered "comically large"? What about the 44mm DSSD and YM2. What are those, super duper comically large?

And, I did teach you: Next time, just say "it's too big for my taste" and move on. Ppl that spent many thousands of dollars on a watch that they like, don't want to hear insults from the peanut gallery. Show some class, pal.

[tomchicago]

This watch is comically large except for those with truly large wrists.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[johnnyjazz]

Originally Posted by tomchicago

This watch is comically large except for those with truly large wrists.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

At first i thought it looked large, but i tried one on a strap and it feels very comfy.

071.jpg

[tomchicago]

Looks good on you.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[socalwatchcollector]

Originally Posted by Manofsteelpt

Presumably YOUR 40mm GMT is a good fit. So, I would LOVE to hear how a piece that's a mere 2mm larger would be considered "comically large"? What about the 44mm DSSD and YM2. What are those, super duper comically large?

And, I did teach you: Next time, just say "it's too big for my taste" and move on. Ppl that spent many thousands of dollars on a watch that they like, don't want to hear insults from the peanut gallery. Show some class, pal.

[JasonKrick]

Everyone's taste is going to be different.

I thought about a SkyDweller for a little. But it is a pretty thick watch even for me..and I wear a DeepSea on a daily basis.

I like the dual time zone feature the best. And the date, I get. But to have a month display and omit the day of the week. Well, that's a bit odd.

From a useful practical viewpoint. It's important for me to know the date. I also need to know the day of the week. But I rarely forget that. Month? I don't think I have ever forgotten the current month.

I know, it's a feature of the watch. Love it or leave it. But Rolex has always been about reliability as well as practicality. This one and the YM II are a little odd in my book for the utilitarianism that Rolex has been known for.

[DTNSS]

I appreciate the movement and complication, but don't like the bezel.

[ejvette]

I'm a huge fan of the new SkyD at MSRP not a 6K+ premium. As we have seen with the SD43 the grey market prices are finally coming down into the MSRP range as inventory shows up and the same thing will happen with the SkyD unless Rolex limits production like with the Daytona JMHO.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by tomchicago

Looks good on you.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I agree with this; it looks great. It fits perfectly!! FWIW, it's very comfortable on the bracelet.

Originally Posted by JasonKrick

I like the dual time zone feature the best. And the date, I get. But to have a month display and omit the day of the week. Well, that's a bit odd.

From a useful practical viewpoint. It's important for me to know the date. I also need to know the day of the week. But I rarely forget that. Month? I don't think I have ever forgotten the current month.

Another individual who hasn't apparently let the concept of an annual calendar sink in or perhaps feels an AC is superfluous. An annual calendar requires the date be set just once per year (in February). In order for the watch to be set the month needs to be known. The month display isn't to remind the user at a moment what month it is. It is for setting the watch. There are annuals out there that display the day. This one is a GMT as well. Look back through the thread and there are pictures of other ACs. Also this is a much more robust watch then other ACs that I've seen in true Rolex style. For me it's great that Rolex is able to provide watch with more advanced complications as opposed to their normal bread and butter offerings.

Originally Posted by DTNSS

I appreciate the movement and complication, but don't like the bezel.

It's a signature Rolex bezel; it is perhaps Rolex's most well known feature. It's the same as seen on DJs, many OPs, Dates, and DDs. I suspect you don't like their bezels either.

[vishal9999]

Hi,
Does any one here knows when the Sky dweller ss will be on sale in Singapore, India or dubai-- as i would be travelling to singapore & Dubai in september.
Also where is Rolex cheapest to buy between dubai /singapore/india.

[1st amg]

Lee, your watch is a beauty!! Post more pics!!

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Manofsteelpt

Presumably YOUR 40mm GMT is a good fit. So, I would LOVE to hear how a piece that's a mere 2mm larger would be considered "comically large"? What about the 44mm DSSD and YM2. What are those, super duper comically large?

And, I did teach you: Next time, just say "it's too big for my taste" and move on. Ppl that spent many thousands of dollars on a watch that they like, don't want to hear insults from the peanut gallery. Show some class, pal.

Amen. Large watch bashing is at an epidemic level and you don't see large watch fans bashing small watches to the same extent. You get the comment here and there but its no where near comparable.

Ive said it before, but people who insult large watches are no different than fat people who get mad at the skinny person who can eat 5 ice cream cones and not gain an ounce.

Saying its "comically large" is a way to mask their insecurity of fact they can't pull it off. Saying its "too big for my taste" is much better as it notes that it is too big for an individual but does NOT put down the watch in general to all those who own it.

Plus the sky dweller has been out for 5 years and isn't new, now its in SS, everyone finally noticed its 42mm?

Anyway, Im off to eat some ice cream now

[DTNSS]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

It's a signature Rolex bezel; it is perhaps Rolex's most well known feature. It's the same as seen on DJs, many OPs, Dates, and DDs. I suspect you don't like their bezels either.

