2014 Sea-Dweller 4000

[Tools]

The new Oyster Perpetual
Sea-Dweller 4000
In 2014, Rolex is bringing a legend of professional diving back to life with a brand new, updated Oyster Perpetual Sea-Dweller 4000. This 40‑mm‑diameter technical model, waterproof to a depth of 1,220 metres (4,000 feet), features all the latest Rolex standards of innovation: Cerachrom bezel insert in a ceramic virtually impervious to scratches and ultraviolet rays; Chromalight display with long-lasting luminescence; paramagnetic blue Parachrom hairspring; Oysterlock safety clasp; and the Rolex Glidelock extension system. Not forgetting, of course, the groundbreaking function for which the Sea-Dweller is renowned, the helium escape valve.

2014 SD4000.jpg

2014 SD4000 2.jpg

The Sea-Dweller 4000
The original Helium Escape Valve, the key to the Deep.

Developed in 1967, waterproof to a depth of 610 metres (2,000 feet) initially and then to 1,220 metres (4,000 feet) in 1978, the Sea-Dweller is the watch for the pioneers of the deep. Those who were once known as aquanauts, explorers of the hydrosphere – the waters which cover some 70 per cent of the Earth’s surface. Like them, the Sea-Dweller had to adapt to the artificial breathing mixes devised for great pressure environments and composed of light gases such as helium or hydrogen. The watch has to face the same long decompression process as the diver undertakes in order to safely eliminate those gases without injury and avoid potentially fatal decompression sickness, or ‘the bends’, before he returns to the surface. With this in mind, in 1967 an important innovation developed and patented by Rolex was introduced on the Sea‑Dweller: the helium escape valve. This ingenious safety valve, set in the watch case, played an all-important role in the development of deep‑sea diving, a field in which Comex was the most renowned player. The company’s late founder and president, Henri-Germain Delauze, a pioneer of deep diving, said of his favourite watch: “A diver breathing hydrogen can’t live without his Rolex,” adding; “In diving, time is a crucial piece of information. Be it operations, changing gas mixes, timing decompression stops, entering and exiting the diving bell, it’s all a matter of seconds. Having a precise, robust, reliable watch was of vital importance.”

2014 SD4000 3.jpg

Sea Dweller 4000 back.jpg


Under pressure
To understand the importance of the Sea-Dweller, we need to look back to the heyday of man’s attempts to conquer the deep, in the early 1960s. The depth limit for scuba diving with compressed air was some 60 metres, principally for physiological reasons as the pressure beyond such a depth causes the air to become toxic. Nitrogen, which makes up almost 80 per cent of ordinary air, can have a severe narcotic effect – commonly known as the ‘rapture of the deep’ – which alters the mind of even the most experienced divers. From 66 metres down, oxygen also becomes dangerous as hyperoxia affects the nervous system, leading to seizures and loss of consciousness.

Counteracting these gas build-ups is not simply a question of returning quickly to the surface, because the diver risks the bends: 40 minutes spent at 60 metres below sea level requires a slow ascent of two hours interspersed by several decompression stops, which must be scrupulously respected to allow the release of the inert gases that have built up in the body – with the accompanying problem of needing sufficient air to stay underwater as long as that takes. And decompression time increases exponentially with depth. To overcome the 60-metre barrier, other solutions were clearly needed.

These emerged in the early 1960s with two innovations: the development of alternative breathing gas mixtures to avoid the toxic effect of air, and the concept of saturation diving which would reduce decompression time and the attendant risks.

Synthetic air
If ordinary air becomes toxic for the human body under the effect of pressure, why not breathe something else? The development of synthetic breathing mixes unlocked the gates to the deep sea. Ordinary air is composed of approximately 80 per cent nitrogen and 20 per cent oxygen, but only oxygen is metabolized by the body and is therefore essential. However, nitrogen becomes toxic and divers fall victim to nitrogen narcosis at depths of 40 to 60 metres, depending on the individual. Scientific research has shown that the proportion of nitrogen in the air may be replaced by helium, and that an artificial helium-oxygen mix (heliox) can be breathed by human beings without any physiological effects. It does not cause narcosis at pressure either. Oxygen toxicity could furthermore be avoided by increasing the proportion of helium in the mix. As a result, the 60-metre barrier could be crossed.

