A look at the new Deepsea’s case back

[Nanasaka90]

Took this snapshot from WatchAdvisor, the flat surface of the case back seems a bit broader, perhaps this will make the watch a bit more comfortable (not that it isn’t already.

I’m hoping the SD43 case back gets some attention as well.



Compare with the case back of the previous version.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Nanasaka90

Took this snapshot from WatchAdvisor, the flat surface of the case back seems a bit broader, perhaps this will make the watch a bit more comfortable (not that it isn’t already.

I’m hoping the SD43 case back gets some attention as well.



Compare with the case back of the previous version.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I saw that myself and came to the same conclusion about wearability/comfort
Don't hold your breath about the SD43 though. It's a totally different design being the traditional type of caseback

[jay_kay]

That does look like it will make a significant difference. The text is engraved into the titanium disc too.

As yet the online brochure exploded diagram has yet to be updated.

[CFR]

Interesting, thanks for this. Good to see details surfacing about the differences. I have the 126660 and used to have the 116660, and both felt totally comfortable on my small 6" wrist despite their large size. I think it was the overall size and weight of the DSSD that turned most people off to it rather than it being uncomfortable to wear due to how it sits on the wrist, but I could be wrong about that.

[travisb]

Thanks for the pic. I’m more than happy with the fit on my 12 so I don’t think this would change much if anything.

[Nanasaka90]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Yes, I saw that myself and came to the same conclusion about wearability/comfort
Don't hold your breath about the SD43 though. It's a totally different design being the traditional type of caseback

You’ve got a point, they might never change ito. Sometimes I get the feeling that Rolex just doesn’t give a damn…after all, why should they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nanasaka90]

Originally Posted by CFR

Interesting, thanks for this. Good to see details surfacing about the differences. I have the 126660 and used to have the 116660, and both felt totally comfortable on my small 6" wrist despite their large size. I think it was the overall size and weight of the DSSD that turned most people off to it rather than it being uncomfortable to wear due to how it sits on the wrist, but I could be wrong about that.

I think most people assume it must be uncomfortable, because of the size and thickness on paper. It’s very very comfortable, even more comfortable than the smaller SD43.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Nanasaka90

You’ve got a point, they might never change ito. Sometimes I get the feeling that Rolex just doesn’t give a damn…after all, why should they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Sea-dweller caseback is a legacy design/solution due to what came before it and the need to provide increased water resistance.
The DSSD caseback design was an exercise in a clean sheet design which has clearly given Rolex some scope to refine it even further from the original, as opposed to being limited to having to thicken it up as best they can.
Frankly, I am a little surprised that the design of the DSSD caseback has so much scope for practical improvement
I always said that it was a pity that Rolex didn't see fit to implement a scaled down version of the DSSD caseback onto the SD43 for its release. It would've been a more innovative watch along with the Cyclops and made it more comfortable on the wrist for more people.
Otherwise I might have gone for the SD43 when it came out and moved my DSSD on. Then again the original Glidelock on the DSSD is hard to beat as a piece of engineering mastery

[Ten Ten & 32]

Originally Posted by Nanasaka90

You’ve got a point, they might never change ito. Sometimes I get the feeling that Rolex just doesn’t give a damn…after all, why should they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair, the SD & DSSD were originally designed to be worn on the outside of a wet suit, so the case back issue shouldn’t be an issue if that makes sense ???

The fact we choose to wear these items with a shirt & suit & then bitch about how uncomfortable the case back is , isn’t really Rolex’s problem or a reason for them to give a damn or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ten Ten & 32]

Originally Posted by Dirt

The Sea-dweller caseback is a legacy design/solution due to what came before it ….:

Sorry, can’t agree with this part of your statement.

The current Sea Dweller is not a legacy design???

It was a clean sheet design when the 43mm case was introduced in 2017.

What went before it is irrelevant as the previous case was traditionally always 40mm.

Rolex could have made the case back any shape/size/profile they wanted.

