Sea Dweller 126600

[33JS]

A shot showing all thicknesses would top it off ! Pretty please !

I'll do it this weekend...

[33JS]

1:40mm on a tall case looks ridiculous.

2: They fitted the cyclops simply because they can do it now while it was not possible “technologically speaking” before.
They would have fitted all Deep Seas with it since day one had they had the know-how before. The cyclops is one of Rolex’s trademarks. You see it and you say ROLEX. When they don’t use it it’’s not because they don’t want, it’s because they can’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Deep Sea has a domed crystal, it would have looked horrible!

[Boss13]

What?! Madness! Your AD sounds very annoying.

Agreed, I had mine removed on purchase.

Regarding comments on the cyclops above...yes I think they could have done without it, which would also differentate it from the sub further. However, Rori's point seems correct. I watched a WF video recently comparing sub vs. Sea Dweller range and the same point was made. I have also read in articles the same (did not have the technology to attach the cyclops previously for the pressure it needed to sustain...or they would have). Having said that, they could have quite easily left it off...I am not complaining, I just don't have to quint when reading the date.

[Rori]

not only that, when these watches are tested under those huge pressures the cyclops detached from the sapphire crystal. There was no ways they could keep the cyclops intact under pressure until lately. The new technique was first applied to the SD43.

Deep Sea has a domed crystal, it would have looked horrible!

[mjc1216]

The watch is now on my wrist! I suppose that was innevitable!

I agree with the comment above. Although it is a larger watch than the sub, I do feel the proportions work very well. Technical capability aside it just looks right and when I put the sub back on, that looked comparatively too small!
I guess I am still in the honeymoon period so naturally I will sing its praises for now. However, early impressions are very positive and I think this could certainly be the watch to replace my sub as a daily (not that it needed replacing).

vs. the Black Bay. I do agree that this feels less chunky for whatever reason.

My earlier post has been deleted probably because the wi fi failed and I am currently in Kiev.
I agree the proportions are better than the Sub and I felt the Sub was too small.
The issue I had is it was too tall/deep and I couldn't get a comfortable fit...the dealer would not remove the divers extension so that didn't help.
However the main issue is that when I wore my Explorer 216570 it just felt better...flatter caseback and less weight just makes it more comfortable for me.
Having bought the new Seamaster to replace the SD43 I have no regrets and will not be replacing the SD43 with another.
Hope you enjoy your watch.

[David_D]

The cyclops is one of Rolex’s trademarks. You see it and you say ROLEX.

The absence of a cyclops is a "key feature" of a SD!!! It says "I could have bought a Submariner but 300m just doesn't do it for me".

[Rori]

The absence of the cyclops is not a feature and never was. It's a technical problem that Rolex couldn't solve until the SD43 era.

The absence of a cyclops is a "key feature" of a SD!!! It says "I could have bought a Submariner but 300m just doesn't do it for me".

[ditchvisitor]

The absence of the cyclops is not a feature and never was. It's a technical problem that Rolex couldn't solve until the SD43 era.

I would categorically disagree and say it’s a feature that many SD owners love, I hate the cyclops on my 16710 and would prefer it without one.

[hot66]

As I mentioned, my SD50 is my daily watch and has been since it was released . It’s the perfect watch for me and I’ve always lusted over drsd and red subs so to have red writing dial on a watch I can use and abuse without worry is great. I will be honest, it’s not a watch to wear with shirt cuffs but I rarely wear a shirt and if I do I need to wear something less obvious than a Rolex anyway.

Cyclops has never been an issue for me as I see this as an upgrade over the previous gen.

I have a matte 16660 as well which was a daily years ago , but nowadays it’s spends most of its time in the watch box

[Boss13]

Post 30 in this thread may solve some problems for a few

https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...move-a-cyclops

[Robsmck]

I agree that the Cyclops is a Rolex feature. I love it on the SD43, and if possible would have chosen to have it in the DSSD. The date is also difficult to read at times with my old eyes, disregarding the aesthetics.
I had a ym2 which imho lacked a little something as it doesn't have a Cyclops ( obviously enough as it doesn't have a date complication! ).
Panerai do a magnifier thing on the inside of the crystal on some watches, would that not have been an option for Rolex for sea dwellers?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk