Wow 😄 A lot of butthurt fan boys. The Deep Sea is available at list price. It's not that rare because it is not that desirable. Also the video maker is talking about design aspects and overal aesthetics. I know... things the average fanboys cannot understand 😄
I think you are wrong. In a world where the submariner is very common, it's not unreasonable to go to the next level to have some differentiation. I swapped a sub for the 50th anniversary model and am delighted with the greater accuracy of the latest movement and the hugely superior bracelet. Frankly, it's a quantum leap forward (and I like the cyclops too).
The SeaDweller is excellent. I’m sorry I just don’t agree. I love my Sub, however I’m a bigger guy and the 43 SeaDweller fits me perfectly and way better than the Sub. The design is perfect if you like the looks of the Sub but dislike the DeepSEA’s awkward proportions and ridiculous depth rating. Seriously the engineering is impressive in the DeepSea, we can all agree on that but it seems somewhat gimmicky to build a watch miles beyond the human limits for a diver. Classy design, practical differentiating design elements, upgraded movement, accuracy, makes the SeaDweller a winner in my book. Just my thoughts... CK
Completely agree with you. Nevertheless I have a 6.5 inches wrist and it looks gorgeous on me. I personally own a pre ceramic Sub either, and I prefer the SD43 all the times.
It is the pinnacle Rolex dive watch! Get one while they're readily available and undervalued. The new single red Sea Dweller will be a future classic. Many of the current highly sought after watches were also controversial (ie disliked, hated, etc) back when they were introduced as well. I absolutely LOVE the 126600 single red Sea Dweller!!
Funny how people think the “best” version is the one they have and are compelled to let everyone know only when a new model comes out. Total coincidence of course.
@@markr3926 That depends on when they bought the watch. I feel the 116600 is the best dive watch ever made, let alone the best Rolex dive watch or the best Sea-Dweller, and I bought it 3 months ago. It's better than its predecessors, it's better than its contemporaries, and it's better than its successors. It benefitted from all the advancements like a ceramic bezel (fully graduated this time) and the new bracelet and clasp. It outperformed the 11xxxx Submariners while managing to wear smaller, and it isn't bloated like the newer 126600 Sea-Dweller and the Deepseas 116660, 126660 and 136660. And personally, I prefer the 31xx movements over the 32xx movements. They're extremely reliable, and you turn the crown clockwise to move the hands clockwise. With the 32xx movements you need to turn the crown counterclockwise to turn the hands clockwise.
I borrowed a Deep Sea for a couple of weeks from a friend and I loved wearing it daily. Such a statement. Picked up a 50th anniversary today. Love it too. Each to their own :)
The size of the Deep Sea serves a purpose. It needs it for the Ring Lock. The Sea Dweller had no reason to go bigger, other than to make it stand out from the Submariner. I do get it though, the 116600 didn't sell because it looked almost the same as a Sub, but cost more, but I think they could've just kept it at 40mm (or make it 41mm like the new Sub) and added the red line of text. For me, the 116600 is the ultimate Sea Dweller, and the Deep Sea is the ultimate Rolex dive watch.
The guy focuses on trying to deliver a cool narration full of soundbites but he really just ends up sounding too desperate in his attempt to be clever and there are so many parts of this video that just make me cringe....Just one example at 0:21 "and nowadays are ubiquitous wherever we go". If something is ubiquitous I'm pretty sure it means it is everywhere or appears to be everywhere. So no need to add the additional "wherever we go" unless of course you're just trying to sound extra smart.
I wear my 126660 D-Blue daily without any issue. It was great to see Rolex finally come out with some larger sized models instead of being stuck at 40mm for so many years. So I completely disagree with your opinion that the Sea-Dweller line should have stayed at the same size as the Submariner. Way to go Rolex - keep up the unique designs, the D-Blue is a rock star!!
One/two generations back, men’s average height was 175cm (check any architectural manual), so 39-40mm might have looked big. Today is another story! For most men over 100kg / 185cm, anything smaller than a 42mm looks like a lady’s watch.
No big deal that the Rolex Sea Dweller is a little bigger then the Rolex Submariner because some watch lover like big watches and it differenciate it better from the Submariner
My favourite watch in my collection, is my Sea Dweller 16600 from 1991 and I think it's the best SD ever made with all the good way from new and past ! Maybe the best Rolex ever made
Didn’t like the shiny and slightly top heavy 116600 sold it and recouped the 16600. Fits like a glove with a muted non shiny bezel. Just feels understated quality and cool tooly feel. The deepsea fits better than the sd 43 on my flat 7’5 wrist , more stable with larger flat caseback. Next in the list😄
Yep. I'm proud to own one. It's a little top-heavy, and I'm not sure they could've made it any thinner and maintained such a high WR, but overall it's my favorite Rolex diver. Wanted one for years before I got one. Really glad I did. It's a near perfect blend of old and new: pre-ceramic proportions with post-aluminum upgrades. (No super-case).