Nothing to do with being a legacy of anything


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ten Ten & 32]

Originally Posted by Nanasaka90

I think most people assume it must be uncomfortable, because of the size and thickness on paper. It’s very very comfortable, even more comfortable than the smaller SD43.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree - I have both the SD43 & the JC DBlue and although the SD is slightly smaller & noticeably thinner, the JC seems to fit much better


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[77T]

Originally Posted by Ten Ten & 32

What went before it is irrelevant as the previous case was traditionally always 40mm.

In watchmaking there is relevance from any earlier generation designs. Size is different but the science behind case design matters as one expands the size by a few mm.

Things that were refined over the years on previous models are part of the designer’s intellectual context. There are CAD tools that take existing scans and calculate material thickness and alloy formulae.

Of course, only the insiders know what and how Rolex expanded on prior work to develop the SD43.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Ten Ten & 32]

Originally Posted by 77T

In watchmaking there is relevance from any earlier generation designs. Size is different but the science behind case design matters as one expands the size by a few mm.

Things that were refined over the years on previous models are part of the designer’s intellectual context. There are CAD tools that take existing scans and calculate material thickness and alloy formulae.

Of course, only the insiders know what and how Rolex expanded on prior work to develop the SD43.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You’ve taken one sentence out of my post & based your whole response around it & made it look completely out of context.

My original point is still valid.

The SD43 was a clean sheet design, nothing about it has ‘evolved’ from the previous 40mm version.

Rolex could have made the case back any shape or form they wanted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[77T]

Originally Posted by Ten Ten & 32

You’ve taken one sentence out of my post & based your whole response around it & made it look completely out of context.

My original point is still valid.

The SD43 was a clean sheet design, nothing about it has ‘evolved’ from the previous 40mm version.

Rolex could have made the case back any shape or form they wanted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did.

And even if I had re-quoted the entirety of your post, my opinion would have been the same.

What is your source to support your “clean sheet” theory?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Nanasaka90]

Originally Posted by Ten Ten & 32

You’ve taken one sentence out of my post & based your whole response around it & made it look completely out of context.

My original point is still valid.

The SD43 was a clean sheet design, nothing about it has ‘evolved’ from the previous 40mm version.

Rolex could have made the case back any shape or form they wanted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not sure I get you, what about the bezel, the oyster bracelet, the HEV, the dial, triplock crown, the 3235 movement, the entire side profile of the watch?

I think you’re misunderstanding the word “evolve”. Rolex is one of the most efficient manufacturers on earth period, they don’t reinvent the wheel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nanasaka90]

Originally Posted by Ten Ten & 32

You’ve taken one sentence out of my post & based your whole response around it & made it look completely out of context.

My original point is still valid.

The SD43 was a clean sheet design, nothing about it has ‘evolved’ from the previous 40mm version.

Rolex could have made the case back any shape or form they wanted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So why did they choose to make it the same as the 40mm version? Why not make it more comfortable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Ten Ten & 32

Rolex could have made the case back any shape or form they wanted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Without necessarily cherry picking aspects of your post.
I don't think your original point is valid.
Let's look at it this way.
The movement diameter is the same as the one that went into SDC and all the Sea-dwellers that went before it which were designed to go 4000' under water, so it's reasonable to assume the hole the caseback has to plug up and secure the movement in place is going to be the same irrespective of the size of the outside of the Mid-case.

I put it to you.
Why would the Caseback be any different in dimensions, design or material from earlier 4000' Sea-dwellers other than where the rebate and step is to secure the movement because the 32xx movement is ever so slightly thinner than the 31xx that proceeded it for many years.
If it weren't for the slightly thinner movement I would have said there's an extremely high probability the Caseback is machined to be the exact same dimensions as all those which proceeded the SD43 and may even have the same part number thus would be interchangeable with those on previous references
As it's the same caseback design as all those which proceeded it. Why would Rolex need, let alone bother to reinvent the wheel in that regard?

