Seadweller 43 is a mixed bag

[wb55]

Sub ND 41, SD43 and 126660 D-Blue.

I wear the Sub41 the most out of any watch I own and the D-Blue is my firm favourite. IMO the SD43 has too much reflection off the sapphire and the caseback protrudes too much relative to the thickness of the case.

It’s the fork in the road and I’d rather go one Sub or D-Blue. If I could get the same AR as the Sub though I might wear it more.

[alphadweller]

The Sub41 is a nice watch but it doesn't feel special to me. I never wanted one enough to buy it. The glossy dial shows swirls under a direct light, which is another minus.

The Deepsea is aesthetically flawed to me, with its small dial compared to the case and the odd looking ring lock. I don't mind the thickness. It's an extreme diver, that's what the thickness is for.

The SD43 is the sweet spot, the best of both worlds, technically more advanced than the Sub and with great proportions. Three extra millimeters to make it 4 times more water resistant. It feels more special and wears larger on my 7in wrist. I find it more satisfying to look at. The matte charcoal textured dial is a pleasant nod to the first 1665 Sea-Dweller, it gives it a meaner and grittier appearance. It looks badass without going overboard.

I never experienced any discomfort with my SD43, only sheer pleasure. On the other hand, other divers featuring a larger caseback end up sliding and rubbing against my wrist bone after a while, which limits the number of days I can comfortably wear them in a row. This never happens with the SD43, as it sits nicely tucked in between my wrist bones.

For most people, I can see the Sub41 being satisfying enough and I would recommend it to those with smaller wrists who need validation from others.

[JRedford]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

who need validation from others.

[Toproll85]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

What a bunch of trivial nonsense. None of this here is fact, it's all opinion and nothing more than that. The SD43 is a bulky watch with poor dimensions. That's my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read about it. This forum is to talk about experiences and this is mine. Sorry that a watch you like gets criticized. Pick up your panties and move on.

You mentioning the YM shows how logically deficient you actually are. The YM is nothing like what I'd want in a watch considering I repeatedly said I want a 43mm watch that doesn't have the thickness of a hockey puck. The YM has nothing regarding that except for a 42mm on rubber. So be consistent if you're going to yap about logic.

The fact that the SD43 is not thicker than other divers 4 times less waterproof is not an opinion.
The fact that it doesn't look like its 43mm in diameter due to a relatively large bezel in relation to the dial, is not an opinion either.
The fact that the bracelet is widened, and the lugs thinner, compared to a Submariner 116610, which makes it even a much better proportioned watch, is still not an opinion but a measurable reality.
And you, do you have a solid argument if not to declare that it's bulky?

The SD are watches built for the seabed and that this must be taken into consideration is still a fact.
If you think you can create a watch that can withstand so much pressure, case, glass, back indeed resistant and bulkier, in short do better than Rolex, then do it, if not crush, criticism is easier indeed...

You have the right to have a style, to not want to adhere to this conception and history for a reason of aesthetic preference, but nonsense is not understanding why this is so.
You seem to be sinking, straight towards what you want to see or hear, like a running horse with blinders on. It is rather that, what is called absurdity.

Otherwise I respect the opinion and taste of others, know that it affects me absolutely not and that I am the happiest of men with my varied collection, including the SD.
My strength is objectivity, you should try...

For the YM, you still don't understand. This is not for its diameter, but for its different and thinner casing. Which I think fits the person looking for a sufficiently waterproof and versatile Rolex without being a diver. Wanting a particular diameter means absolutely nothing.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

…

I never experienced any discomfort with my SD43, only sheer pleasure. On the other hand, other divers featuring a larger caseback end up sliding and rubbing against my wrist bone after a while, which limits the number of days I can comfortably wear them in a row. This never happens with the SD43, as it sits nicely tucked in between my wrist bones…

Always appreciate your insights Victor and just goes to show what I was saying earlier about the comfort of this reference.