@@clayjones1933 nothing wrong with the ceramic bezel, but those with ceramics come with the maxi case. that's the problem. in my eyes they are absolutely fugly, will never slap one on my wrist😅
Biased opinion from a 12 year 16600 owner: Couldn't agree more with the GT3RS analogy and sleeker design. No offence meant, all you supercase owners. Also, these watches are meant to be worn regularly, if not daily. Also, all tool watches with no blemishes = dress watches. Peace! ^_^
My 126660 is amazing, unlike your opinion on the SD, DSSD. Some people have big wrists and don't want to wear little baby 40mm watches like most of the Rolex lineup. I don't give a shit about diving 5ft in this watch, it's just an amazing watch - period.
Agreed! I just bought a Deepsea and think it is amazing. I have a big wrist and this is one of the few watches I didn't need to order an extra link for. If people want a smaller watch, those are still available. It seems like many people don't like anything new that Rolex tries.
@@mrp9498 LOL, no, but I have a 9 inch wrist. Most Rolex watches have bands on the smaller side so they can save money on materials. 44mm looks good on my wrist. I also have a Datejust 41, that's about the smallest I could go.
I my view a diver should have a quartz movement. You just put it on, don't unscrew the crown, no need for that, it already is on the right time. Using a diver, for diving, means, a lot of abuse, from scratches, sand, salty water, oil and dirt. You should clean it after use, but most of the times it is not cleaned properly and the next time an automatic has to be set again. So the crown is unscrewed, dirt, salt and dust comes in between the seals and wear and tear is around the corner. That's why divers prefer quartz. You just trow your gear in the back of your 4x4 and you put on a nice watch for the evening. Nobody with a right mind is diving with a $ 10.000 watch, nobody. You wear a Rolex, watching your yacht from the restaurant in the harbor, not for diving under your yacht.
A real saturation diver bought this for me where he works. It looks like a Seiko Tuna, inside is a Seiko VX42. You can use the bezel to smash a window, when your car is submerged. You can hurt yourself or somebody else with it. The bezel can be used with gloves. I think they should be used with gloves. It is very serious stuff and doesn't cost anything. I had it with a discount for £ 85,- He told me, that saturation divers working at 10 bar don't have a watch, they don't need a watch. Everything is done from the vessel above. Oxygen/Helium mix, electricity, communication, timing, everything. Working on the offshore platform is bad enough to need a good watch. There is salt, water, oil, dirt, storm, bashing etc. Any watch will die in minutes there.
Rene Bense good point, most oil workers have g Shocks, as do members of the military in out of area ops. I work on oil platforms every so often and one of the bosses, whose on $200k a year has a Casio MRW200h.......$15 worth. He thinks it’s ideal.
I saw the docu/drama tbe last breath on Netflix. Only the coordinator is wearing a Seamaster 300. Everybody else doesn't wear a watch The coordinator doesn't come outside.
I always enjoy your reviews. Because you are articulate and present a point of view that contains more than one consideration and always from a technical design perspective. Coming from the belief that there are other points of view and personal preferences, and that no single item is agreeable to all, I find your analyses refreshing for consideration. Here I would like to present another point of view. Your review speaks to the developmental history of the SD, within the perspective I gather to be one of continual refinement and overall improvement. That is a very valid utilitarian approach to design. But also one that doesn’t consider other more subjective design influences. As I see it a dive watch is not only a tool, because tools sit in a toolbox when not used for tool purposes. Whereas the vast majority of wearers are not divers and at most appreciate their utility for water resistance when swimming or in the shower. But like wearing them Because there is also a strong fashion element in our watches as they represent an image and feeling we get when wearing them. It’s been maybe ten years since it was first said that the popularity of larger sized watches would go away, but that has not been the case. And despite a lot of talk justifying their need for use with larger wrist sizes, I believe it has little to do with only that, because people are no larger in size than they were say in the 70’s and 80’s. Was their suddenly a realization that there was a population of people not wearing watches due to their large wrists? Was the increase in watch size then an attempt to address this market? I think not. I believe that the reason was initially one of fashion. That unlike fashions that come and go rather quickly the popularity of 40mm+ watches was greater than expected because even those people uninterested in the latest fashion realized that the larger sizes simply looked better to their untrained eyes. I still have all my watches and they are many. The smaller watches I wore in the 70’s thru 90’s are no longer desirable to me as my eye can no longer accept the smaller diameter of smaller watches. Even the women in my life who have smaller wrists now want larger watches than those I used to wear. Now let’s talk about the SD 43. Looking at the three SD watches side by side in your review, here is what I like about the 126600. 1. The marker at 12 and stick markers at 6 and 9 are shorter and to me more proportional than in its fore-bearer. I personally don’t like the long point at 12, perhaps for the same reason I don’t care for dress shirts with long pointed collars, I don’t know. 2. I don’t think a date is needed on a dive watch. But if there is a date that’s ok too . But then there is nothing more iconic than a cyclops on a Rolex date. When I was in my teens in the late 70’s, and I knew little about watches, it was the cyclops that made the Rolex recognizable to the average person. I like the SD 43 cyclops, as it doesn’t matter to me what came before. While I much appreciate and respect the watch history I don’t feel obliged to it. I should note that I also have the 116600 DSSD Blue and I’m glad that doesn’t have the cyclops because I so appreciate the gradient blue-black dial. I wouldn’t want it obscured by a cyclops. But the plain black dial of my SD 43 126600 is not so special for me to care. I like the traditional Rolex cyclops and frankly appreciate seeing the date in more readable fashion. 3. As for the issue of their unwieldy size, I don’t much care for wearing my watch bracelets loose and therefore have no issue with any top-heaviness in my larger watches. Moreover, by doing so I don’t feel the weight of the watch as I would if I wore it loose. Would I still like the SD and DSSD watches if they were 42mm instead of 43 and 44? Perhaps. But I have no issue with, and in fact prefer, their current sizes. And I would not wear them if they were less than 42. Please keep up the good work, as I enjoy your balanced and reasoned perspective. Even when it doesn’t always align with my own personal preference.