Your right, it is. And I don't like those other models either. I don't see myself wearing any of those watches for another 20-30 years. Just a personal preference. Congrats to everyone who has them, but I'll stick with the GMT's, Sub's, Daytona's, and YM's for now. For dress(ier) watches, I prefer other brands.

[BristolCavendish]

Curious. While the Sky-Dweller 42mm case sizing might seem a bit large for some wearers, was this chosen dimension a prerequisite for accommodating its advanced movement? Or could the same have been accomplished in a smaller case sizing (i.e. 40mm)?

Cost factors aside, this sizing issue sometimes comes up when folks are opting between an Omega Speedmaster (43MM) and a Rolex Daytona (39mm).

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

Curious. While the Sky-Dweller 42mm case sizing might seem a bit large for some wearers, was this chosen dimension a prerequisite for accommodating its advanced movement? Or could the same have been accomplished in a smaller case sizing (i.e. 40mm)?

Cost factors aside, this sizing issue sometimes comes up when folks are opting between an Omega Speedmaster (43MM) and a Rolex Daytona (39mm).

The 6 digit Rolex cases are quite beefy, and could in theory be made slimmer and smaller with the same movement. But I think that Rolex wants to make watches with some presence.

Having taken apart watches from various brands I must say that the 6 digit Rolexes feal the most rugged, they are very well build.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

Curious. While the Sky-Dweller 42mm case sizing might seem a bit large for some wearers, was this chosen dimension a prerequisite for accommodating its advanced movement? Or could the same have been accomplished in a smaller case sizing (i.e. 40mm)?

Cost factors aside, this sizing issue sometimes comes up when folks are opting between an Omega Speedmaster (43MM) and a Rolex Daytona (39mm).

Originally Posted by SearChart

The 6 digit Rolex cases are quite beefy, and could in theory be made slimmer and smaller with the same movement. But I think that Rolex wants to make watches with some presence.

Having taken apart watches from various brands I must say that the 6 digit Rolexes feal the most rugged, they are very well build.

Strangely (or not) I just purchased a caliper specifically for the sake of measuring watch diameters. I did a comparison between my Sky D and my DJII. The DJII measured 41.2 mm (interpolating) and the Sky D measured right at 42mm. This is closer than I'd expect. It amounts to a 0.8mm difference. Pretty comical how small a difference in diameter between the two. The big difference between the two is the thickness. Given the exposed 24 hour ring I suspect the Sky Dweller is as thin as they can make it or else the hour ring would likely be covered with a window for the current hour (hours) the way the date is exposed on the Tudor GranTour.

[Old Expat Beast]

An annual calendar is a nice function/complication, but in reality doesn't it only save you having to flip date the forward four times a year? With a quickset watch, that's probably a total of, what, less than 30 seconds of effort?

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

An annual calendar is a nice function/complication, but in reality doesn't it only save you having to flip date the forward four times a year? With a quickset watch, that's probably a total of, what, less than 30 seconds of effort?

Maybe a bit more with GMT complication; I find my EXPII a bit of a pain to set especially if I've let it stop. My 16700 on the other hand sets in a jiffy. But yes; if you want to manually set the watch every few months then no need for an AC.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Maybe a bit more with GMT complication; I find my EXPII a bit of a pain to set especially if I've let it stop. My 16700 on the other hand sets in a jiffy. But yes; if you want to manually set the watch every few months then no need for an AC.

Definitely a luxury watch then.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Strangely (or not) I just purchased a caliper specifically for the sake of measuring watch diameters. I did a comparison between my Sky D and my DJII. The DJII measured 41.2 mm (interpolating) and the Sky D measured right at 42mm. This is closer than I'd expect. It amounts to a 0.8mm difference. Pretty comical how small a difference in diameter between the two. The big difference between the two is the thickness. Given the exposed 24 hour ring I suspect the Sky Dweller is as thin as they can make it or else the hour ring would likely be covered with a window for the current hour (hours) the way the date is exposed on the Tudor GranTour.

If they wanted it smaller they could make it smaller. But they didn't, beefy is just what Rolex is, and that is good

[broken_link]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

An annual calendar is a nice function/complication, but in reality doesn't it only save you having to flip date the forward four times a year? With a quickset watch, that's probably a total of, what, less than 30 seconds of effort?

The thing is one needs to know if you have to flip or not _every_ months. And if one needs to sign documents every day (I don't) this might be critical some day when he forgets. I know the knuckles mnemonics to find this out but would rather not care about it at all.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by broken_link

The thing is one needs to know if you have to flip or not _every_ months. And if one needs to sign documents every day (I don't) this might be critical some day when he forgets. I know the knuckles mnemonics to find this out but would rather not care about it at all.

If one needs to sign documents every day, one would surely know there is no such date as April 31, June 31, September 31 and November 31. I don't see the annual calendar as a useful tool, but it is an impressive complication, as I said before.