Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RED SEADWELLER

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I really like it

    Comment


    • #17
      Yes I must admit it does look good.

      Comment


      • #18
        It's ironic that on many forums everyone is up in arms complaining about the cyclops and large chunky case-
        Yet the same people never bothered to buy the SD4000 which evidently catered for all their needs- Rolex can't win!

        Comment


        • #19
          I like it but agree that it shouldn't have had the cyclops.. also a shame that it's a different size that other pieces so you wont be able to simply fit a crystal without the cyclops...

          lets see what it looks like when it lands.

          Comment


          • #20
            I've previously been a bit cool towards the SD because of two main reasons, both of which Rolex seem to have fixed!

            The first of the reasons being because it didn't have a cyclops.
            The un-magnified date window looked small and out of proportion and, to my eyes, it always looked like something was missing.
            Whilst there may have been any number of theories as to why the SD previously didn't have a cyclops, it looks like Rolex are now past that.
            The cyclops may not be as neat a solution as an internal magnifier but there is no getting away from the fact that the cyclops is an iconic part of Rolex design, heritage and identity.

            The second reason I'm not a huge fan of previous generation SDs was the size.

            This brings in the contentious issue of watch sizing, in that does a bigger size denote a higher place in the pecking order...or bragging rights...or whatever?
            Whilst there are arguments on both sides, and whilst those of us who have been interested in watches long enough have seen the pendulum swing to extreme oversized watches and now back again, I think most would agree that, for better or for worse, size does play a part in the psychology of sports watches.
            This reached an apogee (or nadir, to some) in Rolex with the Deepsea - 44mm diameter is not excessively oversized, but the thickness of the watch added to its overall bulk on the wrist. Nevertheless, it is still a comfortable watch with a correctly-sized bracelet but Rolex have recognised that, for a lot of people, it is just a bit too much.

            This is where a comparison between the generations illustrates my point:

            16610 Sub vs 16600 SD: the 40mm diam. cases had similar profiles but the dial on the SD was smaller than the Sub and so the SD wore smaller (albeit taller) on the wrist.
            Then compare the ceramic 116610 Sub vs the 11660 SD 4000: the more square shape of the case and longer/wider lugs once more made the Sub wear larger than the more traditionally-proportioned SD.

            And now we have the SD 43mm - traditionally-proportioned case/lugs but, with the 43mm case, it wears bigger on the wrist that the Sub. And, at 43mm, remains eminently wearable.

            The non-ceramic Sub and SDs were, give or take, similarly priced.
            But with the ceramic models Rolex started positioning the watches in a more clear hierarchy and there had to be clear water between the Sub and SD - not just in price but on how the watches looked on the wrist.
            Rolex tried a couple of times...
            The DSSD wasn't it - way too much of everything and ultimately a niche product;
            The SD 4000 wasn't it - way too similar to the Sub but for a significant price uplift resulting in (I presume) less than expected sales;
            But the new SD 43 looks like they might have cracked it.

            Oh yeah, and it has Sea-Dweller in red! What's not to love?!

            Comment


            • #21
              I'm very on the fence with this one....hmm!

              Comment


              • #22
                I suspect it's going to look great in the flesh. My AD told me they've had so many calls for it they had to close their list at 30 names. Luckily (for me) I'm first on their list 👍

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by harb View Post
                  I've previously been a bit cool towards the SD because of two main reasons, both of which Rolex seem to have fixed!

                  The first of the reasons being because it didn't have a cyclops.
                  The un-magnified date window looked small and out of proportion and, to my eyes, it always looked like something was missing.
                  Whilst there may have been any number of theories as to why the SD previously didn't have a cyclops, it looks like Rolex are now past that.
                  The cyclops may not be as neat a solution as an internal magnifier but there is no getting away from the fact that the cyclops is an iconic part of Rolex design, heritage and identity.

                  The second reason I'm not a huge fan of previous generation SDs was the size.

                  This brings in the contentious issue of watch sizing, in that does a bigger size denote a higher place in the pecking order...or bragging rights...or whatever?
                  Whilst there are arguments on both sides, and whilst those of us who have been interested in watches long enough have seen the pendulum swing to extreme oversized watches and now back again, I think most would agree that, for better or for worse, size does play a part in the psychology of sports watches.
                  This reached an apogee (or nadir, to some) in Rolex with the Deepsea - 44mm diameter is not excessively oversized, but the thickness of the watch added to its overall bulk on the wrist. Nevertheless, it is still a comfortable watch with a correctly-sized bracelet but Rolex have recognised that, for a lot of people, it is just a bit too much.

                  This is where a comparison between the generations illustrates my point:

                  16610 Sub vs 16600 SD: the 40mm diam. cases had similar profiles but the dial on the SD was smaller than the Sub and so the SD wore smaller (albeit taller) on the wrist.
                  Then compare the ceramic 116610 Sub vs the 11660 SD 4000: the more square shape of the case and longer/wider lugs once more made the Sub wear larger than the more traditionally-proportioned SD.

                  And now we have the SD 43mm - traditionally-proportioned case/lugs but, with the 43mm case, it wears bigger on the wrist that the Sub. And, at 43mm, remains eminently wearable.

                  The non-ceramic Sub and SDs were, give or take, similarly priced.
                  But with the ceramic models Rolex started positioning the watches in a more clear hierarchy and there had to be clear water between the Sub and SD - not just in price but on how the watches looked on the wrist.
                  Rolex tried a couple of times...
                  The DSSD wasn't it - way too much of everything and ultimately a niche product;
                  The SD 4000 wasn't it - way too similar to the Sub but for a significant price uplift resulting in (I presume) less than expected sales;
                  But the new SD 43 looks like they might have cracked it.

                  Oh yeah, and it has Sea-Dweller in red! What's not to love?!

                  Well put Harb. The 40 mm case was what kep me buying the new sub and SD in the past few years. Rolex is tring bigger with the 43mm size... they may step it back to 42 in few years like they did with DJ 42 to 41 and DayDate 2 to 40mm

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Putting all the detailed analysis to one side, buying a Rolex is an affair of the heart. Based on the wrist pic above, I suspect it will be stunning once worn.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by riaz View Post
                      Putting all the detailed analysis to one side, buying a Rolex is an affair of the heart. Based on the wrist pic above, I suspect it will be stunning once worn.
                      Yup, that too...!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Not a wrist pic but as close to it as I got:

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Nice watch apart from the cyclops,wonder how long before someone has the testicles to remove it .Then it would be Ideal in my eyes

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X