Seadweller 43 is a mixed bag

[ap1]

Wasn’t comfy to me

[1665fan]

SD4k best of all worlds

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

I recently picked one up and the diameter is perfect for my tastes. the lug to lug and 43mm size is perfect.

Why I am debating letting it go is because of its thickness. This would have been perfect for those who prefer >40mm watches but it is such a thick slab. Why must they ruin the look just to stay it can reach 4000 ft under?

Anyone have similar sentiments wearing the SD43?

You might enjoy a bit of vintage action.
The Sea-Dweller was a thinner package in the 5 digit era.
It wasn't until the 6 digit era that it got fat for no reason

[strafer_kid]

Originally Posted by Dirt

You might enjoy a bit of vintage action.
The Sea-Dweller was a thinner package in the 5 digit era.
It wasn't until the 6 digit era that it got fat for no reason

The five digit Seadweller models such as the 16600 did still however tend to sit higher on the wrist than say the Sub, presumably of necessity due to its design and construction. As people have already mentioned, it probably "works" for some but certainly not all.

[amh]

Get a sub OP.

SD43 is a bigger watch and I love it. Also have the 42mm ExpII and while the case is the same size they wear differently. Exp is certainly more flat, SD is more hefty. I enjoy both of them. I don't find the case back to be uncomfortable.

The seadweller took some experimenting. Some say to wear it 'snug' but this didn't work for me. It's adjusted to the exact same spec as all my other watches and feels great.

BTW, anyone complaining about the weight should try a PM piece, they weigh even more.

[goheel]

The cyclop killed it for me. Not a true SD with the cyclop.

[Wcdhtwn]

Originally Posted by goheel

The cyclop killed it for me. Not a true SD with the cyclop.

Isn’t this up to Rolex? If they put the Sea Dweller name on it then it is a true Sea Dweller.

[Jakey]

Originally Posted by goheel

The cyclop killed it for me. Not a true SD with the cyclop.

[donas]

Nope, not my opinion at all. I wear a couple different 44mm watches often and when I went back to my 40mm subs, they felt kinda small. The SD43 was a great happy medium for me. I love the heft. I did try the Deep Sea first and I quickly realized it was way too thick for me.

[JSolution]

Originally Posted by donas

Nope, not my opinion at all. I wear a couple different 44mm watches often and when I went back to my 40mm subs, they felt kinda small. The SD43 was a great happy medium for me. I love the heft. I did try the Deep Sea first and I quickly realized it was way too thick for me.

Deep sea is unwearable for me I’m a big guy with large wrists and it looks awkwardly large in my opinion. However I have a friend who’s bigger than me and it looks great on him.

Sd43 is absolutely perfect.

[Little machines]

The JC definitely has heft ,the dial is beautiful .The SD43 was very comfortable on my wrist and has great presence as a diver .

[alphadweller]

15mm thickness is totally fine to me for an extreme diver, it's actually less than most in that category (Planet Ocean, Seawolf etc).

The SD43 is my favourite Rolex diver. I find it perfect.

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

15mm thickness is totally fine to me for an extreme diver, it's actually less than most in that category (Planet Ocean, Seawolf etc).

The SD43 is my favourite Rolex diver. I find it perfect.

the middle case thickness is a lot smaller, just the protruding case back making the watch wears higher on the wrist.

[omar10213245]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

I recently picked one up and the diameter is perfect for my tastes. the lug to lug and 43mm size is perfect.

Why I am debating letting it go is because of its thickness. This would have been perfect for those who prefer >40mm watches but it is such a thick slab. Why must they ruin the look just to stay it can reach 4000 ft under?

Anyone have similar sentiments wearing the SD43?

I disagree. I love my SD43, its size works for me, both diameter and thickness

[rmlovett1]

For what it is….perfect!

[Rori]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

I recently picked one up and the diameter is perfect for my tastes. the lug to lug and 43mm size is perfect.

Why I am debating letting it go is because of its thickness. This would have been perfect for those who prefer >40mm watches but it is such a thick slab. Why must they ruin the look just to stay it can reach 4000 ft under?

Anyone have similar sentiments wearing the SD43?

The way you wear it make a huge difference.
The thickness of the case is centered in the case back. If you wear it snug and above wrist bone, the case back sinks in your wrist and the watch starts to wear and feel as if it’s a normal sub.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[samson66]

Thinckness is perfect as far as I'm concerned.

[Steve36Efc]

I picked up a 126603 TT Seadweller in Jan 2021 and it quickly became my favourite watch, it even turned me off my daily which was a Sub 114060…. Something I never thought would happen. However it is something I managed to put right by picking up a 126600 a few weeks ago.
I now have the SD43 stainless steel as my new daily and the TT as the weekend piece.