I’m happy it suits you well. I’m also getting on better with mine these days

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

My wrist is as flat as it gets. The extruding caseback makes the case not hug the wrist fully and no flat wrist would help that, unless you wear the watch ridiculously tight, which would defeat the purpose of enjoying a watch.

Its not so much a flat wrist as a flat concave wrist, which enables the caseback to sit in the "hollow" between the wrist bones.

SD43s need to be worn "snug" for optimum comfort in my experience which may not suit your wearing style.

I was happy wear mine as a daily and I've not got particularly large wrists, but have the ideal wrist shape.

[Bet]

SD43 it’s actually perfect for those with flat wrist, but trust me you would enjoy it when you get use to the thickness

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by Toproll85

The fact that the SD43 is not thicker than other divers 4 times less waterproof is not an opinion.
The fact that it doesn't look like its 43mm in diameter due to a relatively large bezel in relation to the dial, is not an opinion either.
The fact that the bracelet is widened, and the lugs thinner, compared to a Submariner 116610, which makes it even a much better proportioned watch, is still not an opinion but a measurable reality.
And you, do you have a solid argument if not to declare that it's bulky?

The SD are watches built for the seabed and that this must be taken into consideration is still a fact.
If you think you can create a watch that can withstand so much pressure, case, glass, back indeed resistant and bulkier, in short do better than Rolex, then do it, if not crush, criticism is easier indeed...

You have the right to have a style, to not want to adhere to this conception and history for a reason of aesthetic preference, but nonsense is not understanding why this is so.
You seem to be sinking, straight towards what you want to see or hear, like a running horse with blinders on. It is rather that, what is called absurdity.

Otherwise I respect the opinion and taste of others, know that it affects me absolutely not and that I am the happiest of men with my varied collection, including the SD.
My strength is objectivity, you should try...

For the YM, you still don't understand. This is not for its diameter, but for its different and thinner casing. Which I think fits the person looking for a sufficiently waterproof and versatile Rolex without being a diver. Wanting a particular diameter means absolutely nothing.

"The fact that the SD43 is not thicker than other divers 4 times less waterproof is not an opinion. "

I agree it's not an opinion. Too bad the dimensions look terrible regardless.

"The fact that it doesn't look like its 43mm in diameter due to a relatively large bezel in relation to the dial, is not an opinion either. "

Definitely an opinion, and a horrible one at that. It damn well looks 43mm to me.

"The fact that the bracelet is widened, and the lugs thinner, compared to a Submariner 116610, which makes it even a much better proportioned watch, is still not an opinion but a measurable reality. "

I don't disagree here at all. It's still a thick ass watch.

"And you, do you have a solid argument if not to declare that it's bulky?"

Yes, the caseback is hilariously large and plops on the wrist, any wrist. It is thick and bad looking when worn on ANYONE's wrist, in my opinion.

Your horrible takes and calling them objective truths do not change that.

"The SD are watches built for the seabed and that this must be taken into consideration is still a fact.
If you think you can create a watch that can withstand so much pressure, case, glass, back indeed resistant and bulkier, in short do better than Rolex, then do it, if not crush, criticism is easier indeed..."

No, this does not have to be taken under consideration when wearing luxury watches for their actual intended purpose -- style and jewlery.

Just because I do not make watches does not mean I can't have an opinion that a watch you own looks bad. That's yet another logical fallacy.

If Rolex made a model that can travel to the core of the planet but was shaped like a literal pringles can, it would be a laughing stock. I would not wear one.

Just because it has impressive features on paper does not mean that aesthetically it is a clown show.

"You have the right to have a style, to not want to adhere to this conception and history for a reason of aesthetic preference, but nonsense is not understanding why this is so.
You seem to be sinking, straight towards what you want to see or hear, like a running horse with blinders on. It is rather that, what is called absurdity. "

Yes I have the right, and I am expressing that right, and my opinion. I completely understand why it is built like a clown hockey puck. I already said time and time again that if others like it then good for them. I am stating it is not for me. So why are you being sensitive about it?

