Big Watches.......Another Perspective

[flyback]

Originally Posted by mixedccr

You can't choose which pig to put lipstick on, its either all or none. Have you seen anybody measure '350 units'? If your logic is true, the mere act of immersing oneself into a jacuzzi qualifies one to already wear a divers watch. Its under water isn't it?? And who am i to say who can or can't wear whatever a person wants to wear regardless of what its rating is. Frankly, if a watchmaker made a watch that could withstand pressures at the core of the earth, that would imply that it would never fail, leak, shatter. A 0% chance of failure. Is it really so inconceivable to want an item approaching "perfection" all else being equal? A chance of failure, even if considered remote, is still a chance.

I have no idea what your jacuzzi comment is even supposed to mean. Nowhere in this discussion have I argued that one person is more qualified to own a watch than anybody else.

Recall that this whole discussion started when you suggested that the ability to operate at 4km was a functional justification for the DeepSea's exceptional weight and size. I argue that it's the other way around - that the DeepSea was designed from the get-go to be big and heavy and the depth rating was a fringe benefit. All evidence points this direction.

[flyback]

Originally Posted by clew84

I don't ever plan on going to 4000ft but I like owning something that could. That's built better and took effort to think of, create, and build. If it wasn't for innovation, design, and technical advancements we would all be wearing Timex watches.

It's disingenuous to suggest that criticism of the DSSD is somehow anti-innovation. As I've said before, the DSSD pays a price for this capability in terms of size and weight. In this respect it is a simply an engineering compromise - not necessarily an "advancement." If we're pretending that depth rating is an end in itself (even as an engineering exercise), consider the 55 year-old Rolex Deep Sea Special greatly outperforms the DSSD. Does that mean that the DSSD is a step backwards?

The question for buyers is whether Rolex's compromise was worth it. If you didn't already want a bigger watch in the first place, then the answer would be no.

[Singslinger]

Originally Posted by clew84

Do 99% of people need:
- a car that goes 140+ mph?
- a professional style mountain bike that's never seen a mountain?
- a 50" TV
- wireless internet at home

Obviously, anyone could make a list of things they own that are not needed by anyone or have capabilities you will almost never (or actually never) need.

I don't ever plan on going to 4000ft but I like owning something that could. That's built better and took effort to think of, create, and build. If it wasn't for innovation, design, and technical advancements we would all be wearing Timex watches.

Totally agree The Sinn UX which has a quartz movement is rated to a depth of almost 40,000 feet, roughly triple the Deepsea's depth. I'm not sure if even the most hardy of diving submersibles can descend that deep, but hey, Sinn made it and presumably there are people who'd buy it.

To me, all Rolex did was make a watch that outperforms all other mechanical watches in terms of depth rating, basically saying - "here is our latest diving watch, rated to 12,800 feet and incorporating many new features like a ceramic bezel, ringlock system, etc etc. It costs $XX, it's big, it goes deeper than any other mechanical watch in the world and if you decide to buy it, we hope you'll enjoy it''.

To me the issue is very simple - buy it if you like it and can afford it, if you don't like it, then don't buy it. It's the same message that applies to the Leopard Daytona, the "ice-GMT2c'', the solid gold Submariner, etc etc. The watch company puts out a wide a range of choices and we consumers vote with our wallets.

PS I voted a resounding "YES'' to the Deepsea but I appreciate that there will be those whose opinions differ.

[SeamasterGMT]

Originally Posted by flyback

I argue that it's the other way around - that the DeepSea was designed from the get-go to be big and heavy and the depth rating was a fringe benefit. All evidence points this direction.

That has to be the funniest thing I've read on this forum. If Rolex want to make a bigger watch, they can make a bigger watch...and it will sell. They don't have to justify making a big watch by a depth rating. I think Rolex brought out the DS because they wanted bragging rights over Breitling.

I personally wanted a SD4000 but then heard that Rolex were bringing out a new SD. The Deepsea had all the changes I wanted...new bracelet and clasp, maxi dial, beefed up case, cerachrom bezel etc etc. I hadn't thought about the depth rating and would have bought a Deepsea with 4000ft but I see 12800 feet as a bonus. A friend of mine has just bought a SeaWolf and believe me, if I had a SD4000 he'd be rubbing my face in the depth rating top trumps but he can't do that because I have a deepsea.