Your very wrong about men being the same size as in decades past. The average man was 166 pounds in 1960. By 2002 the average man had ballooned to 191 pounds. Ref CDC data. No doubt men are even larger now. Some of that fat is going to be distributed on the wrists.
Well I don’t wear my DSSD James Cameron every day but I wear it often and I completely love its fabulous dial and mighty wrist presence. Most Rolex sports watches are victims of their own success, ie commonplace so I chose a great tool watch by Rolex that is also relatively rare, I’ve seen one other person wearing one in the two years I’ve owned mine....can’t say that about a Submariner!
Agree, and being a PAM lover - 44m watches are awesome.... watches of these calibers, are not to be hidden, they are beautiful pieces of technology and art combined. And let's be truthful, we buy such items, so people do see and admire them. Of course, when working for hours at a desktop, I love to look at watches in front of me, and appreciate all the beauty as well.
usually i don't really believe what people said about watches, the only one that can judge a watch is the one who will buy it and wear it, don't let people personal opinions dictated what you like or wear. big, small, thick or thin, it does not matter if you like it that's what matters
Good presentation and content. I personally love the "Red Sea-Dweller" with cyclops eye date. I do not agree that it's a Rolex attempt to gain customer attention. Try and buy one, there is a waiting list I believe.
I own a 126600 and love it. Couple of points: 1) the larger size means the bezel can have more tick marks, which I appreciate. It makes precise setting easier. 2) When you get older, you will appreciate watches with the date bubble on them :-). If you at all think that form should follow function, you should welcome that date bubble. It wasn't left off of the original sea-dwellers due to design issues: it was left off due to limitations in materials and manufacturing. As those limitations are overcome, we should be expecting more functionality from our watches. The two-tone version, however, is just egregious.....
I’ve been wearing a 16600 every day since 2008 and the only thing I wish it had were the lug holes of older 16600s because I use fixed spring bars with a NATO strap. That said I love it for all the reasons you mentioned here. I never make any exceptions for when I wear it, even skating. I’ve taken some hard falls where the watch slapped the pavement and it’s never stopped. I’ve bought a few other watches that I love but I just don’t wear them because the Sea Dweller always wins.
Thats because not only is it a beautiful piece of mechanical jewellery it is designed to tolerate the same amount of abuse a Vostok Amphibia will it also copies other aspects of the Vostoks design but with a far greater accuracy straight from the factory. Like the Vostok its design is such that you can regulate it yourself due to the way the case back gasket works.
IDGuy, I bought the DSSD black dial in 2017 and wear it everyday with no arthritis lol I’m also 6’6 275 with 8.5” wrists so in relative terms, it fits me like a sub would fit most average wrists, but I love how it’s a technological marvel and among the other thoroughbreds in the Rolex dive watch stable, for me, it’s the Secretariat of them all. Like you, I do not baby. I thoroughly enjoying using it as my daily wearer: be it while wearing a 3-piece suit or a wetsuit (yes I go diving with it among other activities that can be harsh). For me some of the nicks & scratches tell stories and bring up memories from the past. I also agree with you in questioning Rolex’s decision to make the SD 43mm. I think keeping it in line with the sub size would be fine and for the 50th, the splash of red text would’ve been perfect and do so in perpetuity as an understated delineation from the sub like some of the subtle clues on an AMG Mercedes... Ps. If the Sub is a 911 Turbo S then the SD should be better performance in all aspects and I think GT2 RS accomplishes that way better than a GT3 RS. Then what if the DSSD? 918?
The D-Blue is one of 3 Rolex watches that ever grabbed my attention because of the gradient dial, the lack of a cyclops and the lugs that don't flare out causing that abrupt transition from the case to the bracelet as is the case with the Super Case watches. The size does bother me a bit, but then again I'm used to big Breitlings and 45mm Planet Oceans that are probably bigger and heavier 😄
Coming to your excellent channel and this video late. I have owned the James Cameron, the Double Red SD 1665 and the 116600 SD4K. To me the SD4K is the perfect modern submariner. With a case that is proportional to the bracelet, can actually experience the pool or a snorkel dive and looks brilliant irrespective of ones attire. The SD4K is my daily driver, the best Submariner that Rolex has ever made
I keep the dssd jc in my rotation and wear it regularly. I chose it over a submariner due to the size. The 40mm is just too small for my wrist and body size. Even the sd43 looked small when i wore it. Sorry not all of us men are under 6' tall and weigh 120lbs
I personally love the new SD43 and dive with it, it's a great watch, perfect proportions, and very well built, solid, and super comfy, well balanced.... But I also have a passion for it's predecessor such as the 116600 the last of the 40mm SD without cyclops and very first of the ceramic bezel discontinued in Rolex history, or the 16600, a beautiful watch with genuine SD DNA and vintage feel, or the triple 6, while these 2 "alu bezel" ref. can still be found at relatively reasonable price, but will soon enter the vintage world, been the last of the aluminium bezel models...