"Otherwise I respect the opinion and taste of others, know that it affects me absolutely not and that I am the happiest of men with my varied collection, including the SD.
My strength is objectivity, you should try... "

You were not objective, you had opinions masked as objective truths. This is a false claim and a logical fallacy.

"For the YM, you still don't understand. This is not for its diameter, but for its different and thinner casing. Which I think fits the person looking for a sufficiently waterproof and versatile Rolex without being a diver. Wanting a particular diameter means absolutely nothing."

Buddy, with the metric you have just given me, you could have literally given me 99% of the Rolex catalogue if it is based on the merits of a caseback that isn't disgustingly huge like the SD43. So thanks for the random shoutout for the YM, but no thanks

Let's put it this way, I have seen people criticize the Daytona, the Sub, the GMT many times here. No owners of these watches have twisted objective truths and created logical fallacies like you and Rambo here in order to win some weird argument because someone did not like the watch you own. No Panda Daytona or Pepsi owner wrote essays when someone said their watch was not to their taste. You know why? They are confident in their model they purchased. You and him clearly are not. You are self conscious and deep down know you made a mistake.

But it's okay, bro. It can travel really far down the sea that will never even splash on your watch. So you can justify that horrid looking case back on your wrist. It's an objective truth -- when people see that caseback plop on your wrist -- they don't go, "wow, that looks really weird on his wrist, kind of thick no?" -- they go "Wow, that oddly shaped caseback can probably reach 4000ft of water. I see why he bought that weird looking thing"

Now that's objective!

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

What a bunch of trivial nonsense. None of this here is fact, it's all opinion and nothing more than that. The SD43 is a bulky watch with poor dimensions. That's my opinion.

I'm inclined to agree.
Maybe if they'd put more thought into it all and made the lugs turned down a bit more it would be more comfortable.
Instead they stuck with the same old format that the Sea-Dweller has always had with a relatively flat layout and the protruding caseback.
Let's face it. The watch was never intended to be worn as a fashion accessory by all and sundry.

I wonder how Seiko would've approached the design from a wearability/comfort perspective?
Seiko have had some comfortable designs for divers
Maybe they don't want to play in that space much and leave it too the others to battle it out in the insanely extreme diver segment.

The DSSD rules

[amh]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

I agree it's not an opinion. Too bad the dimensions look terrible regardless.

Definitely an opinion, and a horrible one at that. It damn well looks 43mm to me.

I don't disagree here at all. It's still a thick ass watch.

Yes, the caseback is hilariously large and plops on the wrist, any wrist. It is thick and bad looking when worn on ANYONE's wrist, in my opinion.

Your horrible takes and calling them objective truths do not change that.

No, this does not have to be taken under consideration when wearing luxury watches for their actual intended purpose -- style and jewlery.

Just because I do not make watches does not mean I can't have an opinion that a watch you own looks bad. That's yet another logical fallacy.

If Rolex made a model that can travel to the core of the planet but was shaped like a literal pringles can, it would be a laughing stock. I would not wear one.

Just because it has impressive features on paper does not mean that aesthetically it is a clown show.

Yes I have the right, and I am expressing that right, and my opinion. I completely understand why it is built like a clown hockey puck. I already said time and time again that if others like it then good for them. I am stating it is not for me. So why are you being sensitive about it

You were not objective, you had opinions masked as objective truths. This is a false claim and a logical fallacy.

Buddy, with the metric you have just given me, you could have literally given me 99% of the Rolex catalogue if it is based on the merits of a caseback that isn't disgustingly huge like the SD43. So thanks for the random shoutout for the YM, but no thanks

<snip>

But it's okay, bro. It can travel really far down the sea that will never even splash on your watch. So you can justify that horrid looking case back on your wrist. It's an objective truth -- when people see that caseback plop on your wrist -- they don't go, "wow, that looks really weird on his wrist, kind of thick no?" -- they go "Wow, that oddly shaped caseback can probably reach 4000ft of water. I see why he bought that weird looking thing"

Now that's objective!