The best thing about the Deepsea is that it is a TANK.

The build quality of the Deepsea is better than any sports watch they've made before. That is going in the right direction.

Who do Rolex have to justify case size to? You? Me? I think not.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by flyback

For Rolex it is a new trend. There were professional commercial divers for whom the Submariner was inadequate, and so Rolex introduced the Sea-Dweller.

The most recent SD4000 has a safety factor of about 2X at the maximum depths it will see, which is reasonable.

Mere mortals didn't need the depth capability of the SD4000, but they could feel good owning something that had been designed as a real solution to a real problem.

The DSSD depth rating, on the other hand, is an answer to a non-problem. Unlike the SD4000, it has zero customers who need its depth capability. This represents a departure from the so-called "tool watch" tradition.

Well if by 'new trend' you mean 30+ year old, then yes, I guess it is a new trend.

And truth be told, the SD was developed not because the Subs depth rating was inadequate for diving (even for COMEX divers), but due to the fact that saturation divers required the helium release valve in order to eliminate damage caused to the lense from gas build-up while operating at depth for days at a time. The fact they increased its depth rating had more to do with setting it apart from the Sub as the 'ultimate diver tool watch' then any real practicality issue. When first introduced, no saturation divers were going to 2000' to work, yet they were routinely blowing crystals due to gas build-up.

So no, I don't agree with your belief the depth rating increase was needed once upon a time, yet now it's all for show...I believe it's always been all for show seeing as 1000', 2000', 4000' & 12,800' is all overkill...Rolex could have equipped the current Sub with a helium release value and it would have solved all the problems...all except for the fact it would cherry-pick sales of the Sub if they didn't set it apart more.

So, even 30+ years ago when Rolex increased the depth rating of the ultimate diver to 2000' it was really just overkill hype...and it didn't change when they upped that number to 4000' a few years later...and it still holds true today when we're talking about the latest iteration at 12,800'.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by SeamasterGMT

That has to be the funniest thing I've read on this forum. If Rolex want to make a bigger watch, they can make a bigger watch...and it will sell. They don't have to justify making a big watch by a depth rating. I think Rolex brought out the DS because they wanted bragging rights over Breitling.

I personally wanted a SD4000 but then heard that Rolex were bringing out a new SD. The Deepsea had all the changes I wanted...new bracelet and clasp, maxi dial, beefed up case, cerachrom bezel etc etc. I hadn't thought about the depth rating and would have bought a Deepsea with 4000ft but I see 12800 feet as a bonus. A friend of mine has just bought a SeaWolf and believe me, if I had a SD4000 he'd be rubbing my face in the depth rating top trumps but he can't do that because I have a deepsea.

The best thing about the Deepsea is that it is a TANK.

The build quality of the Deepsea is better than any sports watch they've made before. That is going in the right direction.

Who do Rolex have to justify case size to? You? Me? I think not.

Exactly. I do know if they would have made the DSSD with a depth rating equal to the 'old' SD (or even a Sub for that matter) I would have still bought one. 1000' is more than enough...I bought the watch for all the reasons you explained seeing as I preferred those improvements over the older version SD. As I said before, I see the increased size & weight as an improvement, not as a handicap and glad Rolex FINALLY substantially set the Sea-Dweller apart from the Sub.

[exxondus]

Originally Posted by moby33

Exactly. I do know if they would have made the DSSD with a depth rating equal to the 'old' SD (or even a Sub for that matter) I would have still bought one. 1000' is more than enough...I bought the watch for all the reasons you explained seeing as I preferred those improvements over the older version SD. As I said before, I see the increased size & weight as an improvement, not as a handicap and glad Rolex FINALLY substantially set the Sea-Dweller apart from the Sub.

I agree with the above. Else, the SD and the Sub is kinda similar

[TheDude]

Can we please stop bickering about the DSSD?

It's a terrible example to use for this argument, since there were "Deep Sea" prototypes made in 1950, 1953, and 1960. They were all big, with the one in 1953 being 43mm.

This one was 51mm...




I'm not really sure which one this was, but it's a Deep Sea Special too. Pretty bulky huh?



