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

[Smarties]

Originally Posted by G'ed

Done with Rolex Basel brochure from 2014 and 2017.

Judging by your photo, 126600 looks more than 2mm larger than 116600.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy38

I don't get it.. most people are not going to dive deep enough to worry about the SD, and why would you pay more when you can get a SubC. I guess if it is really bigger, but the SubC bezel > SD bezel IMO... and its less $$$

What's not to get - it's pretty simple. First off, NOBODY is going to dive to even the Subs depth, so depth rating is moot. I've been diving for almost 30 years and never gone deeper than 180' (and my 100'+ dives are few & far between).

This isn't about depth rating (or really price). Sub, RSD, DSSD are ALL pretty crazy expensive when you think about it - they are "just" a SS watch.

This is ALL about wrist size & what people think looks good. At over 8.5" wrist, my SubC (and the 3 Subs before that + 1 SD) just look too small on my wrist. The 2 DSSD I've owned look better, but their thickness eventually starts to annoy me as a daily wearer. So I flop back & forth and never 100% satisfied.

So Rolex FINALLY made the watch I've been begging for for years. That's all there is to this new watch. It's for the crowd like yours truly that wants a slightly bigger Sub, but doesn't necessarily want to sport the thickness of a DSSD. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anyone that tries to brag (or use as watch defense) 1 watch depth rating over another are total wanna-be's IMO...only desk divers try to get into a pissing contest over depth rating as those of us that have actually spent some time w/ a regulator in our mouths underwater know all these dive watches are total overkill when it comes to depth rating.

[mtb]

Thanks for this!
So it looks like same dial size, wider bezel and longer length... sounds perfect!

Originally Posted by G'ed

Done with Rolex Basel brochure from 2014 and 2017.

[henry333]

Originally Posted by johneh

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

Right! Can't compare .. you can make a 36mm look like a 45mm is you want..

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Maxy

I don't know what you smoking(in that smiley pic) but am not saying to compare the camera angle to the watch(to figure out which looks bigger) but the watch to the wrist. That's relative and it won't change from far or close camera angle. If the watch is looking too big on the wrist.. it will still appear that from even little far video.

It will appear different. Its called perspective distortion.

The size of the watch relative to the wrist does not, of course, change, but how the watch appears relative to the wrist in an image does.

[Speed]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't think there will be a problem getting one.

[travisb]

Originally Posted by artschool

what were they thinking with that cyclops?

madness.

I'm in this camp..

[ryan.uk]

swap leg-day for wrist-day and bulk! That's my plan to save me getting yet another link taken out of my DSSD

I think the new SD is looking good.. will be keen to catch Ariels' review.

Actually, whilst I'm here.. anyone else with a DSSD - how many links have you dropped? I had two off at the AD with glidelock as tight as it will go... thinking about getting another link off so I can actually finesse with Glidelock as it's rolling just a little bit up and down my wrist.

I think I've read that some people have had the divers' extension removed instead of a link - anyone done that?

[moby33]

Originally Posted by ryan.uk

swap leg-day for wrist-day and bulk! That's my plan to save me getting yet another link taken out of my DSSD

I think the new SD is looking good.. will be keen to catch Ariels' review.

Actually, whilst I'm here.. anyone else with a DSSD - how many links have you dropped? I had two off at the AD with glidelock as tight as it will go... thinking about getting another link off so I can actually finesse with Glidelock as it's rolling just a little bit up and down my wrist.

I think I've read that some people have had the divers' extension removed instead of a link - anyone done that?

I removed the diver ext on both my DSSD (owned it a few times ), but since I have larger wrists I had to buy an additional link to take its place. I found that made for the perfect size & feel. The diver ext hit in the exact wrong spot on my wrist and due to its length, didn't bend & conform to my wrist arch like individual links do. So once I swapped, I was able to align the Glidelock about mid-clasp (for both bigger & smaller adjustments) and have the additional comfort of all links instead of solid diver ext. Good luck.

[walds11]

Originally Posted by R Douglas

Any numbers on the thickness ?

I'd love to know this as well. Anyone?

[Andad]

Originally Posted by utc66

I wonder if the red dial text would fade over time like I've seen on the Planet Ocean seconds hand which faded in one example I saw.

The reddish text won't fade as quick as this thread will as soon as someone actually measures the width and depth of this damned watch.

[G'ed]

Originally Posted by directioneng

The reddish text won't fade as quick as this thread will as soon as someone actually measures the width and depth of this damned watch.

Next year SIHH and Basel, those press members should bring along a damn caliper. I'm amazed no one have done that thus far.

[Maxy]

Originally Posted by R Douglas

Any numbers on the thickness ?

Originally Posted by walds11

I'd love to know this as well. Anyone?

So far there is no mention of exact thickness anywhere but first hand reviews mentioned that it appears slightly thinner the previous SD4K and lot thinner than D-Blue.

SubC - 13mm
SD4k - 14.8mm
D-Blue - 17.7mm

So, I would think SD43 to be around 14.3 to 14.5mm thick. That should be manageable according the width and size of the diameter of the watch.

[Chadridv]

bad on rolex for misleading, good on the actual size though, as I think 41-42mm is perfect

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Maxy

So far there is no mention of exact thickness anywhere but first hand reviews mentioned that it appears slightly thinner the previous SD4K and lot thinner than D-Blue.

