Reply With Quote
+2Originally Posted by Guitarfan
Totally agree.
Daddel.
I couldn't agree more. They're truly awful and don't integrate with the bracelet in any way shape or form.
+2
Totally agree.
Daddel.
Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!
While I appreciate the engineering in the DSSD, it's not a watch I would buy. For me the 16600 SD is a much better balanced watch, probably my favourite Rolex diver. However, if true, a 216600 SD is something I would seriously consider.
As stated previously its just a rumour or thought but it might come true. What I will say (without bragging) is that I wore my first one for 18 months come rain or shine and loved it and I currently have been wearing one again come rain or shine and can not find anything I dislike about it so lucky me I guess but more importantly I have sold 10-12 other similar pieces as I can not see myself needing anymore in a watch. It is fantastic
RIAC
I would definitely purchase that new Sea Dweller, I just don't like the Deep Sea at all
I much prefer the pervious incarnation and that new model if they are going to make it looks much closer to the original
Please make it Rolex
I remember bringing this thought up last year before Basel as i'd heard from a Dealer that it was considered a possibility. So much so that I submitted a letter of intent to my local AD for the purchase of one of the first DSSD replacements if it came true. As we know, we ended up with the BLNR GMT and the Platty Daytona instead.
I hope it's true!!
Amen to that, couldn't agree more.
DSSD is as close to a perfect watch as it can be.
May not be averse to a newer version of SD but not as an alternative to DSSD. There cant be one!
SDDS it's a great watch...maybe just a bit heavier for my taste, but a stunning machine
Beyond the world of WIS and collectors (which must make up a pretty small chunk of prospective buyers), I don't imagine there is much logic in dumping the DSSD to make a brand new watch. If you need a watch with that kind if depth rating, get a DSSD and if you don't (and I don't imagine anyone in real life really needs that kind of depth rating) then buy a Sub instead. Isn't the DSSD more of a technological flag waving exercise than a watch expected to sell in large numbers? All the specs written on the dial and rehaut certainly seem very in your face, I've tried one on and I don't really 'get' how it's an improvement in any way on the Seadweller. I'm not knocking the DSSD - If you like it, fine - but whilst it makes a nice statement for Rolex engineering I just can't see them bothering to replace such a niche product so early in it's life.
It's an improvement for people who think that men's watches start at the size of a 44mm PAM. For everyone else, there's the nicer bracelet and clasp.
Price dependent I'd buy that Deepsea....but doubt it will happen.
Let's all keep guessing for another couple of weeks!!
Even if it was unveiled in Basel in a couple of weeks, how long before they started stocking them at ADs? Genuine question. Anyone know from experience?
Last year's releases showed up surprisingly fast - I seem to call within 6 months. The real question would be "when will the feeding frenzy die down so that I can buy one at MSRP?"
I've always viewed the DSSD as Rolex's "sod off" watch. To wit, before the DSSD debuted, Rolex was seen as way behind in the dive watch "arms race" in terms of depth rating, bracelet/bezel construction, lume strength, etc, with other companies, both big and small, boasting of watches that could go deeper than the Sea-Dweller and do so without a rattletrap bracelet, scratch-prone aluminum insert bezel or average lume.
Enter the DSSD...
Now, it was Rolex's turn to laugh at the puny efforts of the upstarts with a watch that could dive on the wreck of the Titanic, if it were so inclined, and still have meters to spare. What's more, it would do so with a solid-link bracelet that sported an ingenious on-the-fly microadjustment, it would tick of the minutes with a platinum-infused ceramic bezel that floated on four spring-loaded ball bearings and it would glow in the Stygian gloom with an exclusive lume formulation that went all night on a single charge. Couple this with its 5mm domed sapphire crystal, fully graduated Cerachrom bezel and matte-dial -- all of which served to recall Rolex's glorious past beneath the waves -- and boom, everyone can now shut the hell up and bow to the new king.
Sure, the end result was a large, heavy watch with a too-narrow bracelet and big-bux price tag, but no longer could anyone claim that Rolex was behind the curve in the genre that it all but invented. Don't like it? Buy a Sub-C and shut the hell up. Too big? Buy a Sub-C and shut the hell up. Too expensive? Buy a Sub-C and shut the hell up. In essence, they were telling us to accept that they now made the deepest-diving production watch in the world, and to deal with it and move along (To be sure, PITA, Hublot, CX Swiss Military and UTS have all made mechanical watches that are rated deeper, but to date, only the DSSD comes in at under 18mm thick, and is a true serial production piece.)