Later, other limitations – such as high-pressure nervous syndrome caused by prolonged diving at more than 150 metres using heliox – were circumvented by using gas cocktails with differing quantities of hydrogen, oxygen, helium and nitrogen. With a combination of gas mixes – using different mixes at different stages of the dive – diving limits were pushed even deeper from the early 1960s onwards and decompression times reduced. In 1961, a dive in open water was made to 222 metres in Lake Maggiore in Switzerland. The following year, a diver reached a depth of 313 metres in the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of California. A record that surprised the whole diving community at the time and paved the way for new marine exploration.

Living underwater:
To dive ever deeper is not the sole ambition of the conquest of the underwater world. The idea of being able to remain underwater for extended periods, or even live there, has long captured the human imagination. In the 1960s, experiments with underwater dwellings in France and in the United States freed mankind from the second constraint of marine exploration: decompression. The very name Sea‑Dweller, chosen for the highly resistant divers' watch conceived by Rolex at the time, reflects those experimental programmes. A major problem in diving is that decompression exponentially curtails useful diving time, with an impact on the depth deep-sea divers can reach as well as on the length of their stay underwater.

For example, after some 15 minutes at a depth of 90 metres below the surface, a diver must spend almost two hours in decompression stages before it is safe to return to the surface. Ten minutes at 300 metres would theoretically require more than 20 hours of decompression. A dive lasting a mere few minutes longer or just a few metres deeper leads to a considerable extension in decompression time.

The problem here is also physiological: decompression sickness, a condition which can lead to paralysis or even death. When at pressure under water, the human body can be likened to a bottle of sparkling water. Gases under pressure dissolve in water, and, since the body is composed of almost 65 per cent water, part of the gas that is breathed dissolves in the blood and body tissue. An ascent without decompression is equivalent to shaking the bottle of water hard and opening it suddenly: the gas is released in an explosion of bubbles. In the human tissue, the bubbles of gas can cause serious lesions. To release the gas safely, the bottle must be opened gradually and very gently. The purpose of decompression stops is similar, allowing the body to eliminate the accumulated gas in a controlled manner.

Saturation diving
In the mid-1950s, a scientific discovery proved crucial for the development of deep diving for extended periods. Experiments demonstrated that human tissue has a given capacity for gas absorption when the gas is under pressure. It implies that once the human body has reached its point of saturation with the breathing mix, decompression time remains the same whether a diver stays underwater a few hours, a few days, for weeks or even for months. Only the depth and the type of gas breathed are of consequence for decompression. The discovery led to the development of saturation diving, a technique that literally involves saturating the divers with breathing gases and keeping them in a pressurized environment for long periods of time. As a result, they can carry out a number of deep dives and only need to undergo a single decompression procedure at the very end of the mission. Between dives, they live in an underwater habitat or chamber, a kind of sea house on the seabed, in which the air pressure is maintained at a pressure equal to that of the water at this depth. The divers breathe a synthetic gas mix containing helium, both during the dives and in the chamber. In 1965, an American aquanaut stayed 30 days under the sea, living in a dwelling installed at a depth of 62 metres.

During their stay under water, divers saturated in the gas they breathe become completely acclimatized to the pressure at great depth. They can no longer return to surface atmospheric pressure without spending a long period of decompression – dozens of hours – in a hyperbaric chamber. This inescapable process, inherent to the life of a sea dweller, prompted Rolex to develop a special function for its highly resistant new-generation divers’ watch at the time: the helium valve, which provides an escape route for the gas and allows the helium-saturated watch to safely undergo decompression, not unlike the divers who wear it.

Highly resistant to external and internal pressure
In 1953, during the early days of scuba diving, Rolex created the archetypal divers’ watch: the Oyster Perpetual Submariner, waterproof to a depth of 100 metres. The Submariner’s waterproofness was doubled to 200 metres in 1954, offering a comfortable safety margin for those diving with air, who rarely descended beyond the 60-metre limit. The watch’s performance and reliability soon put it on the wrists of elite divers, with whom Rolex worked closely to continually improve its watches. In 1962, after the record-breaking dive to a depth of 313 metres in California, it became obvious that a new generation of divers’ watches was required, one that would be able to resist the pressure at depths below 200 metres. Rolex – having fixed an experimental watch to the bathyscaphe Trieste and successfully sent it almost 11,000 metres down to the deepest part of the ocean in 1960 – had the technology at its disposal to increase the Submariner’s performance.