Soooo... the DSSD's size is part of the rich heritage of the first Deep Sea Specials, and is actually remarkably true to the original dimensions used.


http://bjsonline.com/watches/articles/0022_4.shtml

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by Tools

This photo is a staged illusion....



This photo is an optical illusion..

The watch on the left is pushed considerably closer to the camera making it look huge in comparison..(look at the bases)

If the Explorer was the one pushed close to the camera it would look much larger than the other one......

I noticed that, but Jocke took that photo to compare the two timepieces. It would seem odd of him to skew the results. Perhaps he can chime in to clear things up.

[flyback]

Originally Posted by SeamasterGMT

That has to be the funniest thing I've read on this forum. If Rolex want to make a bigger watch, they can make a bigger watch...and it will sell. They don't have to justify making a big watch by a depth rating. I think Rolex brought out the DS because they wanted bragging rights over Breitling.

I personally wanted a SD4000 but then heard that Rolex were bringing out a new SD. The Deepsea had all the changes I wanted...new bracelet and clasp, maxi dial, beefed up case, cerachrom bezel etc etc. I hadn't thought about the depth rating and would have bought a Deepsea with 4000ft but I see 12800 feet as a bonus. A friend of mine has just bought a SeaWolf and believe me, if I had a SD4000 he'd be rubbing my face in the depth rating top trumps but he can't do that because I have a deepsea.

The best thing about the Deepsea is that it is a TANK.

The build quality of the Deepsea is better than any sports watch they've made before. That is going in the right direction.

Who do Rolex have to justify case size to? You? Me? I think not.

How is that not what I just wrote? You say my claim is the "funniest thing" you've read in this forum, and then go on to write paragraphs of agreement.

To wit: you bought your DSSD for reasons not having to do with the depth rating, the most important of which is that it's a "tank." That said, you like being able to brag that it can go deeper than your friend's watch. In other words, big and heavy was the most important change, and the increased depth rating was a fringe benefit.

[flyback]

Originally Posted by moby33

Well if by 'new trend' you mean 30+ year old, then yes, I guess it is a new trend.

And truth be told, the SD was developed not because the Subs depth rating was inadequate for diving (even for COMEX divers), but due to the fact that saturation divers required the helium release valve in order to eliminate damage caused to the lense from gas build-up while operating at depth for days at a time. The fact they increased its depth rating had more to do with setting it apart from the Sub as the 'ultimate diver tool watch' then any real practicality issue. When first introduced, no saturation divers were going to 2000' to work, yet they were routinely blowing crystals due to gas build-up.

So no, I don't agree with your belief the depth rating increase was needed once upon a time, yet now it's all for show...I believe it's always been all for show seeing as 1000', 2000', 4000' & 12,800' is all overkill...Rolex could have equipped the current Sub with a helium release value and it would have solved all the problems...all except for the fact it would cherry-pick sales of the Sub if they didn't set it apart more.

So, even 30+ years ago when Rolex increased the depth rating of the ultimate diver to 2000' it was really just overkill hype...and it didn't change when they upped that number to 4000' a few years later...and it still holds true today when we're talking about the latest iteration at 12,800'.

By the mid-1960s, research in saturation diving was heating up all over the world. By the early 1970s, research dives in excess of 200m (the Submariner's then-maximum rating) were being undertaken. The additional capability of the SD2000 was by no means "all for show." And as you've already mentioned, the addition of the helium valve was another important innovation made in response to real-world necessity.

The first Sea-Dwellers weren't even sold to the public.

The later SD4000 only has a 2x safety margin over the world depth record. And despite historically carrying only a small price premium over the Submariner, it's never sold in anything like the same numbers.

It was a different time, and those watches were developed for different reasons. They were better-known in professional circles than by the public.

But while we're on the subject: I wonder if the new Submariner will get its depth rating upped now that the SD4000 is out of the picture.

[SeamasterGMT]

Originally Posted by flyback

So that said, the DSSD design process probably went the other way around: Rolex decided to make a great big dive watch of such-and-such dimensions, and worked out in reverse what incredible depth they could make it withstand. A product of "function" following form.

You are saying that Rolex wanted to make a bigger watch but somehow needed to justify it. This is what I disagree with. They could make any current model bigger without 2 years of R&D into ring lock sytems, Titanium case backs, sprung bezels and testing depth ratings in purpose built hyperbaric chambers. Rolex could have just made the SD bigger, kept the depth rating, and saved millions and would still have sold the same number.