In summation, the DSSD is a halo piece, and one that I seriously doubt was ever intended to set sales records. Its purpose, as stated above, was to remind folks of the engineering capabilities of the brand and in doing so, restore some of the luster that had faded in the light of pieces from Omega, Girard-Perregaux, et al. In light of this, and their recent doubling-down with the absolutely bonkers Deepsea Challenger, I find it difficult to believe that they would abandon their flagship so soon after its release (yes, six years is short time for Rolex). If a new diver is introduced -- which I seriously doubt -- it will be done so as a companion to the existing Sub-C and DSSD, and not as a replacement.
Regards,
Adam
Just about sums it up perfectly Adam. Would have been nice to have had a 22mm bracelet and done away with the Ring lock system advertisement (without that the dial could have been larger and dare i say it perfection). I'm a fan regardless,that's for sure.
Is the bracelet not 22mm??
Without the "ring lock" the watch wouldn't be able to take the depth rating as it's that that provides the structural "skeleton" of the watch - so if it's their they might as well write something on it I guess.
What will be interesting is if Rolex introduce a watch that sits between the SubC and the DSSD, will the 4rse fall out the used SD market because you'll now have a really viable alternate for the no cyclops but still with date Rolex diver and with a much better bracelet to boot!
It's an almighty 1mm narrower, at 21mm.
Also the bracelet tapers by a massive 1-2mm more than most.
As Mr Stoat says the internal bezel/rehaut that features the ad copy is part of the case, that's why it manages nearly 4,000m WR but is still thinner than an Omega dress watch.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
21mm. I think 22mm would have been the perfect size.
Makes sense,would still look cleaner without all that jazz even if it is free advertising. :)
That's an interesting one. I think the 16600's will hold their own due to whatever a new model may be priced at which will most probably be anywhere between Ł6.5k-Ł7.5k.
I agree about the RINGLOCK writing being a bit unsightly - but then the DSSD isn't exactly designed to be a pretty boy and youd get used to it I suppose.
As for the 16600s holding their value, Id agree that they would - it would still be a discontinued rolex, and so collectable to collectors of such things just because of that, regardless of whether anything "better" replaced it.
Plus there will always be those who act about rolex's decision to beef up the submariners lugs (and the DSSDs) in as dramatic a way as a 4 year old would regard the televised skinning of the easter bunny!
There will always be a market for the original I would say.
Just a thought... Remove deepsea from the render and you have a new seadweller.
Room for both considering nd/sub/hulk...
8 days.
A perfect explanation of the DSSD's raison d'ętre and legacy. Mine is still in its box (a fiftieth birthday present, not to be opened for a month) but I think it is awesome and I am besotted. It sits well as the cousin of my 1665.
I've always viewed the DSSD as Rolex's "sod off" watch. To wit, before the DSSD debuted, Rolex was seen as way behind in the dive watch "arms race" in terms of depth rating, bracelet/bezel construction, lume strength, etc, with other companies, both big and small, boasting of watches that could go deeper than the Sea-Dweller and do so without a rattletrap bracelet, scratch-prone aluminum insert bezel or average lume.
Enter the DSSD...
Now, it was Rolex's turn to laugh at the puny efforts of the upstarts with a watch that could dive on the wreck of the Titanic, if it were so inclined, and still have meters to spare. What's more, it would do so with a solid-link bracelet that sported an ingenious on-the-fly microadjustment, it would tick of the minutes with a platinum-infused ceramic bezel that floated on four spring-loaded ball bearings and it would glow in the Stygian gloom with an exclusive lume formulation that went all night on a single charge. Couple this with its 5mm domed sapphire crystal, fully graduated Cerachrom bezel and matte-dial -- all of which served to recall Rolex's glorious past beneath the waves -- and boom, everyone can now shut the hell up and bow to the new king.
Sure, the end result was a large, heavy watch with a too-narrow bracelet and big-bux price tag, but no longer could anyone claim that Rolex was behind the curve in the genre that it all but invented. Don't like it? Buy a Sub-C and shut the hell up. Too big? Buy a Sub-C and shut the hell up. Too expensive? Buy a Sub-C and shut the hell up. In essence, they were telling us to accept that they now made the deepest-diving production watch in the world, and to deal with it and move along (To be sure, PITA, Hublot, CX Swiss Military and UTS have all made mechanical watches that are rated deeper, but to date, only the DSSD comes in at under 18mm thick, and is a true serial production piece.)