In 1966, Comex made the first industrial dive to a depth of 160 metres. The French company developed a technique for saturation diving comparable to the idea behind the underwater housing projects, with the difference that the hyperbaric chambers were installed on ships that could sail on missions anywhere around the world. Saturation divers are taken down to working depth in the sea in pressurized diving bells and they return to the warm and dry pressurized chamber on board the support boat by the same method after their dive. Final decompression takes place only at the very end of their tour of duty. Comex, which came to be considered the leader in the field of commercial deep-sea diving, aimed to send its divers to 300 metros by the end of the decade. Rolex decided to make its next divers’ watch waterproof to a depth of 2,000 feet (610 metres). But in addition to increasing its resistance to external water pressure, thereby allowing the watch to descend deeper, feedback from saturation divers had uncovered a hitherto unsuspected requirement: the need to enhance the watch’s ability to withstand excess internal pressure.


The Rolex-patented
HELIUM ESCAPE VALVE
In habitats at overpressure, which are filled with breathing mixes composed largely of helium, the watches behave in a similar manner to the divers’ bodies. The inner part of the watch case becomes saturated with helium as the pressure inside the watch case equalizes with that inside the chamber. Due to the extreme volatility of this light gas, which has the smallest molecules on Earth, the helium gradually penetrates the watch through the gaskets. During the decompression phase, helium is eliminated from human tissue at a faster rate than it can escape from a waterproof watch, with the result that pressure effectively builds up inside the watch case. Divers often observed during decompression that the watch crystal could pop out like a champagne cork from a bottle, due to this internal pressure. The watch must also be able to eliminate the excess helium inside the case.

Instead of attempting to make the watch impervious to helium, a practically impossible task, Rolex developed a unidirectional valve on the side of the watch case. It is activated automatically above a certain level of internal pressure to allow the gas to escape from the case, without affecting the waterproofness of the watch. Patented in 1967 by Rolex for its new professional divers’ model, the Oyster Perpetual Sea‑Dweller, the helium valve proved invaluable to the rise of deep-sea saturation diving. Comex swiftly adopted the Sea-Dweller as its official watch, as its divers continued to push ever further the limits for manned deep dives. The open-sea record of 534 metres set in 1988 was followed by another record in 1992 at an experimental depth of 701 metros in a hyperbaric chamber, with a 24-day decompression period – a record which still stands today.

2014 SD4000 4.jpg

SPECIFICATIONS
Sea-Dweller 4000
Reference: 116600
MODEL CASE
Oyster (monobloc middle case, screw-down case back and winding crown), 40 mm
MOVEMENT
3135, Manufacture Rolex Mechanical movement with bidirectional self-winding via Perpetual rotor
DIAL
Black, satin finish
BRACELET
Oyster three-piece solid links

MODEL CASE
Oyster (monobloc middle case, screw-down case back and winding crown), 40 mm
DIAMETER
40 mm
MATERIAL
904L stainless steel superalloy, satin finish
SAFETY
Helium escape valve
CASE BACK
Screw-down with Rolex fluting
BEZEL
Unidirectional rotatable 60-minute graduated bezel with black Cerachrom insert in ceramic, engraved numerals and graduations coated with platinum via magnetron sputtering (PVD)
WINDING CROWN
Screw-down, Triplock triple waterproofness system
CROWN GUARD
Integral part of the middle case
CRYSTAL
Scratch-resistant sapphire
WATERPROOFNESS
1,220 metres (4,000 feet)

MOVEMENT
3135, Manufacture Rolex Mechanical movement with bidirectional self-winding via Perpetual rotor
CALIBRE
3135, Manufacture Rolex Mechanical movement with bidirectional self-winding via Perpetual rotor
PRECISION
Officially certified Swiss chronometer (COSC)
FUNCTIONS
Centre hour, minute and seconds hands Instantaneous date at 3 o’clock Stop-seconds for precise time setting
OSCILLATOR
Frequency: 28,800 beats/hour (4Hz)
Paramagnetic blue Parachrom hairspring
Breguet overcoil
Large balance wheel with variable inertia
High-precision regulating via four gold Microstella nuts
Traversing balance bridge
JEWELLING
31 rubies
POWER RESERVE
Approximately 48 hours

DIAL
Black, satin finish
COLOUR
Black, satin finish
HOUR MARKERS
Highly legible Chromalight appliques (long-lasting luminescence) in 18 ct white gold
HANDS
Chromalight hands in 18 ct white gold

BRACELET
Oyster three-piece solid links
MATERIAL
904L stainless steel superalloy, satin finished, polished edges
CLASP
Oysterlock folding safety clasp Rolex Glidelock extension system (20 mm in increments of 2 mm) Fliplock extension link (26 mm)

[Maxy]

Is SD 4000 the only Rolex dive watch (apart from Deepsea) which has a date but no cyclops?

