DSSD: History Repeating Itself

[rolexsubdate]

I love what is happening with the DSSD:

1) Low sales volume
2) Alienated one segment of society (those with smaller wrists) -- does not look good on everyone.
3) Huge dimensions -- Too thick for some, too heavy for others
4) Difficult to wear on a daily basis
5) Has its own niche market

Reminds me a lot about the SD .....

If the DSSD is not selling like hot cakes, then I doubt Rolex will change its dimensions towards increased thickness and heavier weight.

In summary, all the perceived negative points will make it an icon ....THE KING DIVER!!

[padi56]

All Rolex watches are icons in the eyes of the guys that own them. But in the real world the DSSD has long way to go before myself would call it a Rolex icon.And compared to quite a few diving watches out there today the DSSD is comparatively small.

[smallcandle]

I don't believe the DSSD was ever intended to sell like hot cakes. Sure, Rolex wants to sell as many as the market will bear, but that's it. That watch was designed and marketed specifically at the segment of buyers who want the largest, heaviest and most capable automatic diving watch Rolex has ever offered. And a lot of us have bought into that technique.

But sooner or later the trend of over-sized watches will reverse itself and then we shall see just where the DSSD finds itself.

[wilfreb]

Originally Posted by smallcandle

But sooner or later the trend of over-sized watches will reverse itself and then we shall see just where the DSSD finds itself.

what makes you think this?

[wholesaleneon]

Originally Posted by smallcandle

But sooner or later the trend of over-sized watches will reverse itself and then we shall see just where the DSSD finds itself.

But then it will reverse again and go back to big watches and then what?

[BASSETHOUNDS]

I was told that the proportional production costs for the SDDS are far higher then most other Rolex models . Rolex is supposed to make money on a Submariner and GMT then a SDDS

[tgoose1]

Originally Posted by BASSETHOUNDS

I was told that the proportional production costs for the SDDS are far higher then most other Rolex models . Rolex is supposed to make money on a Submariner and GMT then a SDDS

I agree, and for those who still own an sdds when servicing rolls around, be prepared to pay a "far higher" RSC service fee than any other Rolex.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by tgoose1

I agree, and for those who still own an sdds when servicing rolls around, be prepared to pay a "far higher" RSC service fee than any other Rolex.

Cannot see why sure you got to have the pressure check facilities but should be no harder/expencive to service than any other SD cal 3135.

[Numismatist]

Originally Posted by tgoose1

I agree, and for those who still own an sdds when servicing rolls around, be prepared to pay a "far higher" RSC service fee than any other Rolex.

Originally Posted by padi56

Cannot see why sure you got to have the pressure check facilities but should be no harder/expencive to service than any other SD cal 3135.

BECAUSE people think this, Rolex will be ABLE to charge more...

[tgoose1]

Originally Posted by padi56

Cannot see why sure you got to have the pressure check facilities but should be no harder/expencive to service than any other SD cal 3135.

Have you ever studied the parts schematic of an sdds? I'm not referring to the 3135 movement which is easy to service, this beast ain't no submariner/sd. No AD's or independent watchmakers will have the facilities/training to fully service this watch. Because of its' exclusivity, the sdds will command an RSC "full service" charge that's destined to shiver your timbers I'm afraid.

[dsio]

Tried one on for a fair length of time to get an idea of what it was like a few months back.

On point 3, its not thick, at least compared to Omega's auto Chronos, or JLCs, or many others, and its lighter than all three chronos I've owned thus far.

On point 4, the only thing that lets it down is the weight balance, the clasp is excellent, but I found even when at "wearable" tightness thanks to the clasp, the head flopped around. The PloProf just doesn't have this problem and is a more comfortable watch imo in spite of it being vastly larger in every way.

I think the size is really about perfect as is the weight, and it has a clinical, industrial clean look to it that's just brilliant.

[Maxseven]

I think rolexsubdate (OP) is on to something, although the DS seems to be a modern version of the 1953 Deep Sea Special. The modern DS is quite an accomplishment for Rolex, and I agree with Bassethounds, that the manufacturing cost is much higher than with other models.

This is interesting:

Link to article -> Rolex Deep Sea Special

[Tools]

The Deep Sea was never ment for everybody, as was mentioned..

However, the economy has a lot to do with sales on all models.. It's probably why we will see fewer examples of the new models released at a single time.........

[Johny]

Originally Posted by Maxseven

I think rolexsubdate (OP) is on to something, although the DS seems to be a modern version of the 1953 Deep Sea Special. The modern DS is quite an accomplishment for Rolex, and I agree with Bassethounds, that the manufacturing cost is much higher than with other models.

This is interesting:

Link to article -> Rolex Deep Sea Special

great article. thank you.

