Don't trust the 43 size of new Sea-Dweller!!

[Maxy]

Looks like Rolex has again done with the marketing of the watch by calling it 43mm and I believe this watch does not wear like 43mm at all. More like 41.5 to 42mm.

This is the screenshot of Ariel Adams from ABTW and he has wrist size of 6.70 and this one appears to wear even smaller than the Explorer II 216270(screenshot from his reviews). If it looks that good on that smaller wrist, it will look great with anyone over 7 inch wrist!!

This looks to be a huge seller if its really around 42mm and perfect setting between SubC and DS-Blue.



Note: Explorer II is sized to his wrist whereas SD43 is not. Still it gives an idea!

[omitohud]

U r right? It looks smaller. Could it be because the lugs might b shorter?


I blame it on the autoconnect.

[LightOnAHill]

does not appear to wear smaller than the explorer to me, the case is nearly as wide as the top of his wrist for the S-D, but I agree that it wears nicely even on a small wrist from these pics.

[Paul_I]

The new SD looks better to my eyes in this pic than it does to me in promotional materials. I don't have a strong opinion about the cyclops other than I'm not a huge fan of it in general. For example, I would probably prefer if my YMI did not have one, either, but that has nothing to do with 'heritage' or the need to pretend I'm a deep-sea diver circa 1960s. I do worry about that 43mm size. I think 40mm is perfect.

[rollee1]

You are not making the decision any easier

[j-watch]

I kind of suspected something along these lines, but we won't know for sure until someone takes a caliper to the piece. It might be the case itself is more like 41.5 or 42mm and the bezel width (which protrudes a bit as can be seen in some of the side shots posted by the reviewers at Basel) might be closer to 43mm.

As has been said, Rolex sometimes "rounds up" on the case diameters.

To be honest with you, I liked the watch the first time I viewed the pictures yesterday morning, but the more and more I see those video's, I'm really liking it. It will be added to my meager collection. I also am excited about the cyclops. I can't read the date on my 116600 without my "readers" now anyway. For me, its more about the function and my 8" wrists welcome the upgraded size.

I hate to say it, but I might end up flipping my 116600 for this new version.

Cheers,

Joe

[johneh]

The angles on the pictures aren't even close to the same, this comparison doesn't mean much.

[glg]

Probably has smaller dial than explorer that's why looks smaller .
Rolex makes tricks with the dimensions, sub wears bigger than 40mm, I believe that the new sd will wear just like the sub


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TygerJaxsin]

I think it's the smaller dial on the SD and bigger bezel that makes it seem that way. The EXPII does have a bigger dial but smaller bezel

[Friedl41]

They are using a 40mm dial. Like in the deep sea. Which has all the writing around the dial to fill the space ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[yjfang]

I really like the new SD, even though I already have the 16600. If it's not too thick, I am in.

What I like about it are the shape of the lugs (I hate the big blocky lugs on the current sports references), the wider watch case (which is more proportionate to its thickness), the single red line text, and wider bracelet. I am indifferent about the date magnifier but its definitely not a deal breaker.

[winston]

The date cyclops spoils the clean look to the traditional sea dweller dial... Lost the plot on this one.... It's also trying to be a deep sea with the size but it's not really a deep sea.....

[BadBoyR]

Originally Posted by Friedl41

They are using a 40mm dial. Like in the deep sea. Which has all the writing around the dial to fill the space ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The DSSD has a 42mm dial. I asked this before on the forum.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[osamu]

yea I saw another live wrist shot yesterday, and it seemed small, but I couldn't tell if the wearer just had huge wrists. Definitely something I would be interested in trying on for myself.

[Ragna]

Id like to see a side by side pic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[68L]

Does anyone have any thoughts on how difficult buying one will be?
I'm hoping we don't see another Daytona C repeat here.

[Friedl41]

Originally Posted by BadBoyR

The DSSD has a 42mm dial. I asked this before on the forum.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Same here ... that's what I heard on the forum and to me it looks like a 40mm dial. But I would not bet my life on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

As an owner of the Dblue, I can tell you that it doesn't look large at all (from plan view) on my 7" wrist. As for thickness its about as large a watch as I'd ever consider.

I think in the case of the new Rsd it will wear smaller as well. Just my 2

[subtona]

Agree it does appear smaller than 43mm

42 would be a much more interesting size.

[artschool]

what were they thinking with that cyclops?

madness.

[Quailhunter]

I'd love to see a SubC and this new watch side by side.

[TygerJaxsin]

Originally Posted by subtona

Agree it does appear smaller than 43mm

42 would be a much more interesting size.

It's probably a 42mm and some change. So to be correct they just labelled it a 43mm. It's probably like 42.3 or 42.6.

[Friedl41]

Originally Posted by subtona

Agree it does appear smaller than 43mm



42 would be a much more interesting size.

Long time no see :-) still on the Tudor run?

42 would be ok and make more sense. 43mm and 44mm almost no difference means the same clients.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by rollee1

You are not making the decision any easier

The only decision you need to make is how you will fund the inevitable purchase.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by johneh

The angles on the pictures aren't even close to the same, this comparison doesn't mean much.

Exactly right..

Besides, the hand covers much of the wrist on the Exp II shot, when taken into account is complete opposite from what the OP seems to be stating..

The SD looks like it covers a whole lot more wrist to me.

[R Douglas]

Any numbers on the thickness ?

[brandrea]

There's an interesting comparison photo of the new RSD and the original. Looks like they superimposed the new overtop of the old for a comparative.

https://www.rolexforums.com/images/s...ad_dot_new.gif

This may help to illustrate size compared to the original

[roadie1]

IMHO they butchered a classic! I don't mind the Cyclops on my sub but hate it on this SD. One of the appealing features of the classic SD was the under the radar stealth appeal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gregmoeck]

It's starting to grow on me a bit, but I still prefer the older dwellers. I think my 3 favorites are

39m explorer
Subc no date
16600 sea dweller

[AK797]

Originally Posted by johneh

The angles on the pictures aren't even close to the same, this comparison doesn't mean much.