ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

S320 · 17 November 2010, 04:41 AM

Since my purchase of a brand new DSSD back in July, I am totally addicted to it. After a few hours, the weight aspect on the wrist was gone.

Tried on a Sub C, and it just didnt do it for me. Too thin and felt less engineered.

No offense to those who love it, Sub is still a classic. But definately not a substitute for the mighty DSSD. I dont have a thick wrist, but regardless the watch looks awesome. There is no doubt I have to train my hand to move in certain way to avoid being scratched on the sidewalls. Some of the remarkable aspects of the DSSD:

1. The size + weight (virtually dwarfs every other model)
2. Beautiful dome crystal (looks beautiful while wearing it and while its not on the wrist)
3. Mat dial (the color contrasts with steel and ceramic)
4. Massive crown
5. Rolex elegance - no shiny parts, no look at me styling (no one barely notices I have one on)
6. The titanium case back - looks amazing when you take the watch off
7. Just the thought of the entire engineering that has been put into creating this masterpiece!

Just wanted to share my thoughts (and sorry for a bad iPhone photo!)

Paracentesis · 17 November 2010, 04:53 AM

Bigger is always better. My girlfriend is morbidly obese, and, for that reason alone, I prefer her to slimmer ladies.

EchoBlueUK · 17 November 2010, 04:58 AM

yeah i guess. I like the case diameter... although it does have a ridiculously tapered bracelet, poor weight balanced head, and ugly writing round the dial which are deal breakers for me. If they sorted these issues i'd be all over it.

baxta69 · 17 November 2010, 04:59 AM

dont do it for me dude...but whatever floats your boat

RRGHOST1 · 17 November 2010, 05:02 AM

Well i like it !

snog · 17 November 2010, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paracentesis

Bigger is always better. My girlfriend is morbidly obese, and, for that reason alone, I prefer her to slimmer ladies.

so are you a feeder then

snog · 17 November 2010, 05:10 AM

the only problem I think I would have with the deep sea is it's height on the wrist,apart from that it's a class act.

btw when you said you were sorry for the bad iphone pics,I thought you were going to say sorry for being in starbucks and drinking bad coffee,loads more reason to be sorry for that than the pic.

Sixxgrand1 · 17 November 2010, 05:16 AM

Have a look at this picture:

IMHO..:
The EXP-1 is:
- more comfortable by a country mile
- far easier to read especially from angles
- able to withstand 99% of pleasure dives
- better proportioned bracelet to case
- styled to be low key - fly below the radar
- proven and with a nice history for this model
- without a date however the date is too small on the DSSD..
- not adorned with too much writing, fat hands or hour markers - the dial is classic, pure and just so readable!

I owned a DeepSea and found it was all the things you said - but just seemed to be too much watch...a Rolex exercise which perhaps should not have gone into production and better perhaps to have been left as a prototype. If Rolex makes some changes (as many have posted hear since it's introduction) many of us may reconsider ownership. However for my money the original SeaDweller, Sub or new Sub-C are the better choices if you love that 'diver watch' look.

Dan2010 · 17 November 2010, 05:21 AM

I would be on board with the DSSD if it wasn't so darn thick. I have big wrists and I would not want to wear this behomth all the time.

JIFF1975 · 17 November 2010, 05:24 AM

I absolutly agree with you!!!

wantonebad · 17 November 2010, 05:26 AM

New Sub's aren't on my radar cause I hate the super-case (fat lugs) but I am aching for a larger rolex. 40-42mm doesn't cut it. My issue with the DSSD is different though, it's too thick, like a top-hat on a chain. I can't wear a watch with a tall head. JMHO

smallcandle · 17 November 2010, 05:28 AM

I loved (past tense) my DSSD, but eventually the ridiculous thickness soured me. I went back to the 16610 and have never regretted it. Glad you like yours!

R1@160@alltimes · 17 November 2010, 05:29 AM

Tried on DSSD, love it, but not for me.