[The GMT Master]

Well, let's take into consideration Rolex's sales plan for a moment. The Submariner has always been the mass market tool watch - simple yet classic looks, the ability to dress it up or down, the fact it's not too thick or heavy, and relatively accessible in terms of price. The Sea Dweller, by contrast, is more of a no-compromise diving tool - heavier, thicker, more extreme looks. The Deep-Sea is just continuing this trend - I expect it to have a small, but steady following over the next few years, and you have to remember that it is responsible for bringing a lot of new people to the brand. Those who love huge Breitlings or Panerai often overlooked Rolex because they didn't cater for them - with the introduction of the SDDS and DJ/DD II, Rolex now has a much more balanced and wide ranging selection of watches, in my opinion

[malaplace]

I agree that the DSSD has brought a lot of new people to the brand. All of the attributes of the Deepsea that many Rolex owners consider "nontraditional" are exactly why I bought the Deepsea. I didn't and probably would have never purchased a Rolex until I saw the Deepsea sitting in the store window. It is such an impressive piece.

[dinan545bmw]

Originally Posted by malaplace

It is such an impressive piece.

[acadianl79]

Originally Posted by malaplace

I agree that the DSSD has brought a lot of new people to the brand. All of the attributes of the Deepsea that many Rolex owners consider "nontraditional" are exactly why I bought the Deepsea. I didn't and probably would have never purchased a Rolex until I saw the Deepsea sitting in the store window. It is such an impressive piece.

[Watch Fan]

I've never understood what all the fuss is about concerning the size, unless you have a small wrist. My wrist is about 7 1/4" and I have no problem wearing my Deepsea for weeks at a time, every day. I am also a Breitling and Panerai fan as well and many of those watches are not exactly small either, so I guess I am used to large watches. It's all relative I suppose. If you are used to a 40mm watch, then a Deepsea is going to be quite large for you to get used to. If on the other hand you have no problem with a 48mm Breitling Super Avenger, 18mm thick, then a Deepsea is not that large.

[psv]

Deepsea wasn't design for current Rolex owners, it was designed for the Breitling/Panerai/IWC crowd that like over-sized watches and had overlooked Rolex previously. It worked.

[Maxseven]

I'm going to insist that Rolex didn't have their Marketing Hats on when they developed the Deepsea. It is pure function over form. Name one other watch that has a depth rating even close to the Deepsea that isn't a bigger watch (relative to 40mm).

[petespendthrift]

Originally Posted by Maxseven

I'm going to insist that Rolex didn't have their Marketing Hats on when they developed the Deepsea. It is pure function over form. Name one other watch that has a depth rating even close to the Deepsea that isn't a bigger watch (relative to 40mm).

Come on - stop fooling yourself! It's the solution to a problem that never existed. If they had function in mind it would have a depth rating that in some way relates to real world use but the fact is that mechanical dive watches are now obsolete for professional saturation divers.

The only reason to make it be able to go that deep is owner bragging rights and because they wanted to make it big. What you own is a beautifully made object of desire but it is no more useful than the old Sea Dweller and likely (because I'm willing to guess that you are not a Sat Diver) no more useful to you than a Datejust.

[Maxseven]

Originally Posted by petespendthrift

The only reason to make it be able to go that deep is owner bragging rights and because they wanted to make it big. What you own is a beautifully made object of desire but it is no more useful than the old Sea Dweller and likely (because I'm willing to guess that you are not a Sat Diver) no more useful to you than a Datejust.

I agree with your above statements. Rolex's efforts with the Deepsea are completely about "bragging rights", as it is with all Rolex watches. I think the extreme depth rating is similar to having diamonds on a watch - not useful, but definitely a brag.

All I say is, that in order to meet the depth rating, the watch case/crystal dimensions have been designed for function (going deep!), and are not cosmetic or driven by marketing for big watches.

If Rolex ever produces a ~43mm x 17.5mm (or larger) Daytona or DJ, I will stand corrected.

Wait! The Yachtmaster II is 44mm???? But how thick is it?

[darklord]

For divers and technology it is an engineering marvel.

For watch aficionado's it is a thing of sheer beauty!

[htc8p]

its not selling coz its way overkill

[dinan545bmw]

Originally Posted by darklord

For divers and technology it is an engineering marvel.

For watch aficionado's it is a thing of sheer beauty!

[PJS]

I would trade a lightly used tt daytona with black face circa 2003 with all boxes and papers for a used dssd

[sakuraba]

IMO the Sea Dwellers have been the sleepers of the tool watch range.

They follow a common cycle: over-engineered at launch limits appeal to specific market, this results in low sales, which leads to less numbers produced. Eventually, the world wakes up to the reference's charms and it becomes the next collectible after discontinuance.

The DSSD just continues this tradition.

[sirjohnbrian]

I have to tell you that the DSSD has wrist presence. Of the Rolexes in my collection, I have had more glances at my DSSD than all the others combined.

I think it has something to do with the fact I only wear it with short sleeves.

[sturgeon123456]

There are so many people on this forum that love them and own them. I personally do not own one, although I do absolutely love the watch. The only problem for me is when faced with the decision of a TT gmtc or tt vs the deep sea......the TT would always win out and the prices are close on the grey market.