I don't know what you're smoking

When people see my SD43 they say "Wow, cool Submariner!" Perhaps a dozen people would be my guess. No one even knows it's a Sea Dweller.

Pull up one of the SD picture threads if you want. Ah, never mind. You hate it, we get it

[Driver8]

I can't believe this one is at 7 pages, and I've got to be honest I'm starting to struggle with it a bit now.

The simple fact is the SD43 is a thick watch because of it's depth/WR rating. Yes of course no-one really needs an ultra-deep diver's watch any more..., but then by the same token no-one needs a mechanical watch these days either. Both are anachronisms and an archaic exercise in engineering, and that's exactly why people like both mechanical watches and mega-WR diver's watches.

As has been said many times in this thread, to reduce the WR on the SD to fit some people's aesthetic ideals just isn't what that watch is about. It would be like making a Formula One car with 4 seats so the driver can take the family to the shops after a race - it would completely compromise what the original design ethos and function is about.

If you don't like the aesthetic, then that's fine. If you think it's badly proportioned, that's fine too. Even if you think it's ugly, then that's also fine. It just means it's not for you.

But at the end of the day, the thickness is there for a reason... and it's a reason that Rolex are NEVER going to change.

[SDGT3]

7 pages? 7.....

It's thick and you knew that going in and doubt Rolex will change based on that feature. It's unique and not for everyone. The good news is that there are plenty of other options. Move on.

[warrior]

Hey Amh, just curious. do you hang out with a bunch of like minded well to do people that check out each other's watches during social/work events??? or these your friends? family?

Just curious because a pretty hefty majority of Americans ( ie the mainstream public) couldn't tell you specifically what a "Submariner" looks like right off the bat. Maybe a larger number can say they've heard of a Submariner, I would guess.

Originally Posted by amh

I don't know what you're smoking

When people see my SD43 they say "Wow, cool Submariner!" Perhaps a dozen people would be my guess. No one even knows it's a Sea Dweller.

Pull up one of the SD picture threads if you want. Ah, never mind. You hate it, we get it

[kyleg531]

I absolutely love the look of the SD43. The fatter bezel with roughly equivalent (or maybe the same) dial size as a sub looks great to my eye. But I’ve always stopped short of tracking one down because I’m nervous about it wearing too large for me. Don’t know anyone who owns one so it would likely be a blind buy.

Had a sub that was sold to fund another purchase but if it wore even 60% as well I might just make the leap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amh]

Originally Posted by warrior

Hey Amh, just curious. do you hang out with a bunch of like minded well to do people that check out each other's watches during social/work events??? or these your friends? family?

Just curious because a pretty hefty majority of Americans ( ie the mainstream public) couldn't tell you specifically what a "Submariner" looks like right off the bat. Maybe a larger number can say they've heard of a Submariner, I would guess.

Comments come only from random people at restaurants, malls etc. And of course Jewelry shops My friends & family don't even notice I'm wearing a watch (or they don't give a crap.)

The point is that the SD doesn't look very different than the Sub to most people. It's certainly no hockey puck or hamburger. It's the same diameter as the Exp2 and likely shares the exact same frame. It's thicker than many watches but not particularly thick for a diver and actually very thin for such a "deep diver." The lugs are well proportioned and the bracelet matches the case very well. It's nowhere near the size of the Deep Sea not to mention many modern sport GPS watches or (*gasp*) Invictas. These days it's rather medium sized.

Let's say I wander into my local cigar lounge, I'll probably see six guys wearing some kind of Rolex GMT or Sub variant. No one cares and certainly no one is going to say "OMG! You case back is 1mm thicker than my watch! What a weird design." People are happy just to raise a glass to our good fortune of living in a free country.