In summation, the DSSD is a halo piece, and one that I seriously doubt was ever intended to set sales records. Its purpose, as stated above, was to remind folks of the engineering capabilities of the brand and in doing so, restore some of the luster that had faded in the light of pieces from Omega, Girard-Perregaux, et al. In light of this, and their recent doubling-down with the absolutely bonkers Deepsea Challenger, I find it difficult to believe that they would abandon their flagship so soon after its release (yes, six years is short time for Rolex). If a new diver is introduced -- which I seriously doubt -- it will be done so as a companion to the existing Sub-C and DSSD, and not as a replacement.
Regards,
Adam
Couldn't agree more, one of the best posts I've read on here.
And great to hear of another owner partnering their DSSD with a 1665. I sold on my 16600 to have that pairing and have no regrets; they are so different that there is never any overlap with choosing which to wear.
I might not know loads about watches, but a brand makes these;
And some single out the DSSD for criticism?
They are truly horrendous. Shocking!
Summed up perfectly!I've always viewed the DSSD as Rolex's "sod off" watch. To wit, before the DSSD debuted, Rolex was seen as way behind in the dive watch "arms race" in terms of depth rating, bracelet/bezel construction, lume strength, etc, with other companies, both big and small, boasting of watches that could go deeper than the Sea-Dweller and do so without a rattletrap bracelet, scratch-prone aluminum insert bezel or average lume.
Enter the DSSD...
Now, it was Rolex's turn to laugh at the puny efforts of the upstarts with a watch that could dive on the wreck of the Titanic, if it were so inclined, and still have meters to spare. What's more, it would do so with a solid-link bracelet that sported an ingenious on-the-fly microadjustment, it would tick of the minutes with a platinum-infused ceramic bezel that floated on four spring-loaded ball bearings and it would glow in the Stygian gloom with an exclusive lume formulation that went all night on a single charge. Couple this with its 5mm domed sapphire crystal, fully graduated Cerachrom bezel and matte-dial -- all of which served to recall Rolex's glorious past beneath the waves -- and boom, everyone can now shut the hell up and bow to the new king.
Sure, the end result was a large, heavy watch with a too-narrow bracelet and big-bux price tag, but no longer could anyone claim that Rolex was behind the curve in the genre that it all but invented. Don't like it? Buy a Sub-C and shut the hell up. Too big? Buy a Sub-C and shut the hell up. Too expensive? Buy a Sub-C and shut the hell up. In essence, they were telling us to accept that they now made the deepest-diving production watch in the world, and to deal with it and move along (To be sure, PITA, Hublot, CX Swiss Military and UTS have all made mechanical watches that are rated deeper, but to date, only the DSSD comes in at under 18mm thick, and is a true serial production piece.)
In summation, the DSSD is a halo piece, and one that I seriously doubt was ever intended to set sales records. Its purpose, as stated above, was to remind folks of the engineering capabilities of the brand and in doing so, restore some of the luster that had faded in the light of pieces from Omega, Girard-Perregaux, et al. In light of this, and their recent doubling-down with the absolutely bonkers Deepsea Challenger, I find it difficult to believe that they would abandon their flagship so soon after its release (yes, six years is short time for Rolex). If a new diver is introduced -- which I seriously doubt -- it will be done so as a companion to the existing Sub-C and DSSD, and not as a replacement.
Regards,
Adam
“Don’t look back, you’re not heading that way.”
Good point well made - one thing rolex really know how to do is make steel (admittedly usually desk) "divers" watches - the DSSD is what it is and I too am astonished that people can criticise it to the extent that they do given the abominations spawned elsewhere in the fold.I might not know loads about watches, but a brand makes these;
And some single out the DSSD for criticism?
Criticising the DSSD in the face of a gold rolex is the same as criticising a bodybuilders aesthetics but turning a blind eye to Jodie marsh's body or Donatella Versace's face...
Blue smurf dial on TT and YG was changed back to sunburst after just a couple of years due to poor sales and complaints by ADs so if DSSD sales are poor this could be pulled.
Excellent post Adam in NYC.
If I was a rich man, I'd love to buy a Deep Sea and have the nasty rehaut DLC'd. I think it'd turn a masterfully engineered but rather flawed timepiece into a bit of a beauty.
I wonder if anyone on here who's handy with Photoshop could make us up a "DLC rehaut DSSD".
Smurf dial has been around for more than a couple of years to be fair. Was introduced in 2009.
Only the Yuckmaster 2 is designed for men.
Swapping a dial isn't the same as ditching a whole (highly engineered) new model. After all they offer loads of Datejust dials so it's hardly a big deal to ditch one blue dial for another.
There all still yuck JP Chestnut! :lol:
I'd rather wear all three of those at the same time, than a single Gaytona.
I can't wait to see that photo :-)
:)
Can you sort my lottery numbers for this week please... I fancy the new Sky-Dweller
Posting Permissions