Any specific reason why is that so?

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Maxy

Is SD 4000 the only Rolex dive watch (apart from Deepsea) which has a date but no cyclops?

Any specific reason why is that so?

cyclops would compromise the watch pressure tolerance at the deepest depths.

[roadie1]

Originally Posted by subtona

cyclops would compromise the watch pressure tolerance at the deepest depths.

I thought it was because of the thicker crystal? Isn't the cyclops applied the the outside rather than molded into the crystal on the other models?

[Maxy]

My 2 cents

Ideal situation:
Submariner Date (300 meters) - 40mm diameter - US $8500
Sea Dweller (1220 meters) - 42mm diameter - US $10500
DeepSea (3900 meters)- 44mm diameter - US $12000

Current Situation:
Submariner Date (300 meters) - 40mm diameter - US $8500
Sea Dweller (1220 meters) - 40mm diameter - US $11500
DeepSea (3900 meters)- 44mm diameter - US $12000


Honestly, this makes proper sense. All 3 choices of watches with different diameters and different diving range. If you have SD now at 40mm, its basically similar looks with SubDate without cyclops and you are paying $3k just for diving range which not many really end up using it. Those who want real deep diving watch, they need to end up using Deep Sea which is like 3 times SD range without much price difference.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by roadie1

I thought it was because of the thicker crystal? Isn't the cyclops applied the the outside rather than molded into the crystal on the other models?

My mistake, You are correct, i dont know what i was thinking
Im so excited with all this basel stuff

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by Maxy

My 2 cents

Ideal situation:
Submariner Date (300 meters) - 40mm diameter - US $8500
Sea Dweller (1220 meters) - 42mm diameter - US $10500
DeepSea (3900 meters)- 44mm diameter - US $12000

Current Situation:
Submariner Date (300 meters) - 40mm diameter - US $8500
Sea Dweller (1220 meters) - 40mm diameter - US $11500
DeepSea (3900 meters)- 44mm diameter - US $12000


Honestly, this makes proper sense. All 3 choices of watches with different diameters and different diving range. If you have SD now at 40mm, its basically similar looks with SubDate without cyclops and you are paying $3k just for diving range which not many really end up using it. Those who want real deep diving watch, they need to end up using Deep Sea which is like 3 times SD range without much price difference.

Agreed. Had they done this then my order for a new SD would already be lodged with my AD

[660ft]

I've always heard no cyclops because of the thicker crystal. Also, I've noticed the magnifier doesn't work underwater anyway.

The DSSD is so much more advanced than the SD, I'm surprised there's only a $500 difference. I guess Rolex can only get what the market will bear for each watch.

[roadie1]

Originally Posted by subtona

My mistake, You are correct, i dont know what i was thinking
Im so excited with all this basel stuff

I'm with ya bro! May have to put in a deposit...

[dsturner83]

Originally Posted by 660ft

I've always heard no cyclops because of the thicker crystal. Also, I've noticed the magnifier doesn't work underwater anyway.

The DSSD is so much more advanced than the SD, I'm surprised there's only a $500 difference. I guess Rolex can only get what the market will bear for each watch.

I understand that the quote for the new SD against the current prices of the other models looks lopsided. It would stand to reason that a price increase will even things out. Are we any closer to finding out if a price increase to existing models is a reality?

[MrSteed]

Sorry bout that! Meant to +1 Maxy's post.

[speedy_master1]

Originally Posted by roadie1

I'm with ya bro! May have to put in a deposit...

Do it I did already.

[Jeffa32]

Originally Posted by Maxy

My 2 cents

Ideal situation:
Submariner Date (300 meters) - 40mm diameter - US $8500
Sea Dweller (1220 meters) - 42mm diameter - US $10500
DeepSea (3900 meters)- 44mm diameter - US $12000

Current Situation:
Submariner Date (300 meters) - 40mm diameter - US $8500
Sea Dweller (1220 meters) - 40mm diameter - US $11500
DeepSea (3900 meters)- 44mm diameter - US $12000


Honestly, this makes proper sense. All 3 choices of watches with different diameters and different diving range. If you have SD now at 40mm, its basically similar looks with SubDate without cyclops and you are paying $3k just for diving range which not many really end up using it. Those who want real deep diving watch, they need to end up using Deep Sea which is like 3 times SD range without much price difference.