Interesting video, I get where you’re coming from to a degree. I wear the 116660 and the 126600 and rotate through each every couple of days. I love the size, if you set them up correctly on the bracelet they don’t feel too heavy and fit well on my 7.1 inch wrist. These watches are so underrated and always have been. Enjoy whatever you wear.
I own a Sea Dweller, it's my best purchase ever,I love it, had it many years,no regrets , I'll never afford another,they've just gone far too expensive now .
Two things need to be pointed out: 1/ the deepsea blue is a commemorative model that follows a historical event based on James Cameron’s dive, and for that reason we can appreciate it, 2/ People who buy top-end Ferraris don’t so they can go over 200 miles an hour! They buy them because the nature of the design is to be marveled and appreciated well knowing that its potential far exceeds the owners abilities. Same with the sea dweller deepsea… I bought one because I appreciate the engineering even though I won’t ever really go diving!
I have a SD43 and I would not trade it for a wimpy 40mm with a date I cant read or the 44mm with a paragraph on the dial and a ton of weight! SD43 is the culmination of perfection! You are entitled to your opinion but I'm entitled to mine!
I wear a James Cameron 126660 daily without a problem. Sorry you can't. I believe the 40mm Rolexes are now too small in today's market. And Daytonas are even worse! It's the way of the world. Look at the prices on 36mm Rolexes. Their days are over, man
if you got, flaunt it. rolex definitely has it. sea dweller and the deep sea are the ultimate in dive gear. the fact they're a fashion statement proves their spot on top.
I wear my deep sea every day and have for over a decade. If 7.5 ounces is too heavy for your arm to get used to you need to get to the gym. Also, it is indeed overkill as far as depth is concerned…if I find myself 3900 meters under water, the time will be the least of my worries lol. It wasn’t necessarily designed to be used at those depths..It was designed to be ultra water tight and that just so happens to be its known limit. It is quite large but it’s elegant at the same time. Does it get attention? Yep…mostly from watch connoisseurs but I think all Rolex watches have that trait. I own an original Sub, a Daytona, and a Yachtmaster….I can’t say that this watch draws any more attention than the others. Beauty comes in all sizes. Though you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I respectfully disagree.
When researching my first Rolex purchase I looked at every Sub and Sea Dweller model from the 1960s to the present. The 5513s etc were too pricey, and I narrowed it down to a 14060. I was on the point of buying, and the seller said he had just got in a Sea Dweller, 40mm, 2008, lightly worn. I was smitten. Perfect size, alu bezel, no cyclops, not the heavy bulk of the supercased ones. In my opinion the perfect Sub.
@User 2389 - lol of course you do. And I wear one of my Daniels’ every day... G-shock - no thanks. My beater is an early 80s Poljot military. I don’t like electric watches. Or overweight yanks with an inferiority complex and failed marriages.
The increased size has turned a lot of people away from the brand? That’s humorous because I can’t find one at any AD. Also.... want the smaller case? Get a subby. I happen to prefer a larger watch for my larger wrist.
I wish Rolex had two lines of sports watches: Classic and Super Case. To me, the lugs of a watch make or break the aesthetics. I won’t purchase a Rolex with a Super Case.
I have to agree, the Super Case most certainly breaks the sleek but rugged looks of the Classic. I’m a bigger guy and a Super Case still looks acceptable on my large wrist circumference but you can’t beat the elegance of a Classic sized timepiece.
So even though you recognise that the SD43 caters for those with larger wrists, you'd still want it to be 40mm. Just because the SD has always been 40mm and so should it stay forever. So people with larger wrists should essentially suck it up. Well I can't disagree more. The SD43 far surpasses any other diver in terms of beauty, elegant proportions and satisfying wrist presence. I have 7in flat wrists. The Sub 116610 feels underwhelming and looks boxy. The SD4K 116600 was riddled with off-putting proportions, questionable protruding crystal and misaligned end links. It was a total commercial failure. The SD43 on the other hand not only addresses all the issues from its predecessor but goes much further. It is the most compelling luxury diver ever made, not because it is the best at everything, but because overall it is the most attractive package you can find today in modern luxury divers. The best all rounder, the closest thing to perfection in this segment.
I agree completely. The larger size of the DeepSea is an example of form following function. The larger size of the current Seadweller is simply form for the sake of form, and this is not how Rolex has traditionally designed sports watches.
yes but is 43/44mm really that big? many gshocks are 50mm+ and dont even seem that big relatively speaking. i appreciate the case is very thick though...
