Big Watches.......Another Perspective

[Otto]

Originally Posted by SeamasterGMT

Again, I think it's down to lifestyle. I may get a PP when I'm in a rocking chair but I read a thread on a PP forum where the OP asked "what sport can I play in my new PP _ _ _ _ _ _. All the answers were...not golf, not tennis, not jogging etc etc. When I slow down, I could wear a watch with a more delicate movment. For me at the moment, the priority is robustness hence the 3135 116660.

Yes; perhaps it is lifestyle in some respects; but lifestyle is not necessarily a function of age. Right?

One does not have to be in a rocking chair or have one foot in the grave to desire, appreciate or even buy fine timepieces that might not be designed for sports or an especially active lifestyle; and if one is older and buys such a fine timepiece, it is not necessarily a symptom of being an old ____ (you can fill in the blank with one of your gratuitous age "comments"). I know some young, fat, soft, lazy, and obnoxiously nerdy slobs with TV and Internet-limited brains and idle sedentary lifestyles (no offense intended to them), but I also know some clearly decaying, foot-in-the-grave, "old" guys and women who defy the progressive shutting down of their fragile aging minds and bodies to run marathons, climb mountains, hike trails, and swim, etc. Some of them surprisingly also find the time to read voraciously, practice professions, travel and explore, and enjoy artistic pursuits. Many are simply adventurous risk takers by nature. Some of them also actually sometimes wear fine timepieces that are not designed for their more active pursuits. Amazing!

Of course, I can find examples of the same active or lazy or balanced lifestyle or mindset in any age group.

As penance for your age stereotyping, you should wear your Raymond Weil watch while jogging in a tuxedo in mountainous terrain while wearing reading glasses; and after that you should cool down in a rocking chair.

[Haroldglen]

I don't really like large watches, which is why I wear a Datejust. Extremely large watches seem to convey the need to either be noticed or make some sort of statement, neither of which Rolex needs to resort to. I suppose the exception would be some of the Rolex sport watches, which should logically be larger than the DJ, but when you go well above 40mm this begins to become extreme and some would even deem it tacky.

[buz-lh]

Great post Otto.

[mixedccr]

Originally Posted by flyback

No, we'd be wearing Submariners and SD4000s.

Unlike its predecessor, the DSSD has capability that nobody anywhere can or will use.

I take the Sub down to 30.6% of its rated depth, the 16600 to 7.6% and the 116660 to 2.3%. Odds that keep on getting better and better. In diving parlance redundancy and safety margins are a standard code of practise.

I'm just as amenable to buying the next person a drink should they be wearing a YM but have no yacht, a Sub but never been in a submarine, an SD but never dives, a Daytona but has no driving licence nor a GMT but has never flown or travelled, just for the love of a watch.

[bradiowausa]

This big watch trend is totally not for me. I have a 36 mm tt dj, and I think that it has just the right amount of wrist presence. Then again, I tried on an explorer I yesterday and it was too small (no cyclops or fluted bezel).

[Singslinger]

Tools' original post quoted Patek's Phillipe Stern's disdain at the market's "capricious'' demand for big watches. Such is Patek's need to distance itself from the crowd that it has now severed its association with the Geneva Seal and set up its own seal of quality (deonted by a "PP'' symbol that to me looks very much like Rolls Royce's "RR'').

All of this is fine with me - if Patek thinks that 38mm is the limit of good watch design/taste, then it should be free to stick to 38mm watches. I'm not sure how its customers feel about this; me, I'm glad that Rolex is at least adventurous enough to try and experiment with size so that its customers have wider choice.

[brainbizz]

IMHO it is a smart play to stay middle of the road. Rolex sells a huge volume of watches so they need to appeal to a large market. They are realizing that the larger watches are more than a trend therefore are adjusting accordingly. Does not mean they will stop making smaller watches but maybe fewer. If PP is making their watches larger then that lets you know that its not just a trend. Since PP produces fewer watches and sell all of their inventory they will adjust more conservatively which they have. PP already has their market and do not want to lose it by making to large a leap into larger watches. Smart play by both PP and Rolex.

[SeamasterGMT]

Originally Posted by Otto

Yes; perhaps it is lifestyle in some respects; but lifestyle is not necessarily a function of age. Right?

