Ben Clymer's (Hodinkee) take on the SD43

[yessir69]

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/th...ference-126600

He said it's not for him. I agree with alot of what he said.

[Ravager135]

I really like his personal take on the reference at the end of the article. It articulates my feelings towards the model. I'll always be a Submariner guy because it's more than I need in a dive watch. Got nothing against anyone who wants something larger or more engineered, it just seems a little unnecessary.

[Richmor]

That's why they make Chocolate and Vanilla. Each his own.
I really like my SD43.
I also really like my SD40, Sub, GMT's, and others.

[Wcdhtwn]

"Commercially one of the least important"? I'd think the demand and sales after a year would determine that. That he admits to being a 4 digit Sub owner and never liked any version of the SD I'm not surprised he continues to think the watch isn't for him.

[2Redbulls]

I didn't realize all the differences beyond just the size and cyclops. Thanks for sharing.

[mementomori1983]

Ben's not a big watch guy so I can see where he's coming from. I do agree with his take that the size increase to 43mm was needed to allow for differentiation from the Sub.

[sensui]

Originally Posted by Richmor

That's why they make Chocolate and Vanilla. Each his own.
I really like my SD43.
I also really like my SD40, Sub, GMT's, and others.

Yep, something for everyone.

[BVLDARI]

I like that it's different and overbuilt.

[AK797]

It's far better differentiated from the Subc and even GMTc, which were far outselling it, so we can see why Rolex positioned the SD43 where they did.

[Cru Jones]

Nice to see Ben taking a break from writing articles paid for by his advertisers. Still pretty insufferable.

[Hollister]

Insufferable? That seems a little strong. It looks like a well-balanced piece of watch journalism to me.

[watchwatcher]

I can somewhat relate to his reasoning of why the watch is not for him. I'm certainly no diver, either, but man...it's such a good feeling and looking watch, I'm willing to overlook that.

[mtgjr]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Nice to see Ben taking a break from writing articles paid for by his advertisers. Still pretty insufferable.

How so? I found it to be a well-written and highly informative watch review.

[VicLeChic]

His criticism for not liking the watch is: "It's a true tool watch catering to true dive professionals – which I am not." Isn't that what the Submarines also is? The Sub was designed to go under water, not worn with a tie and jacket. That didn't stop him from owning a Sub. But of course if it's not a vintage watch its not worth having. New and a bit different? BAD. The sort of hipster snobbish attitude that puts me off reading Hodinkee...

[Danex]

I thought the article was well written and fair. His personal bias against it was pretty well withheld until the end.
I learned a lot about the new SD, and conclude that I would like to own one.

[AS1]

Originally Posted by AK797

It's far better differentiated from the Subc and even GMTc, which were far outselling it, so we can see why Rolex positioned the SD43 where they did.

agreed

i was skeptical when it first came out but became a believer. really nice watch.

[Seanken]

I am not a diver. I spent a lot of time determining that the subc was for me. I was right. Extremely accurate, tough, good looking, company that stands behind its products. Has an engine that is a throwback to older times but performs at a high level.

Maybe it shouldn't be called a diver?

How about spring punk?

[GradyPhilpott]

That's pretty much how I've always viewed the Sea Dweller, too.

I can justify having a dive watch because it a really robust watch that has a nifty rotating bezel, but when you add a HEV, it becomes something that's out of my league with no added benefit in my world.

I feel the same way about the YMII and the Sky Dweller. They are admirable watches, but the former offers a timer that's of absolutely no use to me and the latter doesn't offer anything my GMTII doesn't offer under real world circumstances.

The new Sea-Dweller is a very handsome watch, though, cyclops and all.

[Lol-x]

The guy doesn't say anything bad about the watch, its just that it isn't suitable for him.

I like the SD43 but I find the SubCLV more comfortable.
Given that both watches have the same dial size I can't really (apart from the red writing) prefer the SD43 for my needs.

[joli160]

Originally Posted by Hollister

Insufferable? That seems a little strong. It looks like a well-balanced piece of watch journalism to me.

It has nothing to do with objective journalism, only oohs and aahs and kissing up the major brands. Seems to be a good business model

[toneafficianado]

I thought it was really well written.
I'm glad to have had this thread to direct me there to read his article.
Wouldn't it be great to have his job?!
I love the look of the SD43 but , as with Clymer, would find it too hefty and large to live with.
The biggest watch I have is my 216570 and that's got great balance on the wrist.

[peterskinner]

For whatever reason, I've become cautious about the larger models. They seem a bit too big, a bit too 'showy.' The simple 40mm and below models now speak to me more.
Next year i'l probably think the opposite.

[Mick P]

Chaps

This is the first Ben Clymer review that I have ever written and found it well balanced and objective. It was a good review.

Regards

Mick

[binarycache]

It seems a fair review, but it doesn't change my personal opinion of the watch.

[sager]

Thanks for sharing.

[Verdi]

Hodinkee managed to annoy me many times but this is a fair, well written review......and I agree with pretty much everything there.
Especially coming from a Sub perspective.

I had tried the SD43. It is a handsome watch but not for me. My Sub is more comfortable and better proportioned. I much prefer it to SD43.

[1William]

I watched this review and I found nothing he said to be off base or not factual. I am an owner of a SD43 and believe it is a great watch and maybe my favorite of all time from Rolex. This site is not my favorite but presents interesting information consistently. If you watch the reviews and interviews he does, it is easy to see that he does have a passion for some watches and collectors. For others, he has no passion, very much like this review, it appears to me he was sleep walking through it. Not because he did not praise the watch but because he appeared indifferent.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by 1William

I watched this review and I found nothing he said to be off base or not factual. I am an owner of a SD43 and believe it is a great watch and maybe my favorite of all time from Rolex. This site is not my favorite but presents interesting information consistently. If you watch the reviews and interviews he does, it is easy to see that he does have a passion for some watches and collectors. For others, he has no passion, very much like this review, it appears to me he was sleep walking through it. Not because he did not praise the watch but because he appeared indifferent.

I second that, well said

No harm in voicing his personal opinion about the SD43. It's clearly not for him or for many others. That's a good thing, as this reference wasn't designed to be all things to all people.

[nikesupremedunk]

Not for me as well but neither was the sd4k. Good review and thanks for posting.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Mick P

Chaps

This is the first Ben Clymer review that I have ever written and found it well balanced and objective. It was a good review.

Regards

Mick

Mick are you siggesting you are bens ghost writer ?