@@Macca-95 Dont agree atall. I have 7inch wrists, it looks fine. try all metal gshocks or mudmaster etc, they dont look too big and some are are 50mm dia/15mm thick.
As a former commercial diver I worked for the company that followed Comex and others later on. My Dweller was an extension of my wrist and I wear it everyday. To keep it locked away and not enjoy it would be wrong and not in keeping with the history and provenance of such an amazing timepiece. It would be akin to owning an unplayed Steinway in my opinion. Wear your watches and know the history behind them. They are so much more than an investment.
Having a small wrist the Sea Dweller has never been on my Radar. I looked at the Sub but ultimately picked the Omega Seamaster 300 pro 2017 as my Diver. Pretty much the same specs as the Sub for Thousands less.
@@stockholmpublishings2937 this is true but you also buy what you love. I liked the Seamaster better a lot better. My next watch I bought was for the investment. A Rolex GMT Black Master II.
I wanted the ceramic Ref. 116600 so bad. But one day, I tried on a 16600 and immediately loved the aluminum bezel AND the case size. It looks great on my wrist and although I have another Rolex, the SD is the one I wear 90% of the time.
Had the 116600 went back to the 16600. Couldn’t handle the misalignment on the date ( too far in on the dial )and the end links didn’t match the lugs. Too top heavy . 16600 the last TRUE 40 mm diver. Sd 43 is a cracker as well
If the new SD43 is trying to get my attention . It's got it. It's subjective. If you like the 40 with no cyclops. Buy it. You like a 43 like me. You buy that. I think a 43 is just superb
I am a big man and have a very large wrist and 43 & 44mm is proportional on me were a 40mm looks way too small, girly. Thats why rolex brought out larger size watches thinking outside the square for larger size wrists. I reckon ID Guy wrist is skinny as..... 43mm for me.
@@alexanderlindtner1234 that's exactly right. Horses for courses. There is no right or wrong when choosing a piece for yourself. The right choice is what you love and right for you.
Good piece. I’m on the fence between a 14060M and a 16600... the no date dial is something I like, but I am enticed by the capabilities of the SD. What would you choose?
I rocked the JC DSSD for around a year. It was a bit too top heavy but if Rolex had made the bracelet 22mm like in this new model it may have worn better. With that in mind I think the SD43 50th will be perfect. Most people don't realize that Rolex wanted the cyclops on the original Seadwellers but it compromised the integrity of the "crystal" and they burst under pressure. Now technology has made them able to do their original design. While I am not a huge fan of the cyclops (for aestetic reasons) as I get older (49) the magnifier on the date makes it more legible.
Helium valve's are pointless. The only time that you could possibly be in a helium environment is on land in a totally dry decompression chamber stuck there for 24 hours just waiting... If your worried about the glass popping out as they reduce the pressure and change the gas your breathin back to air, just unscrew the crown.
@@thegorn Your right when it comes to advertising in the latest films. In the original books however he wears a Rolex Explorer 1. The same watch the writer Iain Fleming wore
Ok great vid but small correction inbound; In the 50th anniversary Sea-Dweller the cyclops and the crystal is actually one and the same piece of sapphire.
Fair enough. Though if by Rolex you mean an authorised dealer I would take that with a pinch of salt. I have read in several seemingly authoritative articles that it is glued on, but, whatever.
Sorry to disappoint you, but even the two-tone has a waiting list and is being sold for a premium on the gray market. This is why I have changed my mind not to get the Sea Dweller. Rolex knows better than we think.
Mate its called bling , dont forget rolex is a business and is moving along cleverly with modern demographic . Unlike times gone buy not all people with money are doctors , and stock market stiffs . Rock stars , sports stars and dot com boomers want a rolex too. Plus the james cameron is the coolest rolex yet.
Would you ever do a video on some Sinn diver models? In my opinion, they are the most advanced from technological standpoint when it comes to dive watches--and also under priced and under rated.
Sorry, but you presume that everyone wants a Rolex and that therefore Rolex doesn't need to compete.... Rolex however knows otherwise. So when the general push towards Oversized watches happened about 10-12yrs ago, ROLEX ALSO had to hop on that bandwagon, or risk having All there other watches appear to small (which they absolutely did, side-by-side). Not just Panerai.. but literally Every watch on down to a cheap Amazon Bling watch was Large. Even if they knew that trend would pass, were they supposed to stop manufacturing for 5-10yrs, and then hire and retrain Labor once the demand for normal sized watches would return? So they brought out +40mm sized watches. AND those sold well as the Market desired. AND Rolex kept being seen as relevant and not passé or cute "vintage" designs. And One more thing... we don't make these items. But Rolex does.. and they know what design shortcomings Need to be addressed. And when they brought the Ceramic bezels out, to make them more durable/scratch proof from impacts and scratches, they Learned something they hadn't anticipated: People (esp dopes in N America) actually Drop their watches and have hard marble or ceramic Floors. And guess what... Their "rugged" Ceramic bezels became Brittle, fragile components and CRACKED. Enter the Larger Watch: The Wider Ceramic bezel isn't nearly as delicate as a thin rim (like and aluminum bezel) would be. And moreover... a Heavier watch has More Mass. So that, with luck.. the watch will crack the tile floor, and not the other way around. So you can see that Rolex HAD to keep up with Market trends to Big watches, AND they used that to address the shortcomings of their own newer, more durable designs. I have a vintage GMT. Nice thin case. One wrong smack on my excavator or tractor and my fragile aluminum bezel will get easily scratched, gouged, gored. No thanks. I'm considering the two-tone Ceramic Sea-Dweller now for everyday wear. And you know, what with So Many gorgeous top-end watches out and about now... Yeah, i won't mind a couple more millimeters so that someone who wouldn't normally know, might say.. "is that a Rolex?"... and i can have a conversation starter ~
The 16600 is a great buy, still overlooked, great example can be had for descent price, as they are not yet vintage, but last of the aluminium bezel, which in Rolex seperates the "old" from the modern "ceramic bezel". The 16600 is definitely worth it!