Spot on Maxy. My credit card statement would be showing a deposit with a 42mm sea dweller !!!!

[JMAK]

Does anybody know if the new SD 4000 features the classic lug style or are they the beefed up lugs of the SubC's? From the pictures they look like the beefier lugs but I just want to confirm...

[datejust24]

Originally Posted by JMAK

Does anybody know if the new SD 4000 features the classic lug style or are they the beefed up lugs of the SubC's? From the pictures they look like the beefier lugs but I just want to confirm...

definitely the bigger lugs...ALL new sports models have the super case and ceramic bezel..unfortunately

[nauticajoe]

Great job, Larry.

[capote]

Originally Posted by JMAK

Does anybody know if the new SD 4000 features the classic lug style or are they the beefed up lugs of the SubC's? From the pictures they look like the beefier lugs but I just want to confirm...

From the pics and videos it looks like its inbetween the classic and supercase. Like the DSSD.

[sleddog]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

The 116600 club will assimilate you. Resistance is futile.

Trust me....I know!

[moby33]

Originally Posted by Maxy

My 2 cents

Ideal situation:
Submariner Date (300 meters) - 40mm diameter - US $8500
Sea Dweller (1220 meters) - 42mm diameter - US $10500
DeepSea (3900 meters)- 44mm diameter - US $12000

Current Situation:
Submariner Date (300 meters) - 40mm diameter - US $8500
Sea Dweller (1220 meters) - 40mm diameter - US $11500
DeepSea (3900 meters)- 44mm diameter - US $12000


Honestly, this makes proper sense. All 3 choices of watches with different diameters and different diving range. If you have SD now at 40mm, its basically similar looks with SubDate without cyclops and you are paying $3k just for diving range which not many really end up using it. Those who want real deep diving watch, they need to end up using Deep Sea which is like 3 times SD range without much price difference.

Another vote for this (but alas, we're living in fantasy world). Man was I hoping for a 42mm dive watch from Rolex...IMO a 40mm, 42mm & 44mm offering would have been PERFECT as it really would satisfy ALL buyers. I still don't understand how so many people really LOVE the fact the new SD is 40mm...if you're so in love w/ a 40mm watch, then buy the SubC.

But damn Rolex, it won't kill you to offer a little more variety for those of us that want a dive watch slightly bigger than 40mm (and yet don't want to sport a 44mm DSSD...and yes, I was a DSSD owner & daily wearer for almost 4 years, so I know a thing or two about that watch...it's good, just not perfect IMO). A 42mm SD WOULD have been perfect (for me at least).

As is, the new SD4000 is just too simlar to my SubC for me to get excited about it (just like the previous history of the Sub vs. SD)...and therefore I'll happily save my cash by just holding onto my SubC.

And that's my point...Rolex missed the boat on getting guys like me to purchase multiple dive watches. IF a 42mm SD would have been offered more than likely I would have kept my SubC AND purchased a 42mm SD...but seeing as the two models are again so similar, I've got to believe the majority of owners will be just like me in that they will pick one or the other...but not BOTH. I would have been a 'BOTH' owner, but not now with them both being 40mm...just too similar for me to justify that much coin wrapped up in two similar sized watches. Oh well...

[albertgo]

IMHO, if Rolex release new SD4000 in 42mm, they will be a long long waiting list for many.

And not forgetting other 40mm diving model may not market that well.

I could be wrong. Cheers.

[Wesley Crusher]

Let's be honest, 2mm is nothing. The thickness and length of the lugs is a bigger factor in how the watch appears on the wrist. My SubC wears a lot larger than my Omega SMP, yet the SMP is a bigger watch (42mm vs 40mm). Some of you guys will find the absolute smallest thing to complain about.

[Peter45]

I really REALLY want this watch!

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

Let's be honest, 2mm is nothing. The thickness and length of the lugs is a bigger factor in how the watch appears on the wrist. My SubC wears a lot larger than my Omega SMP, yet the SMP is a bigger watch (42mm vs 40mm). Some of you guys will find the absolute smallest thing to complain about.