And I don't brag about depth rating over my friend's watch - I'm just glad he has to keep his mouth shut and not brag about his depth rating.

[flyback]

Originally Posted by SeamasterGMT

You are saying that Rolex wanted to make a bigger watch but somehow needed to justify it. This is what I disagree with. They could make any current model bigger without 2 years of R&D into ring lock sytems, Titanium case backs, sprung bezels and testing depth ratings in purpose built hyperbaric chambers. Rolex could have just made the SD bigger, kept the depth rating, and saved millions and would still have sold the same number.

I couldn't disagree more. Rolex is in this for the long haul, and their reputation and brand identity is based on fastidiousness and innovation. They HAD to up the ante with the DeepSea depth rating because that's what's expected of them. To have kept it the same would be to have invited criticism and arguably hurt their reputation.

You might as well argue that Rolex could cynically have reissued the Milgauss without its antimagnetic inner case, not bothered with the Parachrome hairspring, etc. and concentrated only on cosmetic improvements. They could for a little while, but that's not what the company stands for and they'd pay for it in time.

[lobo58]

This is an excellent discussion. Function? Form? I suppose all matter, depending upon what one expects of their watch.

My next watch will be a 16610 Sub--not because I expect to ever find myself underwater at 1000 ft, but because I like the look and the feel and will never worry about wearing it while washing the car. In fact, I suspect the 16610 is pretty much impervious to daily wear, which makes it the best all around watch for me.

Others here like the bling factor, and that's fine too. If we all agreed, Rolex would make one watch.

[brainbizz]

I have no idea which came first the chicken or the egg. I suppose one could argue either way but to my knowledge there is no absolute proof. The DSSD is what it is a large watch with a ridiculous depth rating. I have no idea as to how they came up with the end result and really do not care. I like it and feel it wears better than the SD. I do not feel the form of the watch was comprimised for the depth rating. It simply has to be that thick so the crown does not dig into your hand. Now regarding Rolex and innovation i will take issue. I have seen very little innovation from them over the past several years. I am growing bored with their products. At least with the DSSD they did something besides a big watch with a ceramic bezel or green crystal.

[SeamasterGMT]

Originally Posted by flyback

I couldn't disagree more. Rolex is in this for the long haul, and their reputation and brand identity is based on fastidiousness and innovation. They HAD to up the ante with the DeepSea depth rating because that's what's expected of them. To have kept it the same would be to have invited criticism and arguably hurt their reputation.

You might as well argue that Rolex could cynically have reissued the Milgauss without its antimagnetic inner case, not bothered with the Parachrome hairspring, etc. and concentrated only on cosmetic improvements. They could for a little while, but that's not what the company stands for and they'd pay for it in time.

Hmmmm, I was making the same point. I thought you was saying they made a big watch and then gave it an increased depth rating. I was arguing that the dimensions were a result of the ring lock system and a necessary change to give us the improved depth rating.
I have stated earlier in this thread that I bought the DS because it has the improvements I was looking for - in fact, I opened the waiting list at my AD one month BEFORE the watch was launched at Basel and therefore before I knew about 3900m but the engineering and R&D that has gone into this watch
makes me love it even more - even if I can't dive that deep. I'm pretty unlikely to ever do a spacewalk either but I love the engineering in that watch too.

[flyback]

Originally Posted by brainbizz

I have no idea which came first the chicken or the egg. I suppose one could argue either way but to my knowledge there is no absolute proof. The DSSD is what it is a large watch with a ridiculous depth rating. I have no idea as to how they came up with the end result and really do not care. I like it and feel it wears better than the SD. I do not feel the form of the watch was comprimised for the depth rating. It simply has to be that thick so the crown does not dig into your hand. Now regarding Rolex and innovation i will take issue. I have seen very little innovation from them over the past several years. I am growing bored with their products. At least with the DSSD they did something besides a big watch with a ceramic bezel or green crystal.

Huh? The DSSD is a big watch with a ceramic bezel.

Rolex is a conservative company in a conservative industry. They specialize in expensive, elegant mechanical wristwatches, a very mature technology with a well-established style. You're not going see radical change in a product like that, nor would (I submit) you want to.