@@Mark..P, one thing to watch out, is that the SD 16600 was produced from 1989~2009, 20 years, and has small changes along the years, going from tritium dial, to luminova to super-luminova and SL (solid end links) towards the last production years... For me, if it is to wear every day, one of the last model is the one to get, but if it is for collecting, a tritium dial or even a triple 6 (16660) is good to buy, as they are also still quite affordable in Rolex world...
Love my deepsea. Had it for a good few years now and it gets the most wristtime of all my watches. I’m quite big so it looks just right size wise. I think it’s a stunning piece.
I think it would be helpful to see this side by side on the wrist but from a bit of a distance so we can take in the full sense of proportion. The new massive grills on several BMW ruin the car. I don't think this size increase does that here.
The sea dweller is ok but the deepsea is simply too thick. The width is ok but the depth is crazy. I’ve knocked my Milgauss several times off a hand rail or door frame so if I bought a deepsea god only Knows how bad it would be beaten.
underrated, one of the only steel sports Rolex that you can pick for a good price in the grey market, that is below MSRP for good & modern example, and even find at AD's... If you like it, buy it, it's a great watch.
As a brand new James Cameron deep sea owner I don’t disagree with anything you said but I have to say that I absolutely love this watch. I’m a bigger guy and I think the size looks better on my wrist. I bought a sea dweller in 1991 and wish I still had that one too.
Just got one,collection getting better,also have the planet ocean orang face,brietling super ocean,tag aqua racer now looking for an AP but it needs to be within my budget.
Once again, IDGuy, you’ve knocked it out of the park with this one. While I consider the Sea Dweller to be the Mercedes G-Wagen of watches, I’d also offer an alternative car analogy. If the Sub is the BMW 5-Series, then the Sea Dweller is the M5. If the Triple 6 and 116600 are the E34 and E39 M5s (subtle, elegant), then the James Cameron is the E60 and F-Gen M5. Loud, obvious, boasting tons of extra visual adornments, and screaming to not be mistaken for the standard model. Yes the new models are technically better in nearly every way, but the subtle art of flying under the radar has been lost.
Got 1 SD43, cannot complain, looking back for the design on the early SD.Very comfortable, stable on the wrist due too the old style lugs,22mm bracelet and case back width.The bezel is larger too.For cyclop Rolex cannot set one on the old time , now they can ! For 126660,wonderfull watch but too heavy and gravity center too high unlike the SD43.So not that much comfortable on the wrist.
Great review. I agree with you on the points of form and function - fit for use. I am heavy into outdoor activities to include diving, surfing, climbing and triathlons, and I prefer the 40mm 11660 (if I am using a mechanical watch) due to its lighter weight while still being super robust. I see there are many negative comments from the arm chair enthusiasts below in defending the 43mm. The fact is the 43mm is the only SD that is tracking on the secondary market at or below list (source Watch Charts) while the 40mm versions are selling at 6000-8000 USD above their initial retail - a clear indication of the higher demand for the original design. As for the comment below of ‘try to get one’ (43mm), this is BS, because over the last 6 years there has been a huge demand for ALL Rolex sports watches which now seems to be leveling out - a testament to Rolex’s brilliant marketing of ‘Rolex Ownership = Success’. I believe that Rolex will revert to the original dimensions of the sea dweller, and if the massive demand for the 11660 and 116600 are any indication, they would be well to do so. Moreover, the 40mm design just makes more sense for a watch that is at home in the board room as well as the most extreme outdoor settings.
I totally agree. Technology might make it possible to add the cyclops on a Sea Dweller but Rolex solved a problem that shouldn’t be solved. The cyclops makes it harder to read time and under water being able to read the date is not a priority. I have owned the 126600 but sold it feeling that it was a tool that had become a fashion statement. It’s bigger for no reason. Also, Rolex is showing their lack of understanding of the Sea Dweller heritage by making the current reference in two tone. Thats like making a two tone wrench. 116600 was the last iteration where improvements from previous versions are understandable even if some might prefer aluminium over ceramic.