One does not have to be in a rocking chair or have one foot in the grave to desire, appreciate or even buy fine timepieces that might not be designed for sports or an especially active lifestyle; and if one is older and buys such a fine timepiece, it is not necessarily a symptom of being an old ____ (you can fill in the blank with one of your gratuitous age "comments"). I know some young, fat, soft, lazy, and obnoxiously nerdy slobs with TV and Internet-limited brains and idle sedentary lifestyles (no offense intended to them), but I also know some clearly decaying, foot-in-the-grave, "old" guys and women who defy the progressive shutting down of their fragile aging minds and bodies to run marathons, climb mountains, hike trails, and swim, etc. Some of them surprisingly also find the time to read voraciously, practice professions, travel and explore, and enjoy artistic pursuits. Many are simply adventurous risk takers by nature. Some of them also actually sometimes wear fine timepieces that are not designed for their more active pursuits. Amazing!

Of course, I can find examples of the same active or lazy or balanced lifestyle or mindset in any age group.

As penance for your age stereotyping, you should wear your Raymond Weil watch while jogging in a tuxedo in mountainous terrain while wearing reading glasses; and after that you should cool down in a rocking chair.

Sorry if I came across as being ageist. It was not my intention. I totally agree with everything you say here.

I would consider running in mountainous terrain in my Raymond Weil or Tissot but not in a PP.

[flyback]

Originally Posted by mixedccr

I take the Sub down to 30.6% of its rated depth, the 16600 to 7.6% and the 116660 to 2.3%. Odds that keep on getting better and better. In diving parlance redundancy and safety margins are a standard code of practise.

You're making my point for me - you're not even close to testing the limits of your Submariner, let alone a DeepSea. And all these watches are derated to at most 80% of their true capability by international standard.

To put this in perspective: if you ever exceed 14% of the DeepSea's rating (still only 46% of the Sea-Dweller's) you will have achieved a new world record.

This is not simply a matter of overkill without consequence - the DeepSea pays dearly in terms of bulk and weight for a capability that nobody anywhere can ever use. That's why I've suggested that being big and heavy was a design objective from day one. If not, Rolex is blowing it.

Originally Posted by mixedccr

I'm just as amenable to buying the next person a drink should they be wearing a YM but have no yacht, a Sub but never been in a submarine, an SD but never dives, a Daytona but has no driving licence nor a GMT but has never flown or travelled, just for the love of a watch.

The big difference is that there really are such things as yachts and submarines and race cars. There is no such thing as diving to 3900m. Or even 600m. So the DeepSea is not a "tool watch" in the Rolex tradition.

Like I said before, that's perfectly okay - but it is a departure from the process that gave us its predecessors.

[I6-S54B32]

Originally Posted by adam78

On my 6.5" wrist, my 36mm Thunderbird Datejust looks just fine. I can wear a Sub, but that's the largest before it all becomes ridiculous.

I have a 6.25" wrist and 36mm is perfect, and 40mm is the end of the line. In fact with a Sub, the lugs end at my wrist bones, which is too much. My 36mm DJ is perfect!

[KJacques]

I've never thought to even notice if someone was wearing a watch too small. I've seen very large men choose a 36mm size and the watch looks just fine. For me, the choice of wearing a huge sized watch is to have it noticed. The difference is, whereas a smaller watch does not seem out of place, a large watch on a wrist/arm that cannot support that size looks downright ridiculous to me. Unfortunately with the DSSD, as much as I am impressed with so much about that watch, I can't think of one wrist shot I've seen that the watch did not look silly and overemphasized how undersized the user's wrist/arm is to the watch. Whether a user cares about that look is up to the individual.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by flyback

the DeepSea pays dearly in terms of bulk and weight for a capability that nobody anywhere can ever use. That's why I've suggested that being big and heavy was a design objective from day one.

In your opinion...obviously you're speaking for yourself. I take it you've never worn a DSSD for more than a few minutes. I say this because I haven't taking my DSSD off for almost 8 months now...and you'll NEVER hear me saying the watch 'pays dearly in terms of bulk & weight...' nope, just the opposite as I think it's one (if not the) most comfortable sport watch in my collection.

