Seadweller 43 is a mixed bag

[JonTheKingJames]

Originally Posted by askdanny

On the secondary market, the SD 43 is the same price (or less) than the Sub Date 41.

A better built watch for less money? Shows the controversial nature of the design...

I think this has more to do with “Hype” than design. Mainstream Rolex is purely hype driven. 99.9% of people that know what a submariner is, doesn’t even know what a Sea Dweller is. We are a different breed here, don’t forget that.

[2loaded]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

The burson of proof is on you to provide data that more than literally a few people dive with a luxury watch. Not me.

SD43 a "luxury watch"? It's a tool watch designed and made to take on extreme conditions.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by JonTheKingJames

I think this has more to do with “Hype” than design. Mainstream Rolex is purely hype driven. 99.9% of people that know what a submariner is, doesn’t even know what a Sea Dweller is. We are a different breed here, don’t forget that.

True enough, however it's an inescapable fact that a Sub is more wearable and appealing in terms of size and comfort across the general population.
A Sea-dweller is almost certainly a curiosity, generally speaking

[wb55]

Originally Posted by JonTheKingJames

I think this has more to do with “Hype” than design. Mainstream Rolex is purely hype driven. 99.9% of people that know what a submariner is, doesn’t even know what a Sea Dweller is. We are a different breed here, don’t forget that.

The Sub 41 is a better watch in my view. For the same price I'd take the Sub 41 no question. I almost never wear my SD43.

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by Shadow Play

To me at least an SD with decreased depth rating is a bit like a blunt pencil - pointless.

This is just wrong from a practical perspective.

The point: Having a 43mm diameter watch with a decent thickness. Does not look like a hockey puck.

What's pointless is making a ridiculous caseback stick out for a depth rating you'd never remotely utilize. THAT's pointless.

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by 2loaded

SD43 a "luxury watch"? It's a tool watch designed and made to take on extreme conditions.

My friend, no one uses the SD43 for extreme conditions. The Rolex costs over 10 thousand dollars. That is by definition a luxury watch.

Calling any Rolex not a luxury watch is out of touch.

[kaiserphoenix]

Yeah I had a SD43 briefly for a while but I just felt it was too bulky even though I loved the aesthetics. In addition I wish it didnt have a cyclopes or even a date for that matter.

[gwozhog]

Tried on a TT Seadweller and also the bluesy you see in the pic today and like a tractor pull the TT Seadweller just made me put bluesy down and slide it back on my wrist. By far the nicest dive watch I have ever seen. If they ever make one with the blue dial it would probably be the end of the Submariner.

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

Much like 99.9% of people who own the SD43, no I am not.

And of the .1% who are divers, no one goes that deep and if they are, they’re not wearing a rolex. This watch has little to do with diving.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paka]

Originally Posted by wb55

I almost never wear my SD43.

Sell it to me, if you're from EU.

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

This is just wrong from a practical perspective.

The point: Having a 43mm diameter watch with a decent thickness. Does not look like a hockey puck.

What's pointless is making a ridiculous caseback stick out for a depth rating you'd never remotely utilize. THAT's pointless.

if this is pointless, how about wearing a several thousand dollar rolex on your wrist just to tell time? is it also pointless to you?

[Manamana]

The best diver ever produced by Rolex. Why get a Sub when you can wear an SD43 comfortably. If you can't wear it go for a Sub.

[TswaneNguni]

What we have here is the small wristed discussing a watch, with with great enthusiasm,which they can never wear anyway ..

If you have the wrist,you wear anything ..Subs,Sub 50th ,DSSD
If you dont, stick to Subs/Daytonas/DJs.

Wearing a PAM 422 47mm on OEM Green camo rubber now .

Wear what suits you .

[Driver8]

Rather than saying the SD needs to be thinner and therefore lose its WR (and thus its entire USP and reason for being), I think it’d just be easier for the OP to say, “I wish we had a slightly larger diameter Sub”. That seems to be what he really wants.

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by rambo99

if this is pointless, how about wearing a several thousand dollar rolex on your wrist just to tell time? is it also pointless to you?

Yes, to tell time of course it is pointless. Good thing nobody does that, cause luxury watches are about style and jewelry, not to tell time. And jewelry this weirdly proportioned is a shame.

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

What we have here is the small wristed discussing a watch, with with great enthusiasm,which they can never wear anyway ..

If you have the wrist,you wear anything ..Subs,Sub 50th ,DSSD
If you dont, stick to Subs/Daytonas/DJs.

Wearing a PAM 422 47mm on OEM Green camo rubber now .

Wear what suits you .

Well, no. I have the wrist for it. I can wear 44mm PAMs no problem which wear bigger than the SD43. The PAMs don't have weird thickness proportions though which makes them wear better even though they're larger.

The thickness on the sd43 destroys it.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

Well, no. I have the wrist for it. I can wear 44mm PAMs no problem which wear bigger than the SD43. The PAMs don't have weird thickness proportions though which makes them wear better even though they're larger.

The thickness on the sd43 destroys it.

..and how about a DSSD ? Wears better than a SD50th ?

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

Yes, to tell time of course it is pointless. Good thing nobody does that, cause luxury watches are about style and jewelry, not to tell time. And jewelry this weirdly proportioned is a shame.

so do you wear a rolex?

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by rambo99

so do you wear a rolex?

I have a few, yes. This point states I have the SD43 at the very least does it not?

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

..and how about a DSSD ? Wears better than a SD50th ?

I have not tried the DSSD yet but the inner ring does not work for me

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

I have a few, yes. This point states I have the SD43 at the very least does it not?

so you are pointless wearing a rolex! by your own logic you should never buy a rolex, instead you should buy jewelry to wear and a 10 dollar watch to tell time.

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by rambo99

so you are pointless! by your own logic you should never buy a rolex, you should buy jewelry to wear and a 10 dollar watch to tell time.

You have horrible reading comprehension. Nowhere have I contradicted myself nor does my logic state that we should not buy Rolex. This is the weirdest strawman I have seen yet.

I said buying a luxury watch is all about jewelry and style. That is literally their entire point whether you want to admit it or not. Rolex works great for that. How you somehow misinterpreted that, I have no idea.

[Daytonaman799]

I love my SD 43 but get why it’s not for everyone. It is heavy and def think it’s big but I think it’s manageable and it’s like wearing a bank vault on yours wrist in a good way. It just feels like it can go anywhere and do anything. I also think the proportions are far more manageable than something like an AP offshore, etc. it’s big without being ridiculous.

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

You have horrible reading comprehension. Nowhere have I contradicted myself nor does my logic state that we should not buy Rolex. This is the weirdest strawman I have seen yet.

I said buying a luxury watch is all about jewelry and style. That is literally their entire point whether you want to admit it or not. Rolex works great for that. How you somehow misinterpreted that, I have no idea.

didnt you say making a ridiculous caseback stick out for a depth rating you'd never remotely utilize is pointless? luxury watches are all about excessive engineering and the finest display of craftmanship, if you think this is ridiculous you should buy a 10 dollars watch just to tell time.

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by rambo99

didnt you say making a ridiculous caseback stick out for a depth rating you'd never remotely utilize is pointless? luxury watches are all about excessive engineering and the finest display of craftmanship, if you think this is ridiculous you should buy a 10 dollars watch just to tell time.

Yes I did say that. Now how does that contradict my overall argument? I agree, it is all about finest display of craftsmanship indeed -- hence jewlery. I do not consider a protruding caseback that doesn't let the overall case hug the wrist and just plop on top that looks like it's floating, because of that caseback, a case of "the finest display of craftsmanship" -- kind of the opposite actually.

Now you keep repeating this 10 dollar watch to tell time thing, when I repeatedly said it's not about telling time, it's about craftsmanship that we enjoy, and both agree on -- so I'd rather wear my Hulk or Sub41, which don't have a ridiculous caseback. You need to stop strawmaning my argument that I have never made.

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

Yes I did say that. Now how does that contradict my overall argument? I agree, it is all about finest display of craftsmanship indeed -- hence jewlery. I do not consider a protruding caseback that doesn't let the overall case hug the wrist and just plop on top that looks like it's floating, because of that caseback, a case of "the finest display of craftsmanship" -- kind of the opposite actually.

Now you keep repeating this 10 dollar watch to tell time thing, when I repeatedly said it's not about telling time, it's about craftsmanship that we enjoy, and both agree on -- so I'd rather wear my Hulk or Sub41, which don't have a ridiculous caseback. You need to stop strawmaning my argument that I have never made.

the fact that you claim the sd43 caseback design is ridiculous just for the sake of deep diving capability has zero ground, which proves that you have no idea what luxury watches are.

