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.

[mixedccr]

for your reference

[SeamasterGMT]

Moby33 makes some very good points in this thread.
I enjoy reading your posts.

I would like to put some perspective on things.

1. 43mm is not big. There are lots of 45mm watches around e.g Omega seamaster PO, and most PANs (which all look great on my wrist)

2. the Omega seamaster chronograph is thicker than the Deepsea.

3. the JLC memovox tribute to polaris is the same thickness as the Deepsea.

4. None of the watches mentioned above can go as deep as the Deepsea. In fact, none of them can manage even half the pressure the Deepsea can withstand and most, not even 25%.

5. The Deepsea is an engineering marvel and at the same time it is a beautiful watch.
Anyone that states "nobody can go that deep though" ( to be read in a high pitch whiny voice) does not understand what it means to acheive such a technical feat. Rolex did not build the Deepsea to be straped to a divers wrist at -12,800 ft. What they wanted to acheive was to create a stunning watch which appeals to a (large) portion of the market and be an engineering masterpiece.

Everybody on this forum has their favorite Rolex. A lot of people love the Daytona - which would probably be last on my list. But I challenge anybody to dispute that the Deepsea is the best engineered watch Rolex has ever produced.

43mm x 17.5mm and 12, 800. AMAZING!

[TheDude]

Sigh...

I'm still seeing arguments based on the SDDS being a departure from Rolex history.


It is NOT.


Please review the history of the Deep Sea Specials... They were never offered up for sale, and were only meant to cement Rolex firmly as a technological powerhouse. At the time, it was one of the many impressive feats Rolex could reference: Highest watch (Explorer), deepest watch (Deep Sea Special), and most anti-magnetic (Milgauss).

[allanofcalifornia]

I think that EVERYONE can agree that the DSSD is NOT big compared to the new Super Dive DSSD coming out.

SCOOP! Pics of the new SDDSSD!

Sorry, I could not resist!


Allan

[Tools]

While this has been an interesting discussion..

Most of the arguments shown have absolutely no validity..

To hypothesise an unknown, then argue for it seems like the entire point is the argument, rather than the reality..

In any event...the Yachtmaster II has been 43mm for a couple of years, so the Deep Sea is just tagging along..

And the new DD and DJ at 41mm is only the thickness of a spring-bar smaller... so I see a trend on Rolex part to make their watches a bit bigger... And that is the reverse of Patek, another leader in luxury watches who believes that the fad will pass and watch enthusiasts will return to their more sensible roots..

With the latest offerings, YM II and DSSD specialties excluded, it also appears that Rolex will keep the original line-up so they could discontue the "jumbos" at any time..

[flyback]

Originally Posted by TheDude

Sigh...

I'm still seeing arguments based on the SDDS being a departure from Rolex history.

It is NOT.

Please review the history of the Deep Sea Specials... They were never offered up for sale, and were only meant to cement Rolex firmly as a technological powerhouse. At the time, it was one of the many impressive feats Rolex could reference: Highest watch (Explorer), deepest watch (Deep Sea Special), and most anti-magnetic (Milgauss).

The Deep Sea Special has already been brought up.

The Deep Sea Special is a non-starter as a real wristwatch, and was not placed into production, because of its giant proportions and complete lack of practical application.

Although the DSSD also has no practical application, I don't think it can be said that it's a watch in the tradition of the Deep Sea Special. The DSSD doesn't set any depth records, and it's a real production watch people are expected to wear.

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by flyback

The Deep Sea Special has already been brought up.

The Deep Sea Special is a non-starter as a real wristwatch, and was not placed into production, because of its giant proportions and complete lack of practical application.

Although the DSSD also has no practical application, I don't think it can be said that it's a watch in the tradition of the Deep Sea Special. The DSSD doesn't set any depth records, and it's a real production watch people are expected to wear.

I know it was already brought up - I brought it up.


It's too convenient to decide it's okay to dismiss the original watch for the sake of this discussion. I'd argue that it's not okay to do so for any reason, let alone something as trivial as the fact that it wasn't sold. Many extreme tools aren't "practical" or "convenient" for everyday use, and many aren't sold to the general public. This makes them no less real or relevant to the company that produced(s) them or to the folks who utilize them.

If there was no intended link to the history, then Rolex shouldn't have reused the name. In my mind, that links these large early attempts with the newer watches and provides a historic basis for the size.


It's safe to say we disagree on this point, but that's okay.

[flyback]

Originally Posted by TheDude

I know it was already brought up - I brought it up.

I have to correct you there. I brought it up, in post 122.