Originally Posted by KJacques

I can't think of one wrist shot I've seen that the watch did not look silly and overemphasized how undersized the user's wrist/arm is to the watch.

No offense Kevin, but I must disagree. While I realize you probably think these wrist shots look silly & overemphasize my undersized (albeit 8+" wrist), I completely disagree simply because of the word proportionality. I've seen plenty of wrist shots of Sub/SD/GMT owners that clearly have a small wrist...when you see those watches on their arms the ratio of case size to wrist is even larger then in my shots. I take it you think all those pictures look silly too. If not, then I've got to believe your real issues is ONLY with the DSSD, and not really the look of the watch on a wrist. And if this is the case, then please post some wrist shots that you think don't look silly or overemphasize the user's wrist/arm as I just don't get it.




BTW...that's Bosworth, my 90lbs bulldog. Just goes to show how pictures can be deceiving as most people wouldn't believe he's almost 100lbs from this picture, but god knows when you see him in person you wouldn't question that stat.

[flyback]

Originally Posted by moby33

In your opinion...obviously you're speaking for yourself. I take it you've never worn a DSSD for more than a few minutes. I say this because I haven't taking my DSSD off for almost 8 months now...and you'll NEVER hear me saying the watch 'pays dearly in terms of bulk & weight...' nope, just the opposite as I think it's one (if not the) most comfortable sport watch in my collection.

Everyone here can only speak for themselves. That said, I never said the DSSD wasn't comfortable. But that's beside the point.

If the form-follows-function argument is to be believed, the Deepsea had to be made 50% thicker and heavier than its predecessor in order to withstand ambient pressure at 3900m depth. If making a great big watch wasn't the goal in the first place (note that I argue that was in fact Rolex's goal), then that's a dear price to be paid indeed.

As for 3900m depth capability being one that "nobody anywhere can ever use," that's just objectively true. No one is diving anywhere near that deep.

[mixedccr]

Originally Posted by flyback

The big difference is that there really are such things as yachts and submarines and race cars. There is no such thing as diving to 3900m. Or even 600m. So the DeepSea is not a "tool watch" in the Rolex tradition.

Like I said before, that's perfectly okay - but it is a departure from the process that gave us its predecessors.

You can't choose which pig to put lipstick on, its either all or none. Have you seen anybody measure '350 units'? If your logic is true, the mere act of immersing oneself into a jacuzzi qualifies one to already wear a divers watch. Its under water isn't it?? And who am i to say who can or can't wear whatever a person wants to wear regardless of what its rating is. Frankly, if a watchmaker made a watch that could withstand pressures at the core of the earth, that would imply that it would never fail, leak, shatter. A 0% chance of failure. Is it really so inconceivable to want an item approaching "perfection" all else being equal? A chance of failure, even if considered remote, is still a chance.

[mixedccr]

Originally Posted by moby33

In your opinion...obviously you're speaking for yourself. I take it you've never worn a DSSD for more than a few minutes. I say this because I haven't taking my DSSD off for almost 8 months now...and you'll NEVER hear me saying the watch 'pays dearly in terms of bulk & weight...' nope, just the opposite as I think it's one (if not the) most comfortable sport watch in my collection.








BTW...that's Bosworth, my 90lbs bulldog. Just goes to show how pictures can be deceiving as most people wouldn't believe he's almost 100lbs from this picture, but god knows when you see him in person you wouldn't question that stat.

Great wrist shots Moby!! It looks really good on you. [gotta love Bosworth!]

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by sexner

At the end of the day?! Some people are picking flysh*t out of pepper if they are trying to tell us that they can tell the difference of 2 mm worth of the size of watch case at a glance. Perhaps they walk around with a vernier caliper in their pocket protector for a quick mic on the sidewalk..

It might be good to consider this photo. There is only 3mm of difference between these two watches. I think it depends on the watch, but this example shows that a small increase can make a -serious- difference.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by flyback

Everyone here can only speak for themselves. That said, I never said the DSSD wasn't comfortable. But that's beside the point.

If the form-follows-function argument is to be believed, the Deepsea had to be made 50% thicker and heavier than its predecessor in order to withstand ambient pressure at 3900m depth. If making a great big watch wasn't the goal in the first place (note that I argue that was in fact Rolex's goal), then that's a dear price to be paid indeed.