Spot on post. I am extremely please Rolex released this in 40mm and that it stayed true to the older design, and I guarantee this one will wear larger than it's 40mm size indicates, just like the SubC. 40mm is the perfect size, 42mm would have been overkill and made the watch heavy and maybe top heavy, just like the DSSD, this watch would have been ruined.

This snails evolutionary pace Rolex has aesthetically is one of the things I love about Rolex. Nothing is more annoying than buying the latest Sony Xperia Z1 Compact state of the art pound for pound best smart phone in the four inch screen segment only to have the new and improved version release six months later, ask me how I know.
I love Omega as well but look at how many models they have or AP. I don't even know whats really a new model anymore, to me it dilutes the brand and each model just a little. There are success stories but then the field is littered with slow sellers and unpopular models that will sell at steep discounts and do even worse used.

[Rashid.bk]

There's one little ocd detail I noticed Rolex finally did something about. The date aperture is stepped a little , it's more cut out into the dial and no longer just a sink hole like on my old Sea-Dweller or DSSD. Took a long time but finally.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

Let's be honest, 2mm is nothing. The thickness and length of the lugs is a bigger factor in how the watch appears on the wrist. My SubC wears a lot larger than my Omega SMP, yet the SMP is a bigger watch (42mm vs 40mm). Some of you guys will find the absolute smallest thing to complain about.

Respectfully disagree. Yes, the 'Supercased' 40mm SubC wears bigger than previous generation Sub & SD (I know from experience seeing as I owned a SD4000, normal Sub-Date & SubLV prior to purchasing my DSSD and then SubC)...but as you correctly stated, that's due to the larger lug design.

But with that said, obviously a 42mm SD4000 (w/ subsequent 'Supercase') would absolutely wear bigger than the 40mm SubC...and that my friend is the point. There are many people like myself that prefer a slightly larger watch than 40mm, yet don't necessarily want to wear the 44mm DSSD. If a 42mm watch would have been offered, then ALL buyers would have a respectable range of sizes to choose from...not all buyers are created equality (both in tastes & sizes), so MORE size options will always be better IMO.

And lastly, as an Omega 42mm SMP Chrono owner for now 14 years, I disagree that my 42mm Omega wears the same as my 40mm SubC. As mention earlier, no doubt the SubC wears bigger than its previous iteration 40mm Sub, but lets not kid ourselves...no mistaking its a 40mm as opposed to a 42mm watch.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

Let's be honest, 2mm is nothing. The thickness and length of the lugs is a bigger factor in how the watch appears on the wrist. My SubC wears a lot larger than my Omega SMP, yet the SMP is a bigger watch (42mm vs 40mm). Some of you guys will find the absolute smallest thing to complain about.

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Spot on post. I am extremely please Rolex released this in 40mm and that it stayed true to the older design, and I guarantee this one will wear larger than it's 40mm size indicates, just like the SubC. 40mm is the perfect size, 42mm would have been overkill and made the watch heavy and maybe top heavy, just like the DSSD, this watch would have been ruined.

Not sure how you can agree w/ W Crusher as being "spot on" when his whole point was that many of us "find the absolutely smallest thing to complain about" in that the 40mm supercased divers essentially wear like 42mm watches and therefore it's not really a big deal. He didn't think it mattered, yet you believe it would have been overkill. You're not saying the same thing.

If someone is going to try and use the argument that 2mm isn't a big deal and doesn't really matter, I contend said argument is worthless when advocating not changing...because if it really isn't a "big deal", then why not embrace the 2mm increase?!?! If it's really doesn't make a difference, then it won't "ruin" the perfect 40mm design so many hold so near & dear to their hearts. The fact that people say "Don't add 2mm to my beloved watch" only goes to prove that yes, 2mm really is a noticeable change...and for those like myself that want more options out of the classic Rolex divers, I'm all for it.

As I said before, the SubC & new SDc (like their past relationship) are very similar from a visual standpoint. I think it would have been cool to provide a slightly different size in that FINALLY Rolex would offer classic dive watch styling in the perfect range of sizes to meet ALL the customers of the world. 40mm, 42mm & 44mm is honestly the perfect 3 combos IMO when it comes to what the masses need/demand.

I think one of the mistakes Rolex made w/ the DSSD is that they went "Too big, too thick" without a happy medium. The company has been providing 40mm Subs for 50+ years and hadn't really updated that model prior to the DSSD. The simple fact is our society has literally grown in size compared to the average population when the Sub was unveiled. Beyond that, as with anything, fashion styles have evolved.