Great video and it totally agree on your point of view. The only thing i dislike that at least half of the people who did view this are not looking for vintage sea dwellers and driving up the prices!!!!! ;-) My grail would be a birthyear 16660
Not a fan either. The Seadweller is too topheavy. And 20mm oyster looks ridiculously thin on the supercase Submariner. I only like Datejust in the Rolex lineup.
The understatement of a rolex watch. Such an oxymoron. Besides the author forgets about the dimension of thickness here. Which makes the 116600 a shot glass. Leading the rolex design department to spread this 4000m thickness over a wider diameter - making it more balanced on the wrist. Something to consider. Not mentioning the better legability of the magnified date.
Hi ID Guy, respectfully, have you worn a Deepsea for an extended period of time? I have worn one for over 7 years and absolutely have none of the issues you mention. Not being defensive, just facts.
Channel Support: www.paypal.me/industrialdesignguy
Latest Releases: ua-cam.com/channels/zf6rqsEBni5G2TSevD6F4A.htmlfeatured
Community: ua-cam.com/channels/zf6rqsEBni5G2TSevD6F4A.htmlcommunity
Turned people away from Rolex???? Just go and try and buy one..
some people turned away, more people turned toward, and that's why rolex is a look at me brand in the eyes of many
I turned right and then forward
When you make enough to actually buy a Rolex ... A simple you tube video isn't going to change your mind ...lol
Wow 😄 A lot of butthurt fan boys. The Deep Sea is available at list price. It's not that rare because it is not that desirable. Also the video maker is talking about design aspects and overal aesthetics. I know... things the average fanboys cannot understand 😄
Daytona 6263 its a typo fan boy
I think you are wrong. In a world where the submariner is very common, it's not unreasonable to go to the next level to have some differentiation. I swapped a sub for the 50th anniversary model and am delighted with the greater accuracy of the latest movement and the hugely superior bracelet. Frankly, it's a quantum leap forward (and I like the cyclops too).
Paul Robinson me too.
Totally agree 👍
totally agree. Embrace upgrades!
The SeaDweller is excellent. I’m sorry I just don’t agree. I love my Sub, however I’m a bigger guy and the 43 SeaDweller fits me perfectly and way better than the Sub. The design is perfect if you like the looks of the Sub but dislike the DeepSEA’s awkward proportions and ridiculous depth rating. Seriously the engineering is impressive in the DeepSea, we can all agree on that but it seems somewhat gimmicky to build a watch miles beyond the human limits for a diver. Classy design, practical differentiating design elements, upgraded movement, accuracy, makes the SeaDweller a winner in my book. Just my thoughts... CK
Completely agree with you. Nevertheless I have a 6.5 inches wrist and it looks gorgeous on me. I personally own a pre ceramic Sub either, and I prefer the SD43 all the times.
I said it once, i’ll say it a 1000 times the 16600 and the new sea-dweller are the best rolexes of all times
Totally agree!!
116600 is best.
It is the pinnacle Rolex dive watch! Get one while they're readily available and undervalued. The new single red Sea Dweller will be a future classic. Many of the current highly sought after watches were also controversial (ie disliked, hated, etc) back when they were introduced as well. I absolutely LOVE the 126600 single red Sea Dweller!!
Funny how people think the “best” version is the one they have and are compelled to let everyone know only when a new model comes out. Total coincidence of course.
@@markr3926 That depends on when they bought the watch. I feel the 116600 is the best dive watch ever made, let alone the best Rolex dive watch or the best Sea-Dweller, and I bought it 3 months ago. It's better than its predecessors, it's better than its contemporaries, and it's better than its successors. It benefitted from all the advancements like a ceramic bezel (fully graduated this time) and the new bracelet and clasp. It outperformed the 11xxxx Submariners while managing to wear smaller, and it isn't bloated like the newer 126600 Sea-Dweller and the Deepseas 116660, 126660 and 136660.
And personally, I prefer the 31xx movements over the 32xx movements. They're extremely reliable, and you turn the crown clockwise to move the hands clockwise. With the 32xx movements you need to turn the crown counterclockwise to turn the hands clockwise.
I borrowed a Deep Sea for a couple of weeks from a friend and I loved wearing it daily. Such a statement. Picked up a 50th anniversary today. Love it too. Each to their own :)
The size of the Deep Sea serves a purpose. It needs it for the Ring Lock.
The Sea Dweller had no reason to go bigger, other than to make it stand out from the Submariner. I do get it though, the 116600 didn't sell because it looked almost the same as a Sub, but cost more, but I think they could've just kept it at 40mm (or make it 41mm like the new Sub) and added the red line of text.
For me, the 116600 is the ultimate Sea Dweller, and the Deep Sea is the ultimate Rolex dive watch.
Complaining about the new designs of Rolex at the same time saying that Rolex never changes their designs. Cheers
The guy focuses on trying to deliver a cool narration full of soundbites but he really just ends up sounding too desperate in his attempt to be clever and there are so many parts of this video that just make me cringe....Just one example at 0:21 "and nowadays are ubiquitous wherever we go". If something is ubiquitous I'm pretty sure it means it is everywhere or appears to be everywhere. So no need to add the additional "wherever we go" unless of course you're just trying to sound extra smart.