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by rambo99

the fact that you claim the sd43 caseback design is ridiculous just for the sake of deep diving capability has zero ground, which proves that you have no idea what luxury watches are.

Lol you're just spewing word salad now. The ground is based on how it wears on the wrist. That's plenty ground and very logical. The fact that you say this shows you have no idea what common sense and what logical fallacies are.

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

Lol you're just spewing word salad now. The ground is based on how it wears on the wrist. That's plenty ground and very logical. The fact that you say this shows you have no idea what common sense and what logical fallacies are.

lol.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by interestedinwatches

Yes I did say that. Now how does that contradict my overall argument? I agree, it is all about finest display of craftsmanship indeed -- hence jewlery. I do not consider a protruding caseback that doesn't let the overall case hug the wrist and just plop on top that looks like it's floating, because of that caseback, a case of "the finest display of craftsmanship" -- kind of the opposite actually.

Now you keep repeating this 10 dollar watch to tell time thing, when I repeatedly said it's not about telling time, it's about craftsmanship that we enjoy, and both agree on -- so I'd rather wear my Hulk or Sub41, which don't have a ridiculous caseback.

Makes sense?

I think it’s important not to make sweeping generalizations.

For you and me and others, the caseback is a point of contention. That’s well documented here on TRF.

For others the protruding caseback serves a purpose, which is to raise the mid case ever so slightly off the wrist ensuring the crown doesn’t dig into the hand.

Others, site the protruding caseback as a point of comfort. That’s right, comfort in that it helps to seat the watch on the wrist between the ulnar bone and the meat of the wrist. It almost sinks in.

Obviously the wearer needs to decide and no two wrists are the same.

I owned one of the first SD43’s on the forum and finally sold it a couple of years ago because I struggled with the caseback comfort. I recently bought the exact same watch back from the person I sold it to, and started to wear it looser on my wrist with more success.

Will it ever be as comfortable as a flat, cushion style caseback? Of course not. It is what it is and I accept that.

Also, most of us will never use our watches for any of the intended purposes or capabilities, but that doesn’t mean Rolex should dial back on the specs. That’s like suggesting you can’t drive a Ferrari to its limits so they should make the car more comfortable.

I like that the SD is a 1220m rated watch. Of course I’ll never use it, most will never use the depth rating on a GMT, but that really isn’t the point. The point is Rolex builds these little machines to over perform and that’s the entire point.

If I were you I’d just move on. No need to keep hating on the reference.

[interestedinwatches]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I think it’s important not to make sweeping generalizations.

For you and me and others, the caseback is a point of contention. That’s well documented here on TRF.

For others the protruding caseback serves a purpose, which is to raise the mid case ever so slightly off the wrist ensuring the crown doesn’t dig into the hand.

Others, site the protruding caseback as a point of comfort. That’s right, comfort in that it helps to seat the watch on the wrist between the ulnar bone and the meat of the wrist. It almost sinks in.

Obviously the wearer needs to decide and no two wrists are the same.

I owned one of the first SD43’s on the forum and finally sold it a couple of years ago because I struggled with the caseback comfort. I recently bought the exact same watch back from the person I sold it to, and started to wear it looser on my wrist with more success.

Will it ever be as comfortable as a flat, cushion style caseback? Of course not. It is what it is and I accept that.

Also, most of us will never use our watches for any of the intended purposes or capabilities, but that doesn’t mean Rolex should dial back on the specs. That’s like suggesting you can’t drive a Ferrari to its limits so they should make the car more comfortable.

I like that the SD is a 1220m rated watch. Of course I’ll never use it, most will never use the depth rating on a GMT, but that really isn’t the point. The point is Rolex builds these little machines to over perform and that’s the entire point.

If I were you I’d just move on. No need to keep hating on the reference.

I get where you're coming from to a degree. I am not stating that everyone should dislike it because I dislike it. Feel free to like what you like, no opinion is invalid in what they prefer from Rolex. Rolex makes a multitude of different watches and there is something for everyone.

I was simply arguing with someone who lacked common sense and kept making strawman arguments against points I did not create.

If someone likes the overly huge caseback, good for them.


But yes, it would be very nice if Rolex made the Submariner in 43mm and did not have a grotesquely huge caseback. That would be the perfect Rolex for me.