Why did Rolex discontinue the Sea Dweller?

[Eric88]

I think the 16600 was discontinued when Rolex brought the DSSD to market. Presumably they were looking to create more differentiation in their black diver segment and the SD may have been too similar to the 16610 and 14060 to set it apart. Yet there are a lot of SD fans out there.

Anyone have more info or opinions on why the SD was nuked from the lineup? Could it prosper if Rolex brought it back?

[RolexWatcher]

Well DSSD was introduced for the same purpose as the SD (hence it is called DSSD). For the usual customers, why go for the SD when the new model of the SD is out? My opinion though.

[Polemic]

Originally Posted by Eric88

I think the 16600 was discontinued when Rolex brought the DSSD to market. Presumably they were looking to create more differentiation in their black diver segment and the SD may have been too similar to the 16610 and 14060 to set it apart. Yet there are a lot of SD fans out there.

Anyone have more info or opinions on why the SD was nuked from the lineup? Could it prosper if Rolex brought it back?

That's it. 16610 and 16600 looks and nearly the same for a non WIS. It's so possible that when somebody decides to buy a 16610, easily change his mind and buys 16600. But now DSSD and Sub are totally different watches. Diameter, height, weight, dial, crystal, clasp, look etc are very different.

[padi56]

I have ask that same question to myself many times WHY perhaps the only reason a perhaps the brag factor of a higher depth rating and bigger watch and price. And like mountains they climb them because they can, while technical wise and its engineering is a technical achievement.The plain SD was more than enough for man today or future man and IMHO the DSSD sales will not be on par as what the SD was over its 30 plus years of life.But today I would doubt if 80%-90% of all dive type watches ever see water other than perhaps a shower or dip in the pool.

[HL65]

I am with you Padi...New is certainly not better in my book nor necessary. I guess I will stay stuck in the past with old Rolex classics. Not a bad place to be IMHO!

[z32turbo]

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

I am with you Padi...New is certainly not better in my book nor necessary. I guess I will stay stuck in the past with old Rolex classics. Not a bad place to be IMHO!

Not a bad place at. I too prefer the SD to the DSSD.

[mike]

Originally Posted by padi56

I have ask that same question to myself many times WHY perhaps the only reason a perhaps the brag factor of a higher depth rating and bigger watch and price. And like mountains they climb them because they can, while technical wise and its engineering is a technical achievement.The plain SD was more than enough for man today or future man and IMHO the DSSD sales will not be on par as what the SD was over its 30 plus years of life.But today I would doubt if 80%-90% of all dive type watches ever see water other than perhaps a shower or dip in the pool.

Spot on.

[buke45]

Originally Posted by steelerfan65

i am with you padi...new is certainly not better in my book nor necessary. I guess i will stay stuck in the past with old rolex classics. Not a bad place to be imho!

x2

[RolexWatcher]

To me, the history of SDs were to see how deep to go, from SD Sub, to SD, to DSSD. On each occasion, I believe they brought the new one out and discontinued the old one?

I don't think the SD is different from the Sub - it only looks different now because of the physical/technical constraints of going so deep...

[Patrick Lim]

Originally Posted by padi56

I have ask that same question to myself many times WHY perhaps the only reason a perhaps the brag factor of a higher depth rating and bigger watch and price. And like mountains they climb them because they can, while technical wise and its engineering is a technical achievement.The plain SD was more than enough for man today or future man and IMHO the DSSD sales will not be on par as what the SD was over its 30 plus years of life.But today I would doubt if 80%-90% of all dive type watches ever see water other than perhaps a shower or dip in the pool.

DSSD was introduced during the craze for Panerai
It was perhaps Rolex's response to Pam's oversized watches

That said, it still puzzles me why they introduce a beast which most wrists can't tame

[The GMT Master]

I see the DSSD as an engineering exercise to show off what Rolex's R&D department can do. There are a lot of interesting technologies and materials used, and I do wonder if we'll see some of those in the dive watches of the future. I think the Glidelock will be the staple clasp for Rolex's dive models for a long time to come, and will be something other brands will look to imitate. We all know that the depth capabilities are way beyond anything a human could handle, but to create a pretty easy to wear watch (not big by a lot of watch brands' standards, albeit not what I would describe as a daily wearer) with such impressive statistics is testament to Rolex can do.

They have to keep pushing boundaries to remind people why Rolex is such an impressive brand - it's like cars. The Bugatti Veyron has 1200HP, for a road car, its frankly ridiculous. But as an engineering exercise, it's very, very impressive, and I doubt it will ever be matched on such a scale. The Deep Sea is the same - there are other deep sea divers' watches with incredible depth ratings, but none will be as comfortable, as refined or as wearable as the Deep Sea. The previous Sea Dweller used to hold that title - the Deep Sea has regained it, and that's why the Sea Dweller was discontinued

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by padi56

I have ask that same question to myself many times WHY perhaps the only reason a perhaps the brag factor of a higher depth rating and bigger watch and price. And like mountains they climb them because they can, while technical wise and its engineering is a technical achievement.The plain SD was more than enough for man today or future man and IMHO the DSSD sales will not be on par as what the SD was over its 30 plus years of life.But today I would doubt if 80%-90% of all dive type watches ever see water other than perhaps a shower or dip in the pool.

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

I am with you Padi...New is certainly not better in my book nor necessary. I guess I will stay stuck in the past with old Rolex classics. Not a bad place to be IMHO!

Well said.

[Paulie 50]

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

I am with you Padi...New is certainly not better in my book nor necessary. I guess I will stay stuck in the past with old Rolex classics. Not a bad place to be IMHO!

Me too, i do believe Rolex made a great mistake in scrapping the Sea Dweller, and one which i am sure they regret, long after we stop talking about the Deep Sea, we will still be talking about the Sea Dweller.

[ingoodtime]

Originally Posted by padi56

I have ask that same question to myself many times WHY perhaps the only reason a perhaps the brag factor of a higher depth rating and bigger watch and price. And like mountains they climb them because they can, while technical wise and its engineering is a technical achievement.The plain SD was more than enough for man today or future man and IMHO the DSSD sales will not be on par as what the SD was over its 30 plus years of life.But today I would doubt if 80%-90% of all dive type watches ever see water other than perhaps a shower or dip in the pool.

Umm Padi, you forgot to mention the hot tub and bath tub.

[Singslinger]

I think Chris (GMT Master) hit the nail on the head. Rolex had to show the world what it is capable of in the realm of diving watches, hence the DSSD.

[Mutlu]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

I see the DSSD as an engineering exercise to show off what Rolex's R&D department can do. There are a lot of interesting technologies and materials used, and I do wonder if we'll see some of those in the dive watches of the future. I think the Glidelock will be the staple clasp for Rolex's dive models for a long time to come, and will be something other brands will look to imitate. We all know that the depth capabilities are way beyond anything a human could handle, but to create a pretty easy to wear watch (not big by a lot of watch brands' standards, albeit not what I would describe as a daily wearer) with such impressive statistics is testament to Rolex can do.

They have to keep pushing boundaries to remind people why Rolex is such an impressive brand - it's like cars. The Bugatti Veyron has 1200HP, for a road car, its frankly ridiculous. But as an engineering exercise, it's very, very impressive, and I doubt it will ever be matched on such a scale. The Deep Sea is the same - there are other deep sea divers' watches with incredible depth ratings, but none will be as comfortable, as refined or as wearable as the Deep Sea. The previous Sea Dweller used to hold that title - the Deep Sea has regained it, and that's why the Sea Dweller was discontinued

I agree with everything, except that one can wear it daily. I do and have been for close to a year.