Big Watches.......Another Perspective

[flyback]

Originally Posted by moby33

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

You spent the better part of your previous post explaining how the DSSD is part of a longstanding trend by Rolex to enlarge its dive watches purely for the sake of making them bigger. So yes, I agree with the point I thought you were making in post #145, that the DSSD is 18mm thick because it is fashionable. Is this in dispute? Thick watches ARE fashionable.

As I have mentioned previously in this thread, I believe that Rolex took advantage of the relatively recent popularity of large watches to introduce a model with an exceptional depth rating. That's what's changed in the last few years, not the needs of saturation divers.

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.

The Submariner could hardly be made smaller without directly impacting its utility. Any reduction in the case diameter would require that the dial or bezel size be reduced, which would at the least hurt legibility.

All of the considerable extra bulk of a DSSD, on the other hand, is in the case, "ring-lock," and crystal. The only practical consequence of making these parts smaller would be to reduce the depth rating, which as we've established is of no use to any diver anywhere. The depth rating is an engineering exercise, which as I've said repeatedly is absolutely fine - but it in that respect it is different from its predecessors.