Enjoy yours

supercharged · 17 November 2010, 05:32 AM

Actually I like it

Richard. · 17 November 2010, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixxgrand1

Have a look at this picture:

IMHO..:
The EXP-1 is:
- more comfortable by a country mile
- far easier to read especially from angles
- able to withstand 99% of pleasure dives
- better proportioned bracelet to case
- styled to be low key - fly below the radar
- proven and with a nice history for this model
- without a date however the date is too small on the DSSD..
- not adorned with too much writing, fat hands or hour markers - the dial is classic, pure and just so readable!

I owned a DeepSea and found it was all the things you said - but just seemed to be too much watch...a Rolex exercise which perhaps should not have gone into production and better perhaps to have been left as a prototype. If Rolex makes some changes (as many have posted hear since it's introduction) many of us may reconsider ownership. However for my money the original SeaDweller, Sub or new Sub-C are the better choices if you love that 'diver watch' look.

They're both beautiful in their own ways, But recently Im finding that the Deepsea is getting more wrist time than the Explorer.

PeterT · 17 November 2010, 06:03 AM

Well,
I can say that I have a DSSD and that it is my favourite watch. It sits at the head of my Rolex collection.

PeterT

Grissom · 17 November 2010, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paracentesis

Bigger is always better. My girlfriend is morbidly obese, and, for that reason alone, I prefer her to slimmer ladies.

You are toooo funny! You just

that Adipose Tissue!

My BNIB Sea Dweller just arrived this AM, and I find it the perfect serious dive watch, for me! I tried on the DSSD and for me it was just too big, but like always, one should get what THEY love!

psv · 17 November 2010, 06:52 AM

After the DSSD.. no other dive watch does it!

Personally, I don't agree with that assessment but I'm glad you liked it. There are lots of great dive watches out there, e.g. not only the Submariner but also take a look at the Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Compressor Diving Navy Seal Alarm (crazy name!). Fantastic dive watch!!!

I own a DSSD but I don't run around pretending that my watch is better than other people's.

AntonisCy · 17 November 2010, 06:55 AM

dssd for life !! :)

wilfreb · 17 November 2010, 07:04 AM

i looooooove my deepsy

α-ψ! · 17 November 2010, 07:11 AM

i think that deep sea is not a watch for all types of persons!!you must have the style to support it..its not like the other 40mm submariners old or new that fits women and and men.finally if rolex makes a watch like deep sea it can't be a mistake!!!

dinan545bmw · 17 November 2010, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilfreb

i looooooove my deepsy

Paracentesis · 17 November 2010, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psv

After the DSSD.. no other dive watch does it!

Personally, I don't agree with that assessment but I'm glad you liked it. There are lots of great dive watches out there, e.g. not only the Submariner but also take a look at the Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Compressor Diving Navy Seal Alarm (crazy name!). Fantastic dive watch!!!

I own a DSSD but I don't run around pretending that my watch is better than other people's.

http://www.lacotedesmontres.com/mesIMG/imgStd/25845.jpg

Whoa! Rather nice. JLC are a class act, IMO.

manandjoe · 17 November 2010, 07:19 AM

Enjoy your DSSD.

Was at my local AD and tried one on. The big issue as many know is the depth 18mm. I have a pam 111 that wears much better for me. I think Rolex missed the mark on this with the depth. The other issue is the ratio of the head/bracelet is off.
I tried on the 43mm yachtmaster and it sat much better and looked well proportioned. I see alot of love for it hear, I don't get it.

Do you think Rolex should have gone to 42mm for the new Subc?

Paracentesis · 17 November 2010, 07:28 AM

duplicate

GJS · 17 November 2010, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EchoBlueUK

yeah i guess. I like the case diameter... although it does have a ridiculously tapered bracelet, poor weight balanced head, and ugly writing round the dial which are deal breakers for me. If they sorted these issues i'd be all over it.

x2 for all of the above!

harrywize · 17 November 2010, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paracentesis

Bigger is always better. My girlfriend is morbidly obese, and, for that reason alone, I prefer her to slimmer ladies.

post of the day!!!