SubC - 13mm
SD4k - 14.8mm
D-Blue - 17.7mm

So, I would think SD43 to be around 14.3 to 14.5mm thick. That should be manageable according the width and size of the diameter of the watch.

If correct, that is another significant improvement and enough to make a noticeable difference.

Out of curiosity I look forward to a definitive list of dimensions for comparison.

[Smarties]

Originally Posted by Maxy

So far there is no mention of exact thickness anywhere but first hand reviews mentioned that it appears slightly thinner the previous SD4K and lot thinner than D-Blue.

SubC - 13mm
SD4k - 14.8mm
D-Blue - 17.7mm

So, I would think SD43 to be around 14.3 to 14.5mm thick. That should be manageable according the width and size of the diameter of the watch.

Can you share source/link of the first hand review that comment on the thickness of SD50?

Thanks

[rudestew]

pelagos size then?

[brandrea]

42 43 ... Don't know, but I'm super excited to get my hands on this piece

[red1108nyc]

Should ask Ariel.

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by BadBoyR

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

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Here's a good reference tool for dial size.

[Fletcher UK]

[QUOTE=moby33;7467070]What's not to get - it's pretty simple. First off, NOBODY is going to dive to even the Subs depth, so depth rating is moot. I've been diving for almost 30 years and never gone deeper than 180' (and my 100'+ dives are few & far between).

Please excuse my ignorance but 180 what? Feet, inches, yards?

[jonnyz1245]

Originally Posted by moby33

I removed the diver ext on both my DSSD (owned it a few times ), but since I have larger wrists I had to buy an additional link to take its place. I found that made for the perfect size & feel. The diver ext hit in the exact wrong spot on my wrist and due to its length, didn't bend & conform to my wrist arch like individual links do. So once I swapped, I was able to align the Glidelock about mid-clasp (for both bigger & smaller adjustments) and have the additional comfort of all links instead of solid diver ext. Good luck.

I had to remove the divers extension for the exact reason you mentioned. I found that it hit on the wrong spot on my wrist and made it extremely uncomfortable.

[GB-man]

[QUOTE=Fletcher UK;7474574]

Originally Posted by moby33

What's not to get - it's pretty simple. First off, NOBODY is going to dive to even the Subs depth, so depth rating is moot. I've been diving for almost 30 years and never gone deeper than 180' (and my 100'+ dives are few & far between).

Please excuse my ignorance but 180 what? Feet, inches, yards?

Feet of course. If he has dived 180 yards I'll buy him dinner. 180 inches is practically a swimming pool.

[rudestew]

inches it is then ;-)

[goldfixer21]

After seeing this, I noticed a big difference in the size of my 16613 and my 1675. I always thought they were close to the same size, I guess I was wrong

[moby33]

[QUOTE=Fletcher UK;7474574]

Originally Posted by moby33

What's not to get - it's pretty simple. First off, NOBODY is going to dive to even the Subs depth, so depth rating is moot. I've been diving for almost 30 years and never gone deeper than 180' (and my 100'+ dives are few & far between).

Please excuse my ignorance but 180 what? Feet, inches, yards?

I put 180 '. ' = feet. " = inches, etc. Probably lost in translation from my Yankee talk!

[Bigdaddy38]

Originally Posted by moby33

What's not to get - it's pretty simple. First off, NOBODY is going to dive to even the Subs depth, so depth rating is moot. I've been diving for almost 30 years and never gone deeper than 180' (and my 100'+ dives are few & far between).

This isn't about depth rating (or really price). Sub, RSD, DSSD are ALL pretty crazy expensive when you think about it - they are "just" a SS watch.

This is ALL about wrist size & what people think looks good. At over 8.5" wrist, my SubC (and the 3 Subs before that + 1 SD) just look too small on my wrist. The 2 DSSD I've owned look better, but their thickness eventually starts to annoy me as a daily wearer. So I flop back & forth and never 100% satisfied.

So Rolex FINALLY made the watch I've been begging for for years. That's all there is to this new watch. It's for the crowd like yours truly that wants a slightly bigger Sub, but doesn't necessarily want to sport the thickness of a DSSD. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anyone that tries to brag (or use as watch defense) 1 watch depth rating over another are total wanna-be's IMO...only desk divers try to get into a pissing contest over depth rating as those of us that have actually spent some time w/ a regulator in our mouths underwater know all these dive watches are total overkill when it comes to depth rating.

Makes sense, I am 6' 4 when I used to weigh 325 a Sub would have looked ridiculously small, so I got a World Navitimer. Now that I am 200lbs my daytona looks good and the Navi looks a bit big... Now about that cyclops :)

[Maxy]

As the latest measurements out, SD43 has similar or actually lesser lug to lug than Explorer II 216270.. this is what I've been trying to say in this thread!

Lug to Lug of SD43 = 50mm
Lug to Lug of EXII = 50.1mm

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...0&postcount=79

[WEST HAM ROLEX]

Think you need to see them side by side,,,try on

[GB-man]

All these overlays are useless. I tried it on. Doesn't wear overly large. My wrist is 7" the lugs were well within my wrist from head on.