[warrior]

Thanks for the response I will say that I've heard everything is bigger in Texas...

Originally Posted by amh

Comments come only from random people at restaurants, malls etc. And of course Jewelry shops My friends & family don't even notice I'm wearing a watch (or they don't give a crap.)

The point is that the SD doesn't look very different than the Sub to most people. It's certainly no hockey puck or hamburger. It's the same diameter as the Exp2 and likely shares the exact same frame. It's thicker than many watches but not particularly thick for a diver and actually very thin for such a "deep diver." The lugs are well proportioned and the bracelet matches the case very well. It's nowhere near the size of the Deep Sea not to mention many modern sport GPS watches or (*gasp*) Invictas. These days it's rather medium sized.

Let's say I wander into my local cigar lounge, I'll probably see six guys wearing some kind of Rolex GMT or Sub variant. No one cares and certainly no one is going to say "OMG! You case back is 1mm thicker than my watch! What a weird design." People are happy just to raise a glass to our good fortune of living in a free country.

[2loaded]

I just picked up a Ferrari, it's red, sleek and sounds great, yet way too fast.
Anyone else wish Ferrari would make their cars slower?

[garyk]

Originally Posted by 2loaded

I just picked up a Ferrari, it's red, sleek and sounds great, yet way too fast.
Anyone else wish Ferrari would make their cars slower?

Do ferraris come with the big gold chains for the owners or is that an acquired habit?

[samson66]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

The Sub41 is a nice watch but it doesn't feel special to me. I never wanted one enough to buy it. The glossy dial shows swirls under a direct light, which is another minus.

The Deepsea is aesthetically flawed to me, with its small dial compared to the case and the odd looking ring lock. I don't mind the thickness. It's an extreme diver, that's what the thickness is for.

The SD43 is the sweet spot, the best of both worlds, technically more advanced than the Sub and with great proportions. Three extra millimeters to make it 4 times more water resistant. It feels more special and wears larger on my 7in wrist. I find it more satisfying to look at. The matte charcoal textured dial is a pleasant nod to the first 1665 Sea-Dweller, it gives it a meaner and grittier appearance. It looks badass without going overboard.

I never experienced any discomfort with my SD43, only sheer pleasure. On the other hand, other divers featuring a larger caseback end up sliding and rubbing against my wrist bone after a while, which limits the number of days I can comfortably wear them in a row. This never happens with the SD43, as it sits nicely tucked in between my wrist bones.

For most people, I can see the Sub41 being satisfying enough and I would recommend it to those with smaller wrists who need validation from others.

This basically sums up my thoughts completely. I'm approaching five years with my SD43 and it's been a terrific watch. The case back snugs down nicely on my 7.5" wrist and wears not slim, not fat, just about perfectly. Wrist presence without being overbearing

And as alphadweller points out, the SD just feels special compared to a Sub.

[PA Zu]

Originally Posted by rambo99

I think it looks perfect, and the proportion is much better than the submariner. the sd43 is my favorite daily wearer out of my collection.

Funny, before I even saw this thread, I had made a mental note this morning that I seem to be wearing the SD43 all the time. Definitely has become my favorite daily wearer as well!

[wb55]

One person's in the middle sweet spot is another person's fork in the road which goes nowhere.

[Schnaps]

Luv it

[garyk]

Originally Posted by Schnaps

Luv it

Beautiful watch.

[slus]

Originally Posted by wb55

Sub ND 41, SD43 and 126660 D-Blue.

I wear the Sub41 the most out of any watch I own and the D-Blue is my firm favourite. IMO the SD43 has too much reflection off the sapphire and the caseback protrudes too much relative to the thickness of the case.

It’s the fork in the road and I’d rather go one Sub or D-Blue. If I could get the same AR as the Sub though I might wear it more.

Great pictures, thank you! Sub41 and SD43 look closer than I thought head-on.