I will also add the extra width of the bracelet also turned me off my 116660 JC Deepsea, the 114060 and the JC have been moved on.

[Robf52]

Originally Posted by samson66

Thinckness is perfect as far as I'm concerned.

Ditto. My wrist is 7.1" and fits nicely.

[1William]

Great watch. The dial is great and properly adjusted it feels like a larger Submariner.

[brandrea]

The mid case is actually pretty slim, it’s the caseback that sticks out like a sore thumb.

Still love the watch though

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

I recently picked one up and the diameter is perfect for my tastes. the lug to lug and 43mm size is perfect.

Why I am debating letting it go is because of its thickness. This would have been perfect for those who prefer >40mm watches but it is such a thick slab. Why must they ruin the look just to stay it can reach 4000 ft under?

Anyone have similar sentiments wearing the SD43?

The whole idea of the SeaDweller is one of performance over style, function over form, etc. Yes they've ALSO made it a very attractive watch, but the underlying ethos of the SD is to be a hardcore divers watch. It wouldn't be much of a sea dweller if they made it 10mm thick with a WR of 100m - it'd be more like a "PuddleDweller"!

I think saying they've "ruined the looks just to say it can reach 4000ft" is like saying that Breitling ruined the Navitimer by having a sliderule which makes it too busy: it's kind of the whole point.

[airchitect]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

I recently picked one up and the diameter is perfect for my tastes. the lug to lug and 43mm size is perfect.

Why I am debating letting it go is because of its thickness. This would have been perfect for those who prefer >40mm watches but it is such a thick slab. Why must they ruin the look just to stay it can reach 4000 ft under?

Anyone have similar sentiments wearing the SD43?

The 4000ft is literally the entire point of the watch. Otherwise it’s just a sub.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by airchitect

The 4000ft is literally the entire point of the watch. Otherwise it’s just a sub.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have difference in philosophies then, to me aesthetics matter more than principles do. And I disagree that it would just be a Sub. It's bigger, which is a more interesting character trait than capabilities on paper.

[airchitect]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

We have difference in philosophies then, to me aesthetics more than principles do. And I disagree that it would just be a Sub. It's bigger, which is more a bigger more interesting character trait than capabilities on paper.

No I mean if it wasn’t for the depth rating, the watch wouldn’t even exist. It’s design wasn’t intended as some exercise in aesthetics. The form followed the function. So, without the depth rating, there’s no watch. It’s just fact. Like the sky is blue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by airchitect

No I mean if it wasn’t for the depth rating, the watch wouldn’t even exist. It’s design wasn’t intended as some exercise in aesthetics. The form followed the function. So, without the depth rating, there’s no watch. It’s just fact. Like the sky is blue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why exactly does the diameter get wider and not just the case getting only thicker then?

Would it not end up being like the Omega PO 39.5mm, where the diameter is 40mm but ends up being really thick...?

If this is a fact like the sky is blue you surely have the sources to back this up that the diameter is a form that follows function right?

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

Why exactly does the diameter get wider and not just the case getting only thicker then?

The SD4K was the same thickness as the SD43, but in a 40mm case. Many people thought the SD4K was disproportionately thick for the diameter, so the SD43 was increased in diameter, partly to make it more proportional, and partly (I assume) to simply distinguish it a little from the Sub.

The thickness is simply a function of the depth rating, and the depth rating is the entire reason for the SD's existence. It just is what it is.

[Lol-x]

I agree the contour of the SD43 case is more fitting and comfortable on the wrist than the Tudor Black Bay the likes. I'm not saying the Tudor is bad, its just that I find the SD43 more comfortable and more nicely fitting to my wrist.

[Ketler]

I had the deep-sea as my only watch at one point and wore it every day for 18 months. I then had a sea dweller 43 that I wore every day for a year.

I thought both watches were absolutely beautiful and I had no trouble whatsoever getting a comfortable fit. In the end I sold them both simply because I didn’t like the way they looked on my wrist. The thickness just bothered me overtime and I ended up going back to my sea dweller 16600.

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by Ketler

I had the deep-sea as my only watch at one point and wore it every day for 18 months. I then had a sea dweller 43 that I wore every day for a year.

I thought both watches were absolutely beautiful and I had no trouble whatsoever getting a comfortable fit. In the end I sold them both simply because I didn’t like the way they looked on my wrist. The thickness just bothered me overtime and I ended up going back to my sea dweller 16600.

Yep, they look great, I really like how the SD43 looks in my watch box or on the counter. It's not even uncomfortable. But the way it just plops on the wrist being so thick, it looks goofy. I am in agreement.