If Rolex is doing their job properly, the watches they introduce this year will still be in production in some form, and will remain appealing, 30 years from now. These aren't cell phones.

[FreeView4You]

I am thrilled with the choices. I tried on a YM II and DSSD today and I don't have a big wrist. I loved them both.

I am surprised how comfortable they felt and how good they looked.

[brainbizz]

]Huh? The DSSD is a big watch with a ceramic bezel.

As I stated it is more than a big watch with a ceramic bezel referring to the depth rating.


Rolex is a conservative company in a conservative industry. They specialize in expensive, elegant mechanical wristwatches, a very mature technology with a well-established style. You're not going see radical change in a product like that, nor would (I submit) you want to.

If Rolex is doing their job properly, the watches they introduce this year will still be in production in some form, and will remain appealing, 30 years from now. These aren't cell phones.[/QUOTE]

I have no issues with being conservative. Rolex does make a great watch but just nothing really new. If they want to mass produce their product with no new innovative models that is their call. If they have no lofty ambitions to produce models to compete with the likes of PP, Audemars etc then I will simply move on. No big deal. IMHO they currently have difficulty competing with Panerai. I know their volume is much more but just look at the rapid increase in the Panerai section of this forums. My DSSD is the only Rolex I wear on a regular bases including 2 ss daytonas and 3 millies. They are losing customers some of which were Rolex fanatics. I also do not call the leopard or ice conservative.

[Singslinger]

Originally Posted by lobo58

This is an excellent discussion. Function? Form? I suppose all matter, depending upon what one expects of their watch.

My next watch will be a 16610 Sub--not because I expect to ever find myself underwater at 1000 ft, but because I like the look and the feel and will never worry about wearing it while washing the car. In fact, I suspect the 16610 is pretty much impervious to daily wear, which makes it the best all around watch for me.

Others here like the bling factor, and that's fine too. If we all agreed, Rolex would make one watch.

Absolutely right. To me, it's all about giving customers choice - even Panerai, which specialises in big watches (mainly 44mm), offers a 40mm range for those who prefer something smaller.

As for the usefulness/ uselessness of a large depth rating, it's interesting to note that thanks to the success of the Fifty Fathoms (which incidentally costs more than the SDDS), Blancpain have just released the bigger Five Hundred Fathoms. Although nowhere near the SDDS's 12,800ft, 500 fathoms is still about 3,000 ft, which is far deeper than any of us will ever dive. Even Patek's Aquanaut, which costs twice as much as the SDDS at about US$15,000, is rated to 120m or just under 400ft - again, much deeper than many of its users will ever go. Yet I suspect that the Aquanaut is a hugely successful watch as is the Fifty Fathoms and who knows, even the 500 Fathoms will be.

So for some people, a huge depth rating/large size may be the deciding factor when buying, for others it may not be as important. Some might think the SDDS' improvements don't justify the cost, others might think it's a bargain. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks I guess.

[mixedccr]

For the longest time, i considered 'space' to be the ultimate benchmark of any given feat of engineering. And thus believed the Speedmaster to be the 'gold standard' of timepieces. But, it has occurred to me that going to depth is the more difficult of the 2. Of what little i know, the Mars X-13 is in my opinion [in the frame of this discussion] not that much more advanced then the Speedmaster. So whether its to the moon or mars there is not much 'demand' on the case. In fact, any mechanical watch can make it to space. You just have to wind the damn thing. (the crystal shattering in zero grav is a new lesson for me, thanks)

The ability to go to depth however is quite different. There is, what i perceive to be, an exponential shift in conceptualisation, engineering and design to make a watch go from 40m to 400m to 4000m. And that is part of the reason why a DS. The depth rating speaks to its explicit and implicit attributes as marvel of technical know how, ingenuity, robustness, indestructibility and human spirit. And on top of that, Rolex has turned it into a simple yet elegant piece of craftsmanship.

[Klokke]

Originally Posted by moby33

This is exactly what I was talking about a few posts ago. This argument (when directed only at the DSSD) is ridiculous. There are over 23K members on TRF with thousand Sub & SD owners. I'll give you $100 if you can find me one member that has come close to diving their Sub to its limit of 1000'...heck, I'll give you $500 if you can find a SD owner that come come close to the 4000' limit of their fine watch. The point is I don't have to worry about breaking out my wallet to pay off bets because I'll NEVER lose.