I want to love the SD43, it's my favorite Rolex on paper and in photos, everywhere but my wrist. Loose, it sits up too high and leaves a weird gap under the lugs. Tight enough to stay above my wrist bone, it hurts. I've tried it numerous times at ADs. Black 1266600 DSSD is as close as I'll be getting, much more comfortable once properly adjusted (which took some trial and error).

[Malum]

You’ve got to admit , these SD43 haters cannot let go .

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by Malum

You’ve got to admit , these SD43 haters cannot let go .

I'm a hater because I bought a watch and have come to the point that I found the caseback is so thick it's practically silly looking?

Constructive criticism is not hating, there is no reason for me to "hate"

[Gebbeth]

I think the issue is that people are couching an opinion or personal preference as an objective fact.

Is the case back "too thick" for some. Sure, that's fair game. I don't think so, but wrists and opinions differ. I don't think objectively it's "practically silly looking." That's just an opinion.

The SD43 suffers in just one crucial aspect. It's in the middle and all the baggage that comes with being in the middle (like being a middle child....some suffer, some don't from being one). Some don't like it because it's too much of something, or too little of another.

Some like it because it's in the middle.

I'm one of those. I picked the SD43 to scrounge and beg over because it is a tough SOB that can be used on dives that no human can survive, and yet still be of a size that's wearable for me on a daily basis if I choose to.

It's a bigger beast than the regular Sub41 but not a "statement" piece like the DS, which I could never get away with as a daily. That's a "special" occasion watch.....like a full testosterone football party for the Super Bowl.

Anyway, to each their own. It's clear from the sales numbers that the SD43 is not the most popular watch in the Rolex lineup, but I would take it any day over the regular sub and DS. It's right for me in this way.

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by Gebbeth

I think the issue is that people are couching an opinion or personal preference as an objective fact.

Is the case back "too thick" for some. Sure, that's fair game. I don't think so, but wrists and opinions differ. I don't think objectively it's "practically silly looking." That's just an opinion.

I have stated time and time again this is all opinion based and if someone loves how the SD43 wears then good on them.

[Toproll85]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

Yes, the caseback is hilariously large and plops on the wrist, any wrist. It is thick and bad looking when worn on ANYONE's wrist, in my opinion.

It's your opinion.
In reality, on the ~1.5cm thickness of the watch, the bottom represents 0.2mm.

The latter, with wrist movements, tends to become embedded.
In practice, it doesn't look a lot like a hockey puck as you repeated.



I know you wish you were right, but to say it's ugly on anyone's wrist isn't realistic or makes sense. It depends on the wrist of the person, and often it is the man who makes the watch, not the other way around. There are even watches with a contained diameter and thickness that won't fit in with anyone. It can therefore be suitable for many, as well as those like you who don't like it.

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

No, this does not have to be taken under consideration when wearing luxury watches for their actual intended purpose -- style and jewlery.

So in your logic it makes sense to be interested in extreme diving watches with a case back designed to withstand such pressure that you are predictably not going to like?

Still in your logic so there is no type of watch to choose according to your preferences, tastes and attractions?
Can you explain to me, if you want?

"I like SUVs, but I would like it to be low to the ground", it's a bit like I understand you, and I don't find it rational.
And you? Can you explain coherently? (no joke on my part)

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

Buddy, with the metric you have just given me, you could have literally given me 99% of the Rolex catalogue if it is based on the merits of a caseback that isn't disgustingly huge like the SD43. So thanks for the random shoutout for the YM, but no thanks

Let's put it this way, I have seen people criticize the Daytona, the Sub, the GMT many times here. No owners of these watches have twisted objective truths and created logical fallacies like you and Rambo here in order to win some weird argument because someone did not like the watch you own. No Panda Daytona or Pepsi owner wrote essays when someone said their watch was not to their taste. You know why? They are confident in their model they purchased. You and him clearly are not. You are self conscious and deep down know you made a mistake.