As for 3900m depth capability being one that "nobody anywhere can ever use," that's just objectively true. No one is diving anywhere near that deep.

Understood...I understand we're all just speaking from our own personal view. But, I've never understood anyone knocking the DSSD for 'overkill' in the depth department mainly because the Sub & SD also are 'overkill'. Truth be told, NOBODY NEEDS a watch to go deeper than 250'...and even that is pushing it as I've yet to meet someone in person that has gone below 200'. Sport divers (which make up 99.9% of the diving population) will never go below 150'...anything past 100' is far from a true 'sport' dive IMO as the degree of difficulty and danger increases exponentially when compared to your average 40-65' dive.

My main sticking point had to do w/ your use of the words regarding how the DSSD "pays dearly" in terms of bulk & weight. To me, those two words have a very negative connotation and one that I as a daily user of the watch can't agree with. While it's obviously greater in bulk and weight when compared to a Sub/SD, I just can't agree with the label of saying it "pays dearly"...if that were the case, then for me, it wouldn't be a daily wearer. Nothing more, nothing less. Just goes to show this really is all a matter of personal preference. Personally, I would say it "benefits greatly" from the added bulk & weight as the watch now feels as solid as it looks. Cheers.

[Tools]

This photo is a staged illusion....

Originally Posted by TheDude

It might be good to consider this photo. There is only 3mm of difference between these two watches. I think it depends on the watch, but this example shows that a small increase can make a -serious- difference.

This photo is an optical illusion..

The watch on the left is pushed considerably closer to the camera making it look huge in comparison..(look at the bases)

If the Explorer was the one pushed close to the camera it would look much larger than the other one......

[lobo58]

Lately I've been seeing many women wearing big watches--men's chronographs and such. I think we're going to see a trend in women's fashion where watches that have traditionally been marketed to men begin turning up on the runway.

Spotted a woman wearing a Tudor chronograph today in Boston.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by lobo58

Lately I've been seeing many women wearing big watches--men's chronographs and such. I think we're going to see a trend in women's fashion where watches that have traditionally been marketed to men begin turning up on the runway.

Spotted a woman wearing a Tudor chronograph today in Boston.

Pam was also trying on a few........

The ladies platinum President with diamond case lugs caught her attention. Nice... it would have been too much in a larger size..

She looked at the mid-size and thoght they might be OK on a lady..

She tried on a couple of the 36mm offerings but felt that she looked like she was wearing one of my watches......... way to masculine look for her..


Depends on the look you want to convey..............

[moby33]

Originally Posted by lobo58

Lately I've been seeing many women wearing big watches--men's chronographs and such. I think we're going to see a trend in women's fashion where watches that have traditionally been marketed to men begin turning up on the runway.

Spotted a woman wearing a Tudor chronograph today in Boston.

I agree...and personally, I think they look great. I have yet to see a woman wearing a Sub, SD or Daytona that doesn't look amazing (probably doesn't hurt that all the ladies I've seen doing this are pretty easy on the eyes regardless of the watch on their wrist)...it's definitely a trend that I don't mind one bit.

[Klokke]

Originally Posted by mixedccr

Again, i think we should 'reverse think' on the DS. Starting with a 3135 movement, what kind of case makes it down to 4km? If those who have domain knowledge say that the SD4000 case can actually already make it down that deep already, then i concede that i may have chosen that smaller size. But if to house the 3135 and intend for it go down repeatedly to 4km mandates a case and crystal of that size, then it is a product of function over form. End of story.

...except that the function (4km depth tolerance) is ludicrous and useless. No one would ever dive to that depth wearing a watch on their wrist. It's just a proof of concept and an excuse to make a big watch. It's not function over form. It's invented useless function in a failed attempt to justify an ugly form to follow a trend. Huge mistake by Rolex. Rolex finally gave in (about a decade late) but Patek didn't. Disappointing.

[Klokke]

Originally Posted by Randy

Larger trend in watches is not a fad but reality, Daytona will probably get bumped up as well.. After wearing my Panerai's it does seem a bit small.

