Reply With QuoteHave all those who were "first on the list" for an anniversary SD now called to say you don't want them ?
See above.Originally Posted by Chris_in_the_UK
Have all those who were "first on the list" for an anniversary SD now called to say you don't want them ?
I texted my AD straight away before letting it sink in, but now I have reservations.
Different strokes I guess.
To be honest, that AD knows us both very well. I'm hoping/guessing they may employ selective listing for people they know aren't in it to flip it...
Sadly nope, i don't head across there anymore for numerous reasons :(
Nope.
Plus I'm not first on the list anyway.
Ah, the 'other' one... :-)
But enough interest to come onto this thread and tell us all so!
I think my favourite is the black dial, white gold and stainless skydweller. The blue dial runs it a pretty close second.
2018 then.
To be fair it is nice and if I could carry it off I would still buy one. It even has end links that look correct.
Live Photos Here :
http://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-se...-126600-watch/
Last edited by -Ally-; 22nd March 2017 at 18:04.
Well, I don't hate it.
The missing Cyclops is pretty much the only thing that I'm finding lacking after having the 116600 since its release — it gets a bit flat and boring after a while — and I'm among the minority that this thing should fit without being too conspicuous. The raised crystal gives a bit of a modern top-hat 1680 look with the magnifier. I've grown to like the 42 mm Explorer on my wrist, and this appears to be a somewhat thicker version of that case — I'll confirm with calipers when it arrives locally. I'll bet actual money that it has the same 21 mm lugs, too.
It certainly isn't for everyone, though.
So how long till the first batch start landing in ADs?
Those pictures make a huge difference, the photoshopped press ones never look quite right, and the potato-cam high glare ones always make ceramics look quite cheap.
Looking forward to seeing it in the flesh after those.
That does look very nice.
I've was told between 6 - 12 months by my AD this afternoon but got the impression that was a just guesswork and they really don't know at this point.
I should get a more accurate idea in the next couple of days.
Agreed. I can't see it happening.
Its nice ,but expensive .If the cyclops was not on it, would of been my ideal watch …..shame
A cyclops on an SD, really? a non-starter for me I'm afraid.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Well I must say that I like the new design.......so much so that I am "on the list" with my local AD and have agreed to pay a deposit etc. I was told that stock would be available immediately so fingers-crossed mine comes through quickly. Should be a nice addition to my small collection and something a little "different" for me.
I'm hearing that the SD 50th will be available before most of the Basel 2017 releases. Fingers crossed that turns out to be true after Rolex ran down stock of the SD4000. Have to decide now if I keep my 2016 SD4000 or let it go....ideally it would be nice to have both together to compare/decide properly.
Lovely Rolex seems to have updated nearly the whole range over the last few years but unlike a lot of brands still given them the classic Rolex good looks and kept them very desirable, if it looks that good in the flesh I would buy it if I ever had the money
Rolex don't seem to be able to do big designs as well as Omega.
The bigger Planet Oceans and Speedmasters all look to have nice proportions with larger dials. Rolex seem to have made a bigger bezel on the Red SD to increase its size, and the Deep Sea has never looked quite right.
Cyclops is not an issue, can be removed and put back on the crystal if necessary. I'd probably leave it on myself for convenience purposes but can see why purists would rather have it removed.
I'm on the waiting list for this one. It's exactly what I wanted from the SD, larger case, new caliber, red letters, glossy dial matching the glossy bezel.
Gloss dial instead of matt would have been the icing on the cake.
True, but you'll have the Cyclops-shaped AR coating patch underneath to look at.
Personally, I like the magnifier and find that it improves the look, but I accept that this means losing esteem among internet watch experts. ;)
Last edited by Belligero; 22nd March 2017 at 21:51.
Funds available and eyesight fine, but not for this.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'm no rolex fan, but I actually like this. It looks a lot more "tool" than many of the other rolex divers.
So, this one or a pelagos in every colour?!?
I really like this and will go for it as soon as I find an AD willing to wait list me!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Having looked at this again, and with lum shots i actually like it. Prefer if it was 40mm but heh , it's not may well get one
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Rolex for further cementing my 16600 as a classic and for increasing the value of my 116600.
Is this a real quote or are you looking do a reaction
Interesting that it has a wider bracelet, might not wear as big. Good to see the newer movement too.
Agree, the 16600 is a true classic.
As about the new one, I need to see it in flesh and try it on my wrist before deciding. I still feel that tge DSSD is the "better" diver.
This one seems to be designed just because the SDc was such poor seller. But I am not sure it will be more successful. The big majority of people will go to the SubC Date which is better proportioned, more wearable, extremely versatile, and most importantly much cheaper.
Too big and the cyclops ruins the aesthetic.
It was a magnification issue due to the thick crystal.
Just thinking aloud really, I wonder what the rational is behind Rolex introducing new models such as this, it can't be to stimulate sales, they can sell as many 'sports' models as they can supply of their current range anyway from what I can see.
Cheers..
Jase
I think because it was the anniversary of the SD and because the SD4K was a poor seller relative to other sports models. The cyclops I can only assume is an appeal to the mass market. I'd rather they had just added red text to the SD4K and redesigned the end links.
So, is the new movement thinner but wider than the old one, thus forcing rolex to increase the diameter of their offerings, or have they just lost it a bit?
