Comments:
43mm Sea Dweller.. is the new normal it makes complete sense ! -read for explanation-
yes it has a cyclops, yes it's bigger, but you know what -AND LET ME JUST SAY as a disclamer that Im a certified VINTAGE LOVER- : that watch makes complete sense:
43MM : people have grown bigger: this 43mm is , when looking at the pics, will wear more like 42mm, it's a normal modern size, helped by the fact that the lugs are tucked in, the band widened, and end pieces tucked in I think the proportions are perfect. also the deepsea is disproportionated, too thick and band too narrow, the new 40mm SD was too thick for its case size. also makes sense in the lineup that an upscale model from submariner be Bigger.
CYCLOPS: I'm going to catch a lot of heat for that but....I welcome the cyclops, thank you for making that date readable, on the original ones reading the date aperture you would need reading glasses under water ( which is not very practical 
, it's cool that the technology finally allows Rolex to add a cyclops without compromising the integrity of the pressure resistance.
, it's cool that the technology finally allows Rolex to add a cyclops without compromising the integrity of the pressure resistance.THICKNESS : actually the thickness is a non issue since it now matches the overall case dimensions, the added thickness is 'absorbed'/ diluted in its wider size and wider bracelet,
RED LINE: that's a no brainer, red line on sub or sd is never a bad thing, everybody agrees
this reminds me of the STATION WAGON desires on car forums: "man, if this comes in station wagon, it would sell like hot cakes !' : well in real life , those same people don't buy new cars anyway so really out of target audience opinion. case in point: Rolex tried to give what people say they want : 40MM SD with ceramic and glidelock: nobody bought...
finally, you don't have to choose between vintage and new by the way.... I will keep my old ones but also welcome this new one.
rom
(Im putting my helmet on , ready for mean replies
Dear rom, should I put an helmet as well? What do you think?
Totally agree with you, being myself a vintage fan (only 1 SD, the diabolic 666 "transitional", but also a beloved red 1680)... paired without problem with a Deep Sea...
Let's wait to have this "Transformer" SD in our hands and then, how to say, form a more rounded evaluation
Best
Luca
Let's wait to have this "Transformer" SD in our hands and then, how to say, form a more rounded evaluation
Best
Luca
I was expecting the new Seadweller with much ...
... expectations as there was a rumor it would come with red incriptions!
That was a wonderful announcement!!
Now... red inscription came but...
43 mm case? Cyclops on glass??
What??
Rolex had the precise recipe for a superb Anniversary
Watch but they didn't pay attention and spoiled it!!
What a shame!!!
That's my humble opinion of course!!
Cheers! Abel
126600
Disappointed to see so many negative comments but agree everyone is entitled to their opinion. I suspect the reason they didn't put a cyclops on the SD until now is pressure; not pressure from collectors but physical pressure. A flat surface will resist water pressure better then an irregular one (can't think of any other 4000ft dive watch without flat crystal). In 2017 they are saying, we have developed a case and cyclops crystal that can withstand pressure at 4000ft. And vintage lovers, let's not forget like it or not, the cyclops lens is part of Rolex's trademark. The 43mm was also inevitable, Rolex have been making 39/40mm Sea Dwellers since 1967! My wife wears a 16660 and although I love it and respect it for the instrument it is, personally, I would prefer a larger case.
Perhaps an objective point of view but for me, the most important part of this watch is the red print SEA DWELLER, not since 1977 has the colour been used in regular production on Rolex dive watches. The very first 1967 Sea Dwellers, released within a very small batch of serial numbers, had single red print 'Sea Dweller' dials. The 2017 Sea Dweller 126600 is perhaps the first anniversary model to utilize the superior science Rolex SA encompasses with the popular dimensions/demands of today, yet finally, truly, embraces a model of their heritage. (Sub, Milgauss, Daytona, SeaDweller)
Before replying with inaccuracies, I confess I've had a few glasses of wine........
Well elaborated answer, despite the wine. ;) Thanks for that.
Now the thing is about the Cyclop, I guess. Which is a crime of lese majesté when it comes to the SD.
Best,
Nicolas
Many other manufacturers manage to fit in a date wheel with larger numbers
If Rolex had taken that approach, would it have been more or less appreciated compared to the cyclops?
Personally I think that solves the visibility issue with no water resistance/pressure, etc problem - unless someone can tell me why a diver can't have a big date... like this:
Cazalea (donning flack helmet)
Liking the mock up...
but please get rid of the red writing? If a brand draws from heritage then stay true to that heritage. It's the same as when Ferrari inevitably being out the new Dino it needs to be revolutionary in more than a handful of ways to support the heritage. Does my garbled writing make sense? Essentially I'm trying to say that if you draw from heritage you either: do a version with improved materials and label the same (see Blancpain's approach - I believe) OR you do something so revolutionary that it can hold its own without the heritage.
Just my thoughts anyway.
Just my thoughts anyway.
its all about the money...and that seems to be the issue...
The SD4000 no longer appears on the price list for Rolex. It is now not in production. At 40mm, it is believed that consumers did not differentiate it enough compared with the Submariner which is also 40mm...and given that the SD4000 was more expesive, sales of this modern SD were very very poor. What Rolex needed to do was differentiate the SD against the Submariner. So they have withdrawn teh SD4000 and introduced this 43mm SD so that it can segment the market more effectively.
It saddens me a lot to believe this, but I think it is more likely that Rolex design watches like the SD tribute more out of marketing than out of respect or history to the heritage of the brand.
As for the cyclops.... as much as I want to think that this was done because of a technical ability to withstand pressure....an innovation if you like...I think the reality is that someone from marketing just thought it was a good idea because the cyclops is on many of tehe Subs too.
It saddens me a lot to believe this, but I think it is more likely that Rolex design watches like the SD tribute more out of marketing than out of respect or history to the heritage of the brand.
As for the cyclops.... as much as I want to think that this was done because of a technical ability to withstand pressure....an innovation if you like...I think the reality is that someone from marketing just thought it was a good idea because the cyclops is on many of tehe Subs too.
New SD a big Submariner
IMO the new Sea Dweller are a big Submariner who responde demands for a bigger Submariner!
Oh my god!! What's wrong with me??
Just seeing the picture of the new SD I have to confess: I LIKE IT.... :-/
I always have been searching for a Rolex sports watch like this.
I have been waiting for a Sub with a modern movement (the calibre 3255 in my DD40 is fantastic!!), a larger case (still much smaller than many PAMs!) and higher WR.
I always have had a weakness for the Deepsea but a big problem with the proportions especially in relation with that far too narrow bracelet.
I have also tried the new SD in 40mm which - for me - felt not ... right, especially it felt too thick for its case size.
Cyclops have always been a part of Rolex, haven't they?
Wouldn't Rolex have gone this way earlier with the SD if technology would have allowed it?
So - for me, "in my world" and if you can can bear a complete "ahistorical" point of view - the result of this evolution and "new product" is successful and makes sense. I like it.
And if I will put this watch on my wrist that is all that will matter for me.
Perhaps they should have invented another name in order not to affront so many Rolex lovers...
Yes, we live in a material world. We all have to survive in this world. But that also allows us - and we are a very very privileged community!! - to buy these wonderful luxury goods. I'm very thankful for that.
Best, Thomas
I always have been searching for a Rolex sports watch like this.
I have been waiting for a Sub with a modern movement (the calibre 3255 in my DD40 is fantastic!!), a larger case (still much smaller than many PAMs!) and higher WR.
I always have had a weakness for the Deepsea but a big problem with the proportions especially in relation with that far too narrow bracelet.
I have also tried the new SD in 40mm which - for me - felt not ... right, especially it felt too thick for its case size.
Cyclops have always been a part of Rolex, haven't they?
Wouldn't Rolex have gone this way earlier with the SD if technology would have allowed it?
So - for me, "in my world" and if you can can bear a complete "ahistorical" point of view - the result of this evolution and "new product" is successful and makes sense. I like it.
And if I will put this watch on my wrist that is all that will matter for me.
Perhaps they should have invented another name in order not to affront so many Rolex lovers...
Yes, we live in a material world. We all have to survive in this world. But that also allows us - and we are a very very privileged community!! - to buy these wonderful luxury goods. I'm very thankful for that.
Best, Thomas
Love it
I love this new model. It just gives people more options now. I have the deepsea and I love it. I think these watches in bigger sizes are a better buy than a sub
I like the new daytona in yellow gold...
SD sounds big, but I'm gonna have to see it in person and try it on before I place judgement. Maybe it works for my wrist size, maybe not. Still, it works for some Rolex lovers with larger wrists. For that, I am happy.
SD4000-116600
When I heard this 40mm watch was discontinued, I immediately bought one a AD had in stock. 43 mm watches are too big for me and I do not want one period.
honestly...i really thought about doing exactly the same.....
.......i like the SD4000...a lot. My AD didn't have one...and i convinced myself that since i had not been motivated enough to buy one when it was in production, maybe I was being hasty to jump on ity just because it is no longer in production. I would still prefer to wear a 16660....and i would still prefer to wear a 1665.
Rolex was clearly targeting fans of "bling" with this collection rather than fans of watches.
Hopefully they'll give us more to chew on in 2018.
Cyclops on SD?
If the new SD did not have the cyclops I would give it a try. I wonder why they would commemorate the sea dweller by adding the cyclops when it never had one, strange. The lack of the cyclops is one of several reasons I chose the SD over the sub, but will end up with the no date at some point.