But it's okay, bro. It can travel really far down the sea that will never even splash on your watch. So you can justify that horrid looking case back on your wrist. It's an objective truth -- when people see that caseback plop on your wrist -- they don't go, "wow, that looks really weird on his wrist, kind of thick no?" -- they go "Wow, that oddly shaped caseback can probably reach 4000ft of water. I see why he bought that weird looking thing"

Now that's objective!

You are right. This is just one example that I gave you. Indeed, many others correspond better to your criterion of having a flat case back.

It's a nice movie. But it's your imagination.
You invent, and even extrapolate.

Because you don't like something, people for whom it's quite the opposite, are necessarily aware of an error? You need a specialist, it is a possibility.

And no one in real has said about the watch or its thickness. It's imperceptible to anyone, because it's just a sports watch like so many others, and in the most beautiful ones.




What is objective is to resume your 7 pages of the topic.

I counted 14 negative reviews for this piece. There are 38 detailed ones, testifying to the pleasure and comfort of owning an SD43.

In perspective, this represents 73% of opinions putting you in the wrong.
I'm part of.

It's not representative, but it gives an idea, so let's say that Rolex would be wrong to abandon the range of hyper-developed divers, to deny a whole history, and a crazy epic of development, for…27% grumpy people, who in addition can find their contentment in the rest of the catalog !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k76vUH3AADw

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by Toproll85

It's your opinion.
In reality, on the ~1.5cm thickness of the watch, the bottom represents 0.2mm.

The latter, with wrist movements, tends to become embedded.
In practice, it doesn't look a lot like a hockey puck as you repeated.



I know you wish you were right, but to say it's ugly on anyone's wrist isn't realistic or makes sense. It depends on the wrist of the person, and often it is the man who makes the watch, not the other way around. There are even watches with a contained diameter and thickness that won't fit in with anyone. It can therefore be suitable for many, as well as those like you who don't like it.




So in your logic it makes sense to be interested in extreme diving watches with a case back designed to withstand such pressure that you are predictably not going to like?

Still in your logic so there is no type of watch to choose according to your preferences, tastes and attractions?
Can you explain to me, if you want?

"I like SUVs, but I would like it to be low to the ground", it's a bit like I understand you, and I don't find it rational.
And you? Can you explain coherently? (no joke on my part)




You are right. This is just one example that I gave you. Indeed, many others correspond better to your criterion of having a flat case back.

It's a nice movie. But it's your imagination.
You invent, and even extrapolate.

Because you don't like something, people for whom it's quite the opposite, are necessarily aware of an error? You need a specialist, it is a possibility.

And no one in real has said about the watch or its thickness. It's imperceptible to anyone, because it's just a sports watch like so many others, and in the most beautiful ones.




What is objective is to resume your 7 pages of the topic.

I counted 14 negative reviews for this piece. There are 38 detailed ones, testifying to the pleasure and comfort of owning an SD43.

In perspective, this represents 73% of opinions putting you in the wrong.
I'm part of.

It's not representative, but it gives an idea, so let's say that Rolex would be wrong to abandon the range of hyper-developed divers, to deny a whole history, and a crazy epic of development, for…27% grumpy people, who in addition can find their contentment in the rest of the catalog !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k76vUH3AADw

I'm not going to reply to an essay full of logical fallacies because you're offended I find a watch you own look really bad.

I will quickly point out one logical fallacy in the sea of many of yours though, where you were so offended by my opinion and self conscious of your watch that you counted the people pro and anti the SD43 in this particular thread.

Most people who dislike the SD43 won't bother commenting. The ones who love it will defend it. You're using skewed logic to somehow make it seem like most people love the SD43.

They do not. This is the vocal minority fallacy.


There is a reason why so many people voted it out on which to remove from my collection: https://www.rolexforums.com/poll.php...ts&pollid=6395

It's cause it's big and ridiculously thick to most people.

Enjoy the watch, glad you like it.