Seadweller 43 is a mixed bag

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Johnnychum]

Love it! Just a little top heavy in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Driver8

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.

Exactly and it wears better than the 40mm version depending on the wrist course

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by Driver8

The SD4K was the same thickness as the SD43, but in a 40mm case. Many people thought it 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.

That's my point exactly. The diameter is a matter of aesthetic change in form only. It is not a necessary change due to form, so it is invalidating that person I replied to's argument. We are in agreement here.

Him stating something obviously wrong while stating "It’s just fact. Like the sky is blue." is just hilarious to me.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

That's my point exactly. The diameter is a matter of aesthetic change in form only. It is not a necessary change due to form, so it is invalidating that person I replied to's argument. We are in agreement here.

Him stating something obviously wrong while stating "It’s just fact. Like the sky is blue." is just hilarious to me.

Yes, I totally agree the diameter increase was undoubtedly an aesthetic change as the WR didn't change between the SD4K and the SD43. But the thickness just is what it is for depth rating reasons.

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Yes, I totally agree the diameter increase was undoubtedly an aesthetic change as the WR didn't change between the SD4K and the SD43. But the thickness just is what it is for depth rating reasons.

Yep, no disagreements from me.

And I will take it a step further and say if they decreased the depth rating to decrease the size of the caseback, more people would be happy about it, and virtually close to 0 people would actually be upset about it.

[samuel019]

Originally Posted by Driver8

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.

Yeah I was just on minus4plus6 and read the same. Same thickness as the 116600. I have never ever had any wrist discomfort wearing any Rolex including the 116600

For some reason I thought the 126600 had to be thicker or something for all the talk about wrist discomfort. Which is the only thing holding me back from pulling the trigger. Well was

Figure if I can pull off a 216570, 326934, 935, and 116600 the 126600 should be just fine. My wrists are more flat/wide versus round like a can

[Aceholio]

I guess I'm in the minority of owners that dive with the sd43. Depth-rating to me is as interesting as an annual calendar, its a complication. While I've only gotten the sd43 to 35m I appreciate the robustness and usefulness underwater despite the fact that I will never commercial dive and need the helium escape.

From a rec diving point of view, almost all of the Rolex line is capable as a "dive" watch. subs/gmts/explorers... Yes I know, rotating bezel blah blah blah etc. but we all have a dive computer on our wrist as well.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

Yep, no disagreements from me.

And I will take it a step further and say if they decreased the depth rating to decrease the size of the caseback, more people would be happy about it, and virtually close to 0 people would actually be upset about it.

Hmmmm, I'm sure some would like it, but personally I think there would be a huge backlash from quite a large percentage of SD fans if Rolex reduced the WR in favour of aesthetics. I think most SD buyers like the whole "over-engineered" aspect of the watch.

I've said before on here that I always think you really have to want an SD to buy one as it's definitely not for everyone. (And I've owned an SD43 myself).

Personally I'd just like Rolex to "do an Omega/Breitling" and offer the Submariner in a couple of case sizes. That'd keep everyone happy.

[travisb]

Not an issue for me. I think the proportions work well on the SD. I also have zero issues with the Deepsea dimensions. It’s all individual taste and preference.

[Booth9999]

My daily watch for work and everything. I love it FOR its size and weight. It’s practice for when I get a platinum piece.

[samuel019]

Originally Posted by Booth9999

My daily watch for work and everything. I love it FOR its size and weight. It’s practice for when I get a platinum piece.

Love that. Just think 1.5 of a SD43 and you'll be there. My heaviest is 326935 which is on the 240 range depending on links but off topic

I've been reading quite a few threads about the SD43/Discomfort issue and it seems that its also a "mixed bag"

Some do. Some dont. With the donts slightly in the lead

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Hmmmm, I'm sure some would like it, but personally I think there would be a huge backlash from quite a large percentage of SD fans if Rolex reduced the WR in favour of aesthetics. I think most SD buyers like the whole "over-engineered" aspect of the watch.

I've said before on here that I always think you really have to want an SD to buy one as it's definitely not for everyone. (And I've owned an SD43 myself).

Personally I'd just like Rolex to "do an Omega/Breitling" and offer the Submariner in a couple of case sizes. That'd keep everyone happy.

And why have you decided to let go of your SD43?

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

And why have you decided to let go of your SD43?

Due to the famous (infamous?) 3235 slowing issue. "Fixed" by RSC and then sold before it could happen again.

[Chester01]

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?

Um, so you want a sub then. Look, 41mm is plenty big. The only reason for bigger is wrist presence which is not an advantage in todays day and age. Marketing over the years has conditioned people to want clocks on there wrist. What you have is the watch is wearing the person rather than the person wearing the watch. The SD is a tool, an expensive one but built with a purpose in mind.

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Um, so you want a sub then. Look, 41mm is plenty big. The only reason for bigger is wrist presence which is not an advantage in todays day and age. Marketing over the years has conditioned people to want clocks on there wrist. What you have is the watch is wearing the person rather than the person wearing the watch. The SD is a tool, an expensive one but built with a purpose in mind.

The amount of people buying the SD43 for its intended purpose as a tool is practically nil. It all comes down to aesthetics, the overwhelming vast majority of us wear them as jewelry; let's call a spade a spade. I love wrist presence, and I do not think it is a disadvantage. I do not think 43mm is overly big -- as long as the lugs do not hang past the wrist -- which they do not on mine. It is only the thickness I find strange.

I may just go for an Omega SMP, a 42mm size but the thickness is not nearly as bad.

[BLNR Nairobi]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Hmmmm, I'm sure some would like it, but personally I think there would be a huge backlash from quite a large percentage of SD fans if Rolex reduced the WR in favour of aesthetics. I think most SD buyers like the whole "over-engineered" aspect of the watch.

I've said before on here that I always think you really have to want an SD to buy one as it's definitely not for everyone. (And I've owned an SD43 myself).

Personally I'd just like Rolex to "do an Omega/Breitling" and offer the Submariner in a couple of case sizes. That'd keep everyone happy.

This.

With very few exceptions, most people who own the SD family may never dive to the full capability of the watch, but they love knowing that it CAN go that deep. It is basically an over-engineered Submariner Date.

If Rolex diluted depth rating for the purposes of aesthetics it would be a grand mistake.

Only the Panerai Brooklyn Bridge would be a bigger mistake (where Panerai gave it the cheapest ETA movement available and called it a special edition). That would be worse, with the SD43 ‘castration for the purposes of beauty’ probably being the same level as the Panerai Due (where they reduced the depth rating and gave it a SnapBack).

The SD43 is perfect as it is for those of us with a flat wrist.

[BLNR Nairobi]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

The amount of people buying the SD43 for its intended purpose as a tool is practically nil. It all comes down to aesthetics, the overwhelming vast majority of us wear them as jewelry; let's call a spade a spade. I love wrist presence, and I do not think it is a disadvantage. I do not think 43mm is overly big -- as long as the lugs do not hang past the wrist -- which they do not on mine. It is only the thickness I find strange.

I may just go for an Omega SMP, a 42mm size but the thickness is not nearly as bad.

If it is all about aesthetics, would you be ok with a Rolex version of a Panerai Due? Where it looks like, say, a Submariner Date or a SD43, but it has a SnapBack (instead of a screwed-in back). It would be thin, have a WR of (say) 30m, but look like a flatter Submariner Date.

If it is just Jewerly, would you buy such a watch?

If so, great.

If not, then that’s why people who don’t even dive - and even those like me who do but have never gone lower than 40m - are really happy to own Jewerly that can go 300m.