If you're going to criticize Rolex for manufacturing the "useless function" of the DSSD in addition to calling it 'ludicrous'...then I hope you started the critique 50+ years ago when talking about the Sub and 30+ years ago when talking about the SD (and all other watch makers that have been building watches rated well beyond practical diving purposes).

Building watches that are capable of depths far beyond what any human will realistically use them is nothing new...yet for some reason some like to argue as if this is a 'new trend'. Not so.

First, we are not arguing here. We are discussing. We all have opinions and what is written here should be taken personally or as an insult to someone or someone's watch.

Having said that, this thread is about the big watch trend and Rolex's decision to make a "big watch", the SDDS. We are not talking about the Sub or the SD since they are not "big" watches but by bringing them up you prove my point.

Rolex, as YOU point out, already had two watches (SD & Sub) with almost uselessly high depth tolerance. They obviously were able to do this WITHOUT making the watch ugly and big. So if the depth tolerance on the SD and Sub are already more than enough as you point out, why would they need another watch with even more useless depth tolerance. The obvious answer is that they need an excuse, 10 years too late, to make a me-too big watch to follow the trend.

So you proved my point. Thanks.

Now if you want to start a DIFFERENT thread discussing depth tolerance with the Sub, SD, and SDDS feel free. I'll be the first one to agree with you that most will never need the depth tolerance of even the Sub. I'd also say that I don't see that very high depth tolerance in and of itself as pointless. It's just pointless when it's used to falsely justify making a trend-following large watch. Get it?

Bottom line: Rolex blew it with the SDDS and they are fooling no one. Period.

[Klokke]

Originally Posted by flyback

For Rolex it is a new trend. There were professional commercial divers for whom the Submariner was inadequate, and so Rolex introduced the Sea-Dweller.

The most recent SD4000 has a safety factor of about 2X at the maximum depths it will see, which is reasonable.

Mere mortals didn't need the depth capability of the SD4000, but they could feel good owning something that had been designed as a real solution to a real problem.

The DSSD depth rating, on the other hand, is an answer to a non-problem. Unlike the SD4000, it has zero customers who need its depth capability. This represents a departure from the so-called "tool watch" tradition.

Well put! Exactly right!

[Klokke]

Originally Posted by flyback

By the mid-1960s, research in saturation diving was heating up all over the world. By the early 1970s, research dives in excess of 200m (the Submariner's then-maximum rating) were being undertaken. The additional capability of the SD2000 was by no means "all for show." And as you've already mentioned, the addition of the helium valve was another important innovation made in response to real-world necessity.

The first Sea-Dwellers weren't even sold to the public.

The later SD4000 only has a 2x safety margin over the world depth record. And despite historically carrying only a small price premium over the Submariner, it's never sold in anything like the same numbers.

It was a different time, and those watches were developed for different reasons. They were better-known in professional circles than by the public.

But while we're on the subject: I wonder if the new Submariner will get its depth rating upped now that the SD4000 is out of the picture.

You sure know your diving AND Rolex history. Impressive!

[moby33]

Once again, I respectfully disagree with the idea that the DSSD is a 'New Trend' for Rolex with regard to building 'big watches'. If history is ignored and you're only looking at this point in the scope of only the last 10-20 years, then yes, I guess you could make that point. But, truth be told, from the beginning of Rolex's introduction of the Sub (followed shortly thereafter with the SD) the company considered them 'big' sport watches when compared to many other makers on the market at the time.

Even Rolex stated & embraced that fact in their advertisements of the day. I have multiple original Sub B&W magazine advertisements from the 60's that demonstrates this point. The one where they have a close up of a naval officer w/ his arm resting on the periscope that has the title, "If you shipped out on the Skate, the Shark, or the Nautilus, you'd recognize this face" goes to show how Rolex considered the Sub to be a big watch.

From the ad:
"We built it with an easy-reading revolving bezel around the face to tell you elapse time in murky waters. And we built it big, because underneath its unlovely stainless steel exterior, pressure proof to 110 fathoms, it's actually a full 26-jewl chronomter..."

Obviously the case was the same 40mm back then, yet they described it as big. No way in today's market would you find Rolex classifying the 40mm Sub as big in any advertisement, yet I could see them now putting that word in a DSSD ad.