Originally Posted by TheDude

It's too convenient to decide it's okay to dismiss the original watch for the sake of this discussion. I'd argue that it's not okay to do so for any reason, let alone something as trivial as the fact that it wasn't sold. Many extreme tools aren't "practical" or "convenient" for everyday use, and many aren't sold to the general public. This makes them no less real or relevant to the company that produced(s) them or to the folks who utilize them.

My quarrel is with that last part, the "folks who utilize them." Nobody could utilize the Deep Sea Special, just as nobody can utilize the extra depth capability of the DSSD.

We've been around this circle several times now. I would hope that the one good thing that comes of this thread is that we stop hearing the term "very few" used to describe the number of people who require the DSSD's additional depth capability. "Very few" is misleading when the true figure is zero.

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by flyback

I have to correct you there. I brought it up, in post 122.My quarrel is with that last part, the "folks who utilize them." Nobody could utilize the Deep Sea Special, just as nobody can utilize the extra depth capability of the DSSD.

We've been around this circle several times now. I would hope that the one good thing that comes of this thread is that we stop hearing the term "very few" used to describe the number of people who require the DSSD's additional depth capability. "Very few" is misleading when the true figure is zero.

You mentioned it, but not in the context we're discussing now, which is what I mentioned in post #128. So, your comment "...already brought up" - is only an appropriate response to post #158 if you were talking about #128 (when I brought it up).

As for my "folks who utilize them" snippet, I was speaking about extreme tools in general (my qualifier was "Many extreme tools"), and not about the original DSS or the SDDS. I have never said anyone (or even "very few") require the depth rating of the SDDS. Naturally, no one is using those to their full depth rating. I agree that we shouldn't be hearing about -anyone- requiring or using them to their full capability.

As I stated, the original DSS was about showing technical prowess - something I suspect the SDDS is meant to do as well.

[Micha]

Originally Posted by rolexgiants

its just the sign of the times... people are getting bigger... just look at film from nfl games in the 1950's and 1960's... the players are half the size.... in the 50's a mens watch was 29-34mm..

good point!!!

[flyback]

Originally Posted by TheDude

You mentioned it, but not in the context we're discussing now, which is what I mentioned in post #128. So, your comment "...already brought up" - is only an appropriate response to post #158 if you were talking about #128 (when I brought it up).

Seriously? Obviously I disagree.

I invite anyone who cares to decide for themselves whether or not post #122 counts as having "brought up" the Deep Sea Special.

[SeamasterGMT]

Originally Posted by flyback

Seriously? Obviously I disagree.

I invite anyone who cares to decide for themselves whether or not post #122 counts as having "brought up" the Deep Sea Special.

Oh come on you two. We're discussing watch size and whether Rolex should be heading in that direction and why. This is a great topic. You have both made some good points. I couldn't care less who first brought up the Special.

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by SeamasterGMT

Oh come on you two. We're discussing watch size and whether Rolex should be heading in that direction and why. This is a great topic. You have both made some good points. I couldn't care less who first brought up the Special.

I'm as fed up as you are... I suspect this is spillover from some stuff on the Open Discussions forum.

I'd rather not be lumped in as a "you two"... I was simply trying to make sure the record was straight.

[flyback]

Originally Posted by TheDude

I'm as fed up as you are... I suspect this is spillover from some stuff on the Open Discussions forum.

Excuse me? Your innuendo is way out of line. I've stated my reasons for everything I've written here.

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by flyback

I've stated my reasons for everything I've written here.

As have I. I'd be happy to continue via PM, but I'd rather not clutter the discussion any more than we have.

[flyback]

Originally Posted by TheDude

As have I. I'd be happy to continue via PM, but I'd rather not clutter the discussion any more than we have.

Having made a baseless allegation in public, you should retract it in public.

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by flyback

Having made a baseless allegation in public, you should retract it in public.

It is not baseless, and I'd gladly explain my position to you in PM.

[Kitesurf]

Got the new deep sea love it! I wear shorts to work almost everyday and my deep sea fits in!

[moby33]

PM is a wonderful tool/idea. Just saying...

[SeamasterGMT]

Originally Posted by Kitesurf

Got the new deep sea love it! I wear shorts to work almost everyday and my deep sea fits in!

Welcome Kitesurf.

I've had my Deepsea since last september and the last two weeks are the first days of hot sunshine we've had here in England since I got it. I have to say, I am wearing it much more now the sun is out. Don't get me wrong, I think it works great with long sleeves but it REALLY looks good with a pair of Abercrombie cargo shorts and a Polo shirt.

[TheDude]

More LRRPs are hitting customers. This fellow has a custom that is designed to look like a black Exp II. He shot this comparison beside a GMT. Both appear to be flat on the table. The watch on the right supposedly has a casewidth of only 41.75mm. Thickness is 13.5mm, length is 49.5mm.