Zed Homme · 17 November 2010, 08:03 AM

I love my DSSD, but my Panerai 87 is just as big. The DSSD is great on a dive, but it wont keep me from diving with my other watches. I hate to admit it, but my 14060 on a nylon is as good as it gets for me....

oo7 · 17 November 2010, 08:19 AM

Sometimes you gotta go ape%$&# on specs to make a point in watchmaking. Rolex did it with the DSSD.

Paracentesis · 17 November 2010, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oo7

Sometimes you gotta go ape%$&# on specs to make a point in watchmaking. Rolex did it with the DSSD.

They did, but still didn't win the (pointless) specs race.

17 November 2010, 04:41 AM	#1
S320 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Saad Location: Chicago USA Watch: Rolex n Omega Posts: 43	After the DSSD.. no other dive watch does it! Since my purchase of a brand new DSSD back in July, I am totally addicted to it. After a few hours, the weight aspect on the wrist was gone. Tried on a Sub C, and it just didnt do it for me. Too thin and felt less engineered. No offense to those who love it, Sub is still a classic. But definately not a substitute for the mighty DSSD. I dont have a thick wrist, but regardless the watch looks awesome. There is no doubt I have to train my hand to move in certain way to avoid being scratched on the sidewalls. Some of the remarkable aspects of the DSSD: 1. The size + weight (virtually dwarfs every other model) 2. Beautiful dome crystal (looks beautiful while wearing it and while its not on the wrist) 3. Mat dial (the color contrasts with steel and ceramic) 4. Massive crown 5. Rolex elegance - no shiny parts, no look at me styling (no one barely notices I have one on) 6. The titanium case back - looks amazing when you take the watch off 7. Just the thought of the entire engineering that has been put into creating this masterpiece! Just wanted to share my thoughts (and sorry for a bad iPhone photo!) Attached Images __________________ DSSD - V Series GMT II - Black Bezel - sold Omega Seamaster Professional

17 November 2010, 05:16 AM	#8
Sixxgrand1 Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Canada Watch: EXP I & II Posts: 825	When compared to my EXP-I.... Have a look at this picture: IMHO..: The EXP-1 is: - more comfortable by a country mile - far easier to read especially from angles - able to withstand 99% of pleasure dives - better proportioned bracelet to case - styled to be low key - fly below the radar - proven and with a nice history for this model - without a date however the date is too small on the DSSD.. - not adorned with too much writing, fat hands or hour markers - the dial is classic, pure and just so readable! I owned a DeepSea and found it was all the things you said - but just seemed to be too much watch...a Rolex exercise which perhaps should not have gone into production and better perhaps to have been left as a prototype. If Rolex makes some changes (as many have posted hear since it's introduction) many of us may reconsider ownership. However for my money the original SeaDweller, Sub or new Sub-C are the better choices if you love that 'diver watch' look.

17 November 2010, 05:26 AM	#11
wantonebad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: USA Watch: 126600, 116500LN Posts: 12,849	New Sub's aren't on my radar cause I hate the super-case (fat lugs) but I am aching for a larger rolex. 40-42mm doesn't cut it. My issue with the DSSD is different though, it's too thick, like a top-hat on a chain. I can't wear a watch with a tall head. JMHO __________________ "I'm kind of a big deal... on a fairly irrelevant social media site that falsely inflates my fragile ego"

17 November 2010, 05:28 AM	#12
smallcandle "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: Brian Location: Kansas Watch: 16610, Omega PO Posts: 1,898	I loved (past tense) my DSSD, but eventually the ridiculous thickness soured me. I went back to the 16610 and have never regretted it. Glad you like yours! __________________ Things got out of control and I had to stab a clown...

17 November 2010, 05:29 AM	#13
R1@160@alltimes "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: USA Watch: ♛ Posts: 4,408	Tried on DSSD, love it, but not for me. Enjoy yours __________________

17 November 2010, 04:53 AM	#2
Paracentesis Banned Join Date: May 2010 Real Name: James Location: UK Watch: Tissot Posts: 1,454	Bigger is always better. My girlfriend is morbidly obese, and, for that reason alone, I prefer her to slimmer ladies.