Panerai arguably started the trend and they were successful because they stayed true to their origins and original large design. The size was not contrived. It had a purpose. It was always a large watch to make the dial extremely legible at depth. When others, like Rolex, do it now it seems obviously contrived and too little, too late. Patek knows they can't copy Panerai without looking like fools.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Klokke

...except that the function (4km depth tolerance) is ludicrous and useless. No one would ever dive to that depth wearing a watch on their wrist. It's just a proof of concept and an excuse to make a big watch. It's not function over form. It's invented useless function in a failed attempt to justify an ugly form to follow a trend. Huge mistake by Rolex. Rolex finally gave in (about a decade late) but Patek didn't. Disappointing.

I'll bet that there were people on the "over-engineered, unsinkable" Titanic who wish that the design criteria would have been a bit more robust....even if they didn't need it all the time.........

.............only once would have been enough............

[brainbizz]

Everybody has an opinion which is fine by me but just remember it is your opinion. Others may disagree. I really do not give a rats a$$ how deep the DSSD can go. Anything over 100ft is wasted on me. I personally own one and several other rolex models. Hardly a failure but i am sure back 40 or so years ago you would have called the Daytona and Millgauss failures as well. Oh well look at what they are worth today. What useless functions a chronograph with a tachymeter to determine speed and an antimagnetic watch.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by Klokke

...except that the function (4km depth tolerance) is ludicrous and useless. No one would ever dive to that depth wearing a watch on their wrist. It's just a proof of concept and an excuse to make a big watch. It's not function over form. It's invented useless function in a failed attempt to justify an ugly form to follow a trend. Huge mistake by Rolex.

This is exactly what I was talking about a few posts ago. This argument (when directed only at the DSSD) is ridiculous. There are over 23K members on TRF with thousand Sub & SD owners. I'll give you $100 if you can find me one member that has come close to diving their Sub to its limit of 1000'...heck, I'll give you $500 if you can find a SD owner that come come close to the 4000' limit of their fine watch. The point is I don't have to worry about breaking out my wallet to pay off bets because I'll NEVER lose.

If you're going to criticize Rolex for manufacturing the "useless function" of the DSSD in addition to calling it 'ludicrous'...then I hope you started the critique 50+ years ago when talking about the Sub and 30+ years ago when talking about the SD (and all other watch makers that have been building watches rated well beyond practical diving purposes).

Building watches that are capable of depths far beyond what any human will realistically use them is nothing new...yet for some reason some like to argue as if this is a 'new trend'. Not so.

[lobo58]

Originally Posted by moby33

Building watches that are capable of depths far beyond what any human will realistically use them is nothing new...yet for some reason some like to argue as if this is a 'new trend'. Not so.

True. I've never used the chronograph function of my Daytona to time, well, anything. Sometimes I'll click it on and let it run for a half hour just to be sure it still works properly.

[brainbizz]

True. I've never used the chronograph function of my Daytona to time, well, anything. Sometimes I'll click it on and let it run for a half hour just to be sure it still works properly.

Exactly my point. Many of buy watches because we like the looks, movement difficulty to obtain etc. I own all 3 millies and still cannot go into a MRI chamber therefore that function is useless to me but that does not make the watch less desirable.

[clew84]

Do 99% of people need:
- a car that goes 140+ mph?
- a professional style mountain bike that's never seen a mountain?
- a 50" TV
- wireless internet at home

Obviously, anyone could make a list of things they own that are not needed by anyone or have capabilities you will almost never (or actually never) need.

I don't ever plan on going to 4000ft but I like owning something that could. That's built better and took effort to think of, create, and build. If it wasn't for innovation, design, and technical advancements we would all be wearing Timex watches.

[flyback]

Originally Posted by moby33

Building watches that are capable of depths far beyond what any human will realistically use them is nothing new...yet for some reason some like to argue as if this is a 'new trend'. Not so.

For Rolex it is a new trend. There were professional commercial divers for whom the Submariner was inadequate, and so Rolex introduced the Sea-Dweller.

The most recent SD4000 has a safety factor of about 2X at the maximum depths it will see, which is reasonable.

Mere mortals didn't need the depth capability of the SD4000, but they could feel good owning something that had been designed as a real solution to a real problem.

The DSSD depth rating, on the other hand, is an answer to a non-problem. Unlike the SD4000, it has zero customers who need its depth capability. This represents a departure from the so-called "tool watch" tradition.