I agree that Rolex is cool in that they don't do wild design updates/changes, but when the DSSD was introduced, it was time for a bigger dive watch option. But again, I think they went too far w/ the 44mm (and more noticeable the extreme thickness) design WITHOUT offering another, slightly smaller alternative. A 42mm SD would have fit that bill perfectly and I was so hoping Rolex would finally provide the ultimate trifecta and close the loop by providing a 42mm SD. No doubt the 40mm SubC would still be the bread & butter seller as I believe 40mm is probably still the optimum size for the masses (if you HAD to offer ONLY one size)...and the cheaper price would no doubt help it to lead in the top seller dept.

But how cool would it have been to walk into an AD and be able to try on a 40mm SubC, 42mm SDc AND 44mm DSSD and ultimately decide which size is the PERFECT size for YOU!?!? That was my vision and I'm still a little bummed Rolex decided to not provide such an cool options size list for its customers.

[Rashid.bk]

Still agree with Wes, glad this watch is in 40mm. After having a bunch of big fat Omegas that I sold and a 16600 along with my DSSD I have no desire to walk into into an AD an choose between three sizes especially when the 42mm doesn't even provide a technical reason for being big except to fit in the middle.

There were bound to be people that wouldn't be happy but more people who wanted 42mm will likely try this watch on at 40mm and say the size is okay vs if the size were 42mm most people would immediately say nope, it's too big or heavy and would not make the compromise. Even the Deepsea actually wears smaller than 44mm and looks closer to most 42mm models, like the AP Diver which looks physically bigger(than the DSSD) on the wrist although more comfortable.
I know I wouldn't consider it at all, but at 40mm, I'm sure to buy it. The same thing that happens with SubC now.

[Wesley Crusher]

The Sub and SD have always been 40mm and similar in size(thickness)/appearance (obviously the SD is beefier). I see no reason for Rolex to change that now. The new SD will be thicker than the SubC so it will wear larger. The Sub, SD and DSSD will all wear differently.

Like Rashid said, there is no technical reason why the SD has to be bigger. I feel that most people would prefer that it be 40mm. Since Rolex is keeping it at 40mm, I think they feel the same way, too.

[sea-dweller]

Great review!

[moby33]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

especially when the 42mm doesn't even provide a technical reason for being big except to fit in the middle.

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

Like Rashid said, there is no technical reason why the SD has to be bigger.

'Technical reason'? '42mm big'? You guys continue to confuse me with "details" that don't really make sense to me. Pray tell what's the "technical reason" for a watch being 40mm vs 42mm? And who's to say 42mm is big...big on whom? Oh yeah, 'big' depends on the person wearing it...so 'big' is obviously EXTREMELY relative.

I'm 6' 1", 225lbs and I can very much tell you a 42mm watch does not come close to being 'big' on my wrist (heck, even my non-interested in watches wife noticed that point when I first put on a SD in 2008...first words out of her mouth were, "Wow...kind of looks like a dainty woman's watch on your arm...maybe you shouldn't buy such a small watch!" So how do you address those two points?

On second thought, please don't answer those questions...they were rhetorical...obviously I don't expect an answer seeing as we all know there's no "technical" reason for 40mm vs 42mm...so not sure how that even matters to this debate.

In the end this is simply a matter of taste...I think we can at least agree on that point and ultimately will agree to disagree on which one is "best". There will ALWAYS be followers in the camp of, "Don't change, keep it the same, 40mm is PERFECT!" in addition to the camp that says, "Bring on more variety and choice and let the consumer make the decision what's the 'perfect' watch size for them."

I'll always be in the latter camp and I suspect both of you will always be in the former...not necessarily right or wrong, just different (except I'm really the right one here while you guys are still drinkin the 40mm Kool Aid..., ).

Ironically enough, I really, really love my 40mm SubC (ended up getting rid of my DSSD because I always picked the SubC over the DSSD), so it's not like I'm not a fan of 40mm...please don't get the wrong idea. While I LOVE that 40mm watch, can you really fault me for wanting to add another SD to my collection?

But for me, the only way that was going to be justified is if the new SD was different enough to really stand out from the SubC. At the same size yet w/ a slightly taller crystal (plus that sweet graduated bezel), it's just not different enough for me to get excited about. But at 42mm the difference would have been tangible. Looks like I'll have to go back to the 42mm ExpII to satisfy my 42mm Rolex itch.