126600 crystal thickness

[NIHO]

How thick is the new SD 126600 crystal? Thanks!

[Rori]

Never read anything regarding that but from what my eyes can see, it’s not thicker than the sub.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Daytonaman799]

I do think it’s thicker but I don’t know by how much.

[gops]

One of the things I dislike about the SD is that the dial seems to be too deep from the top of the crystal. I assume this is because of the thicker crystal.

[Mifune]

there's a new 126600?

[watchmaker]

126600 glass is 3.5mm. 116610 is 2mm

[NIHO]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

126600 glass is 3.5mm. 116610 is 2mm

thanks. interesting that it is less than the SD4K which I believe is 4.0mm, right?

[NIHO]

Originally Posted by Mifune

there's a new 126600?

I guess there isn't, although it still feels new to me

[abozz]

Sub 2mm
SD 3.5MM
DSSD 5MM

Enviado desde mi SM-G975F mediante Tapatalk

[waterman1]

I seem to recall the sd4k was 3mm, which means the sd43 is slightly thicker. Could be necessary to offset added diameter. Hopefully someone will know for certain.

[sheldonsmith]

I’ve been waiting to find out from a Rolex watchmaker on crystal thickness, but anecdotally, the crystal on my SD4000 appears thicker, whereas the crystal on my SD 126600 seems thinner.

My theory is that the thinner crystal on the SD 126600 is required in order for the optics on the added cyclops to work.

Rolex marketing says they found a way to make the cyclops work on a SeaDweller. The original reason for no cyclops on SeaDwellers was the extra pressure rating necessitated removing the cyclops. My theory is that it was not the extra pressure rating and thicker crystal, but rather the cyclops doesn’t work with a thicker crystal; it’s simple optical physics.

What does Rolex do as a work around for the cyclops to work, make the crystal thinner.

That’s my thinking. I am hoping that someone with access to Rolex parts account can verify the crystal thickness between the SD4000 and the SD 126600 to verify my theory.

~ Sheldon

[waterman1]

Some quick research on the web and I am finding the thickness of sd4k crystal at 4mm. Hopefully someone can confirm.

[NIHO]

Originally Posted by waterman1

Some quick research on the web and I am finding the thickness of sd4k crystal at 4mm. Hopefully someone can confirm.

that is what I found on the internet too

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

I’ve been waiting to find out from a Rolex watchmaker on crystal thickness, but anecdotally, the crystal on my SD4000 appears thicker, whereas the crystal on my SD 126600 seems thinner.

My theory is that the thinner crystal on the SD 126600 is required in order for the optics on the added cyclops to work.

Rolex marketing says they found a way to make the cyclops work on a SeaDweller. The original reason for no cyclops on SeaDwellers was the extra pressure rating necessitated removing the cyclops. My theory is that it was not the extra pressure rating and thicker crystal, but rather the cyclops doesn’t work with a thicker crystal; it’s simple optical physics.

What does Rolex do as a work around for the cyclops to work, make the crystal thinner.

That’s my thinking. I am hoping that someone with access to Rolex parts account can verify the crystal thickness between the SD4000 and the SD 126600 to verify my theory.

~ Sheldon

The 116600 is 3.4mm, while the 126600 is 3.5mm

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

The 116600 is 3.4mm, while the 126600 is 3.5mm

You must be stutter Scott

Thanks for the information, great as always

[Rori]

Originally Posted by gops

One of the things I dislike about the SD is that the dial seems to be too deep from the top of the crystal. I assume this is because of the thicker crystal.

Not the 126600. It's as deep as a submariner.

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

The 116600 is 3.4mm, while the 126600 is 3.5mm

Thank you! So much for my theory, but on the other hand, it did not turn into an urban myth.

Thank you again for clarifying.

“Facts I’ll take anyone’s, opinions I’ll take mine.” -James Barskdale.

[NIHO]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

The 116600 is 3.4mm, while the 126600 is 3.5mm

thanks