Given its size being so similar to the DSSD, with considerably reduced capabilities, l struggle with the new models' place in the line-up.
Hope the new SD pleases some people. Very glad l got my 40mm one though. Very glad indeed.
I've read the same; James Dowling makes this false claim in The Best of Time:
But the myth turns out to be easily disproven. The crystal thickness isn't an issue, as a standard magnifier can be fitted to a Sea-Dweller and it works just fine:
image credit: ray k
image credit: kzm40
image credit: Spirotechnique
Broscience abounds with this one. The crystal-thickness explanation is at least fairly plausible; the inventions about the "uneven pressure" somehow distorting the date, dislodging the magnifier or cracking the crystal are just laughable.
Rolex simply chose not to put one until now on for some reason — possibly because it was originally intended for commercial divers only, and they didn't expect a lot of other people to buy a watch whose bulk and extra hole in the case have absolutely no benefit outside of a saturation environment. Things done changed.
That's a good question about the movement diameter. Watchbase claims that 3235 has the same 28.5 mm width as the 3135, but consider that the Day-Date 40 and the Datejust 41 use bigger dials than Rolex's once-standard size, and their predecessors had the 3136/3156 movements with bigger date wheels and base plates.
Should be easy enough to measure with so many of them in circulation, but I can't find anything definitive. Adding to the uncertainty is that the new Sea-Dweller appears to simply use the original dial size with a fatter bezel:
The case looks like a thicker version of the big-movement 216570's, along with the 21 mm lug width.
As far as where it goes in the lineup, that's easy: it's a super-Submariner for those who want something that matches their image of a "real Rolex", just a bit more... conspicuous. (Or in my case, a more-natural fit on a flat 200 mm wrist — that's 7-7/8" in special-flower units.) Capabilities have nothing to do with it, though 1220 m is still over twice the depth anyone's ever gone, so it ought to be be sufficient, and it'll be somewhat thinner than the gigantic Deepsea.
Their claimed sizes aren't too accurate, by the way; the "Datejust 41" has a 39.5 mm case, the Daytona is 38.65 mm rather than the stated 40 mm, and I bet this 126600 is more like 42 mm, or whatever the Deepsea-like bezel diameter is. Guess I'll have to bust out the calipers and check it myself when I get a chance, along with the movement. :P
Last edited by Belligero; 23rd March 2017 at 10:32.
Its all about technical achievement. Two watches of similar size, one with more impressive spec.
I know it doesn't matter in the real world, but the world of watches is far from real world - and marketing is often heavily based on impressive but, ultimately, daft specifications.
Last edited by Umbongo; 23rd March 2017 at 09:47.
I think it's a successful design for Rolex, as it will provide an aspirational model a step up from the Submariner. The cyclops is part of the branding, bringing it closer to the general public perception of what a Rolex is. Whereas the previous SD was an Interesting Alternative (hence the fondness for it on the forums) to a lot of people amongst the general public this new one will be the De Luxe upgrade on the Sub: bigger, more brash, with a little red line of text that will differentiate it immediately.
Last edited by Der Amf; 23rd March 2017 at 10:05.
It is a geniune observation. When Omega brought out the PO both the 42 and 45mm versions were propular, as is the current 43mm version. The proportions at whichever size look good. When Rolex increased the Explorer from 36 to 39 the short hands attracted criticism and many believe the smaller version is still 'better proportioned'.
Then when the DeepSea launched the large watch head on a relitevely small width bracelet that attracted alot of critism too.
Now we have a new larger SeaDweller and it's the discontinued smaller one that's sought after as many people think that's the best Sports Watch Rolex currently make.
The image above shows that while the watch is bigger, it's the case and bezel that have seen increases, the dial looks to be very close to the size of the SD4000, which is a shame as the older version to me looks better.
I think you're right. It's basically super-sizing the sub for the people who didn't buy one because they thought the sub was too small.
A nice bauble on the Rolex stand celebrating the SeaDweller's anniversary :
Haywood
The cyclops appears to be the main bone of contention but no doubt, it will sell like hot cakes.
Overall I think it works better than the previous model, especially the SEL's, although I agree it would be better without cyclops.
I've got my name down in 3 countries, 2nd on the list in one shop and 3rd in another! See how many years it takes!!
Makes an awful lot of sense commercially. The Sub is quite small by modern standards at 40mm, and normal people want the cyclops as it recognizes the watch as a Rolex. I mean if you think about it the SD4k was just a thicker Sub, with no real-life value added (only a small subset of pro-divers cares about the He-valve I guess), making it a WIS watch. So the only option if you wanted a Sub, but thought it was too small at 40mm, was the extremely clumsy, expensive, and over-engineered Deepsea.
So you could see this as a larger Sub, or the other way around - saved the Sub from growing to 42mm.
Interesting viewpoint - I wonder if those of us who are not 'normal' are super-human or sub-human (LOL)?
I suppose that makes sense Gareth with it being an anniversary edition, it would be nice for it to available in the anniversary year.
Can someone enlighten me please? Is the cyclops a separate lens which is fitted to a flat crystal glass (if so how? Can it be removed?) or is it somehow ground and is in fact part of the glass?
Again, if it is a separate bubble that's fitted to the glass then it would be easy to leave it off at production and - presto! .... a non-cyclops version for the purists as a 'no cost option' at ordering! Simples!
Posting Permissions