In simple terms, the only re-designing Rolex did with the SD43 was pad the outside of the watch out for aesthetic reasons and thicken up the Crystal to minimise the deflection so the Cyclops didn't simply fall off at the rated depth.
In summary, the single biggest technical change was the Crystal with the Cyclops.
Everything else about the watch was a legacy design including the red text on the dial with the exception of the movement which has no bearing on water resistance capabilities with the watch at 5000' anyway.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Nanasaka90

I’m not sure I get you, what about the bezel, the oyster bracelet, the HEV, the dial, triplock crown, the 3235 movement, the entire side profile of the watch?

I think you’re misunderstanding the word “evolve”. Rolex is one of the most efficient manufacturers on earth period, they don’t reinvent the wheel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And yet they re-invented the wheel in every respect when they designed the 116660 DSSD with the exception of the movement, the HEV and the Triplock crown
They only changed the movement in the 126660 because they had re-invented the wheel in movement terms.

[garyk]

Delete

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Ten Ten & 32

To be fair, the SD & DSSD were originally designed to be worn on the outside of a wet suit, so the case back issue shouldn’t be an issue if that makes sense ???

The fact we choose to wear these items with a shirt & suit & then bitch about how uncomfortable the case back is , isn’t really Rolex’s problem or a reason for them to give a damn or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's not forget, part of the original design brief for the DSSD was that it had to be "wearable" whilst being rated to go as deep as possible.
To that end, that aspect alone determined absolutely everything to do with the design package of the DSSD.
It was always going to be a core consideration

[1William]

Thanks for the information. I find both the SD43 and DSSD comfortable to wear.

[brandrea]

For me, I’d have to see them side by side with calipers to judge

[samson66]

The SD43 design hides the thickness of the watch into the protruding case back. The DSSD wears a lot of its thickness in the sides of the case. The SD design allows it to sink into the wrist and works for some more than others depending on wrist size and shape. For me I love it. The DSSD should wear more comfortably since more surface area is coming into direct contact with the skin. Both designes have advantages and disadvantages.

Profile of my SD43 as it sits on my wrist. YMMV



Sent from my Galaxy S20 using Tapatalk

[eltonbalch]

Originally Posted by samson66

The SD43 design hides the thickness of the watch into the protruding case back. The DSSD wears a lot of its thickness in the sides of the case. The SD design allows it to sink into the wrist and works for some more than others depending on wrist size and shape. For me I love it. The DSSD should wear more comfortably since more surface area is coming into direct contact with the skin. Both designes have advantages and disadvantages.

Profile of my SD43 as it sits on my wrist. YMMV



Sent from my Galaxy S20 using Tapatalk

Totally agree! I have (thankfully, I guess) a cupped wrist which allows my 14 year old deep sea to look almost normal! My favorite watch FWIW.

[Nanasaka90]

Originally Posted by Dirt

And yet they re-invented the wheel in every respect when they designed the 116660 DSSD with the exception of the movement, the HEV and the Triplock crown
They only changed the movement in the 126660 because they had re-invented the wheel in movement terms.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. I was referring to the evolution of the Sea Dweller (not the DSSD).

The depth rating between the 16600 and the 126600 is the same, the movement, case and bracelet were simply enhanced…improving an existing product isn’t reinventing the wheel.

As for the DSSD, sorry but it was simply a new product, with a higher depth rating, Rolex didn’t have one on the shelf to begin with.

We’re arguing semantics now, but “reinventing the wheel” means to do something completely unnecessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1978]

It doesn’t look like the DSSD caseback dimensions have changed at all, just that the beveled edges are now titanium. It looks like a revision to the ring lock system, with the steel ring portion now lower and the titanium “back” larger?

[alphadweller]

To me, a wider caseback doesn't mean added comfort, quite the opposite in fact. A wider caseback tends to rub against my wristbone and causes discomfort after a while. A narrower caseback doesn't come into contact with the ulnar as much. I'm comparing my PO 2500 45.5 and Seawolf with my SD43.