17 November 2010, 04:58 AM	#3
EchoBlueUK "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,543	yeah i guess. I like the case diameter... although it does have a ridiculously tapered bracelet, poor weight balanced head, and ugly writing round the dial which are deal breakers for me. If they sorted these issues i'd be all over it.

17 November 2010, 04:59 AM	#4
baxta69 Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Real Name: davinci Location: suffolk, uk Watch: Rolex & Breitling Posts: 340	dont do it for me dude...but whatever floats your boat

17 November 2010, 05:02 AM	#5
RRGHOST1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: luke standing Location: england Watch: Rolex TT SubC Blue Posts: 3,997	Well i like it !

17 November 2010, 05:10 AM	#7
snog "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: UK Posts: 908	the only problem I think I would have with the deep sea is it's height on the wrist,apart from that it's a class act. btw when you said you were sorry for the bad iphone pics,I thought you were going to say sorry for being in starbucks and drinking bad coffee,loads more reason to be sorry for that than the pic.

17 November 2010, 05:21 AM	#9
Dan2010 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: South Carolina Watch: Panerai 914 Posts: 6,540	I would be on board with the DSSD if it wasn't so darn thick. I have big wrists and I would not want to wear this behomth all the time.

17 November 2010, 05:24 AM	#10
JIFF1975 Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: The Hague Watch: SDDS, 116610LV Posts: 384	I absolutly agree with you!!!

17 November 2010, 05:32 AM	#14
supercharged Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Real Name: Richard Location: Yorkshire,UK Watch: Omega Oris Rolex Posts: 243	Actually I like it

17 November 2010, 06:03 AM	#16
PeterT "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: England Watch: 16613 16710 16600 Posts: 1,021	Well, I can say that I have a DSSD and that it is my favourite watch. It sits at the head of my Rolex collection. PeterT

17 November 2010, 06:52 AM	#18
psv 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: USA & France Posts: 11,078	After the DSSD.. no other dive watch does it! Personally, I don't agree with that assessment but I'm glad you liked it. There are lots of great dive watches out there, e.g. not only the Submariner but also take a look at the Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Compressor Diving Navy Seal Alarm (crazy name!). Fantastic dive watch!!! I own a DSSD but I don't run around pretending that my watch is better than other people's.

17 November 2010, 06:55 AM	#19
AntonisCy "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Antonis Location: Cyprus Posts: 82	dssd for life !! :)

17 November 2010, 07:04 AM	#20
wilfreb "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Miami Posts: 537	i looooooove my deepsy

17 November 2010, 07:11 AM	#21
α-ψ! "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Real Name: tolis Location: athens Watch: daytona tt Posts: 194	i think that deep sea is not a watch for all types of persons!!you must have the style to support it..its not like the other 40mm submariners old or new that fits women and and men.finally if rolex makes a watch like deep sea it can't be a mistake!!!

17 November 2010, 07:19 AM	#24
manandjoe Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: NY Posts: 36	Enjoy your DSSD. Was at my local AD and tried one on. The big issue as many know is the depth 18mm. I have a pam 111 that wears much better for me. I think Rolex missed the mark on this with the depth. The other issue is the ratio of the head/bracelet is off. I tried on the 43mm yachtmaster and it sat much better and looked well proportioned. I see alot of love for it hear, I don't get it. Do you think Rolex should have gone to 42mm for the new Subc?

17 November 2010, 07:28 AM	#25
Paracentesis Banned Join Date: May 2010 Real Name: James Location: UK Watch: Tissot Posts: 1,454	duplicate

17 November 2010, 08:03 AM	#28
Zed Homme "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Chris Location: usa Watch: Rolex Posts: 6,962	I love my DSSD, but my Panerai 87 is just as big. The DSSD is great on a dive, but it wont keep me from diving with my other watches. I hate to admit it, but my 14060 on a nylon is as good as it gets for me....

17 November 2010, 08:19 AM	#29
oo7 Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Real Name: Julius Location: Toronto CANADA Posts: 217	Sometimes you gotta go ape%$&# on specs to make a point in watchmaking. Rolex did it with the DSSD.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)