Again, it's all a matter of evolution and how the watch compares to the present day competition. When the Sub debuted, it was considered big...yet today, it is just average (w/ some probably classifying it on the smaller side). At the time of introduction, there were some watch makers with bigger examples than 40mm, but in general, the Sub was considered a larger than average watch to wear in the late 50's, 60's and even 70's.

Today there are numerous watches larger than 43mm and therefore the DSSD isn't necessarily that shocking. Yet like the Subs intro, today the 43mm DSSD is considered larger than average. Therefore IMO, to say Rolex's introduction of the DSSD was their first foray into 'Big Watches' is not looking at the total history of the brand.

Are they a little 'late' w/ regard to updating the size, as if suggesting they are late to the party...well, personally, I think that's hard to say. While brands like Pan, Omega & Breitling have been making 42mm+ sized watches for a while, the fact of the matter is if we have indeed experienced a true paradigm shift in the last decade that has reset the 'big watch' status to the range of say 42-46mm watches (which personally I think we have), then I wouldn't say Rolex is late to the party...just the contrary...they have shown up 'fashionably late' and now the party can really begin.

[David Bidner]

think 40-42 is the perfect size range. My 41 Breitling is my best fitting watch.

[flyback]

Originally Posted by moby33

Once again, I respectfully disagree with the idea that the DSSD is a 'New Trend' for Rolex with regard to building 'big watches'.

The new trend is for Rolex to greatly enlarge their dive watches purely for fashion, and for no practical purpose.

Originally Posted by moby33

From the ad: "We built it with an easy-reading revolving bezel around the face to tell you elapse time in murky waters. And we built it big, because underneath its unlovely stainless steel exterior, pressure proof to 110 fathoms, it's actually a full 26-jewl chronomter..."

The key word isn't "big," it's "because." With the DSSD, the "because" does not have to do with diving or timekeeping.

[brainbizz]

I hardly call 1 watch a trend. IMHO Rolex hit the ball out of the park on this one. Why would Rolex need any justification to make a larger watch with or without an increased the depth rating. Why would it shock you if Rolex was trying to produce a larger watch to appeal to its customers. Is that not the point? To make watches which appeal to its customers. Its not like Rolex is a small company producing a few thousand watches which are all pre sold.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by flyback

The new trend is for Rolex to greatly enlarge their dive watches purely for fashion, and for no practical purpose.

Sure boss...whatever you say. I guess that's why the DSSD is 18mm thick...'cause everybody knows 18mm is so very 'fashionable'.

Next thing you're going to tell us is you know with certainty (which can only mean you were part of the original design team) that when the original Sub was developed, Rolex really wanted to set it in a 32-36mm case, yet due to 100% practical purposes they had to compromise and build an at the time large watch of 40mm.

Originally Posted by flyback

The key word isn't "big," it's "because." With the DSSD, the "because" does not have to do with diving or timekeeping.

See above comments, specifically regarding the DSSD thickness. I'm not a Rolex watch engineer, but I have a strange feeling the R&D that went into the thickness of the Ring Lock System, domed crystal, case back & larger diameter Triplock crown had a lot more to do with the 12,800' depth rating than fashion. If anything, the "because" has more to do with diving and extreme depth ratings on the DSSD than the "because" did on the original Sub. How do I know this? Simple. If, the original case & thickness of the Sub was set due to it's depth limits, why did the case/thickness not increase when the Sub went from 660' to 1000'?

You're kidding yourself if you think the original size of the Sub had more to do with practicality than fashion when compared w/ the DSSD. But in the end, I'm over this issue as I believe it's run its course. Believe what you like, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

[Singslinger]

Very interesting thread!

Seems like few watches have polarised opinion as much as the SDDS. Moby33 - I'm with you 100% on this and to be honest, I don't agree with any of the criticism directed at the Deepsea. To me, it's a big, heavy, well-engineered watch that looks good to my eye, is sold at an attractive price and so I bought it.

Maybe critics are upset with Rolex's foray into the big watch segment, or maybe they're not used to looking at a 43mm Rolex that is bulkier than usual.

I have to wonder though - did Panerai encounter such criticism when they did the reverse of Rolex and introduced their 40mm line, given that their watches are mainly 44mm?