DSSD Dial -- Some truth is missing

[rolexsubdate]

ok folks,

I read something today that totally pissed me off about Rolex.
It shows nothing but this desire to appear more desirable at
the expense of truth.

Look at the image I attached. It says that the dial of the DSSD
was supposed to have 4000m on it but because the #4 is conisdered
unlucky in the asian world, they stamped it as 3900m.

So now the rest of the other world has to live with a 3900m stamp
because one part of the world is supertitious about it? You wanna cater
to the asian market then stamp the dial especially for them at 3900m, but
for the rest of the diving afficianados, leave the stamp at 4000m

Put the stamp on the dial that it deserves, not what would make people
happy. That's some serious ASS kissing and bending over on Rolex's behalf ..
I did not think Role would stoop this low.

[sleddog]

Rolex Always stamps their dial at 25% lower than actual rated depth...

So what if they cater to the asian market??

[Tools]

I would find it unlikely that Rolex would have ever released such a marketing decision..

That, and for more than 30 years the SD has had 4000ft on the dial......

I think that it's more likely that since the major oceans average a depth of around 3900meters, Rolex thought it was good marketing that they had a watch that showed it could cruise along the bottom of any ocean you cared to go into..... (if you could actually go that deep, that is)

[ecsub44]

I'm assuming you're kidding.

Right?

[rolexsubdate]

Originally Posted by sleddog

Rolex Always stamps their dial at 25% lower than actual rated depth...

So what if they cater to the asian market??

ok, i did not know that about them stamping 25% lower.

If your product is that good, you shouldn't be catering to
any market. If you cater to the truth, your product will sell.

[Paracentesis]

Who cares? You'd be just as dead at 4000m as you would at 3900m, or 2467m. They may as well put ∞ metres!

[CashGap]

Originally Posted by Paracentesis

Who cares? You'd be just as dead at 4000m as you would at 3900m, or 2467m. They may as well put ∞ metres!

^^^^^^^^ This!!!

[rolexsubdate]

Originally Posted by Tools

.....That, and for more than 30 years the SD has had 4000ft on the dial......

....

Well you definitely have a point there. If 4 was that bad, why would the SD say 4000ft.

Well when the SD did come out, maybe the Asian market was not as big as it is now, in terms of revenue stream, plus there was not as much cultural sensitivity issues as there are now..

[sleddog]

It's all about marketing, which Rolex does so well.
As Larry said above, it is more about a choice than actual fact.

[rolexsubdate]

Ok, here is what I feel. so much scientific research goes into devleoping these watches and experimentation too that once the watch passes, it deserves the highest medal ...
well if Rolex removed the 4 because of cultural sensitivity issues, then they are doing a disservice to all that research and the watch itself -- kind of like falsifying lab results in the name of $$$.

I just hope this wasn't the reason for the 4 missing.

[gkanga]

That is pretty ridiculous (if it's true). They should have made it 3999.

[Paracentesis]

The DS isn't the king of the deep in any case. There are even more extreme, and pointless, watches available for your delectation.

[esm]

Originally Posted by rolexsubdate

ok, i did not know that about them stamping 25% lower.

If your product is that good, you shouldn't be catering to
any market. If you cater to the truth, your product will sell.

Wasn't the CX 20,000FT good for 7500m, but it is marketed at 6000m? So... What happened there?

[usbzoso]

they should just make it better and mark it 5000ft

[Rollie2011]

The really bothers you?

Would you rather have them put 4235 ft 9 inches and 3 centimeters?

And besides, if you were a business owner, would you not cater to your largest audience???

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by rolexsubdate

Ok, here is what I feel. so much scientific research goes into devleoping these watches and experimentation too that once the watch passes, it deserves the highest medal ...
well if Rolex removed the 4 because of cultural sensitivity issues, then they are doing a disservice to all that research and the watch itself -- kind of like falsifying lab results in the name of $$$.

I just hope this wasn't the reason for the 4 missing.

No. That which is printed on the dial cannot in anyway do any disservice to the research. What the public thinks/knows is pointless in this case.

There is some artistic merit to it too. Why not 3999m? Because it would look weird

As we know, it's really tested to closer to 5000m. So they backoff a bit for warranty purposes. The point is none of the numbers that have been proposed are " real" numbers. They would really need to print, to be official and not insult the scientists, something like "tested and verified to a depth of 5013.4578m". Since ALL of these depths are physical impossibilities...the while thing become moot.

[tgoose1]

Rolex obviously needs to start dredging the major ocean floors to get that extra 100m designation.

[cgjane]

this thread = splitting hairs

[Michael M.]

This doesn't sound right! When I saw some pics of a DSSD bought in asia it did not have this dial variation.

[The Waddler]

Most unintentionally hilarious thread of the day

[mike]

You didn't like the watch so you sold it. That's fine.

If you don't care for the way Rolex does things that's fine as well.

All these posts about how negative Rolex is is getting a bit long in the tooth.

Some people (at least a few) really seem to like the brand and that reference in particular.

[moviefreak]

So no Playstation 4 in the near future????

[paddy_crow]

What is the source for the anecdote about the depth rating? My first reaction is to question its veracity.

[Zed Homme]

Is it possible that Rolex did this so no one confuses the 4000 foot sea dweller for the 4000 meter sea dweller?

[mike]

Originally Posted by paddy_crow

What is the source for the anecdote about the depth rating? My first reaction is to question its veracity.

That Rolex is conservative in it's depth ratings has long been known (in fact reported in several watch mags.)

The DS was tested by COMEX to much deeper than it's stated depth.

[paddy_crow]

Originally Posted by mike

That Rolex is conservative in it's depth ratings has long been known (in fact reported in several watch mags.)

The DS was tested by COMEX to much deeper than it's stated depth.

I was curious what the source was for the depth rating being changed for the Asian market.

[Intruder99]

Originally Posted by Zed Homme

Is it possible that Rolex did this so no one confuses the 4000 foot sea dweller for the 4000 meter sea dweller?

Yes , i think that was the real reason.

another interesting post by rolexsubdate, this is how we learn things

[Beeper]

Originally Posted by Zed Homme

Is it possible that Rolex did this so no one confuses the 4000 foot sea dweller for the 4000 meter sea dweller?

If you find yourself at 4000ft, your watch probably should be low on your priority list (:

[Zed Homme]

Originally Posted by Beeper

If you find yourself at 4000ft, your watch probably should be low on your priority list (:

You have no idea how irritating it is when im diving past 5000 ft and I realize I have the wrong watch on. Happened to me just a few weeks ago and I had to send my sea dweller to the rsc...

[mike]

Originally Posted by paddy_crow

I was curious what the source was for the depth rating being changed for the Asian market.

Ah! My mistake. I have no idea there.