I wear my 126660 D-Blue daily without any issue. It was great to see Rolex finally come out with some larger sized models instead of being stuck at 40mm for so many years. So I completely disagree with your opinion that the Sea-Dweller line should have stayed at the same size as the Submariner. Way to go Rolex - keep up the unique designs, the D-Blue is a rock star!!
One/two generations back, men’s average height was 175cm (check any architectural manual), so 39-40mm might have looked big.
Today is another story!
For most men over 100kg / 185cm, anything smaller than a 42mm looks like a lady’s watch.
I know I should lose some weight. No need to rub it in.
No big deal that the Rolex Sea Dweller is a little bigger then the Rolex Submariner because some watch lover like big watches and it differenciate it better from the Submariner
My favourite watch in my collection, is my Sea Dweller 16600 from 1991 and I think it's the best SD ever made with all the good way from new and past ! Maybe the best Rolex ever made
I share the same view, not to the majority though, which I am not complaining🤭.
16600 humble proper tool watch and beautiful and not Las Vegas on the wrist and will last forever thru thick and thin
Didn’t like the shiny and slightly top heavy 116600 sold it and recouped the 16600. Fits like a glove with a muted non shiny bezel. Just feels understated quality and cool tooly feel. The deepsea fits better than the sd 43 on my flat 7’5 wrist , more stable with larger flat caseback. Next in the list😄
I personally prefer the sea dwellers over any subs because they are much less common in the market.
116600 is the last jewel from this line though.
Yep. I'm proud to own one. It's a little top-heavy, and I'm not sure they could've made it any thinner and maintained such a high WR, but overall it's my favorite Rolex diver. Wanted one for years before I got one. Really glad I did. It's a near perfect blend of old and new: pre-ceramic proportions with post-aluminum upgrades. (No super-case).
I own 16600, to me this is the best combo of modern design with heritage of vintage elegance. I dislike most, if not all ceramic era rolexs.
@@ricchrono5907 what's the bad deal with ceramic? Ive never owned a rolex but I thought a ceramic bezel was a good thing.
@@clayjones1933 nothing wrong with the ceramic bezel, but those with ceramics come with the maxi case. that's the problem. in my eyes they are absolutely fugly, will never slap one on my wrist😅
@@ricchrono5907 Not the 116600 Sea-Dweller, and neither the Daytona.
Biased opinion from a 12 year 16600 owner: Couldn't agree more with the GT3RS analogy and sleeker design. No offence meant, all you supercase owners. Also, these watches are meant to be worn regularly, if not daily. Also, all tool watches with no blemishes = dress watches. Peace! ^_^
My 126660 is amazing, unlike your opinion on the SD, DSSD. Some people have big wrists and don't want to wear little baby 40mm watches like most of the Rolex lineup. I don't give a shit about diving 5ft in this watch, it's just an amazing watch - period.
Agreed! I just bought a Deepsea and think it is amazing. I have a big wrist and this is one of the few watches I didn't need to order an extra link for. If people want a smaller watch, those are still available. It seems like many people don't like anything new that Rolex tries.
Are you over 500 pounds and 6’11 ?
@@mrp9498 LOL, no, but I have a 9 inch wrist. Most Rolex watches have bands on the smaller side so they can save money on materials. 44mm looks good on my wrist. I also have a Datejust 41, that's about the smallest I could go.
Neil Gregory 👍🏼 Mine is close to 8 inch. Usually only have to remove one link from most watches.
6'6" 245 lbs. Had both a 5 digit and 6 digit Sub. Like my DSSD 44 best.
I my view a diver should have a quartz movement. You just put it on, don't unscrew the crown, no need for that, it already is on the right time. Using a diver, for diving, means, a lot of abuse, from scratches, sand, salty water, oil and dirt. You should clean it after use, but most of the times it is not cleaned properly and the next time an automatic has to be set again. So the crown is unscrewed, dirt, salt and dust comes in between the seals and wear and tear is around the corner. That's why divers prefer quartz. You just trow your gear in the back of your 4x4 and you put on a nice watch for the evening. Nobody with a right mind is diving with a $ 10.000 watch, nobody. You wear a Rolex, watching your yacht from the restaurant in the harbor, not for diving under your yacht.
TSAR! Nasa uses them.
A real saturation diver bought this for me where he works. It looks like a Seiko Tuna, inside is a Seiko VX42. You can use the bezel to smash a window, when your car is submerged. You can hurt yourself or somebody else with it. The bezel can be used with gloves. I think they should be used with gloves. It is very serious stuff and doesn't cost anything. I had it with a discount for £ 85,- He told me, that saturation divers working at 10 bar don't have a watch, they don't need a watch. Everything is done from the vessel above. Oxygen/Helium mix, electricity, communication, timing, everything. Working on the offshore platform is bad enough to need a good watch. There is salt, water, oil, dirt, storm, bashing etc. Any watch will die in minutes there.
Rene Bense yes a practical use of the best tool for the job!
Rene Bense good point, most oil workers have g Shocks, as do members of the military in out of area ops. I work on oil platforms every so often and one of the bosses, whose on $200k a year has a Casio MRW200h.......$15 worth. He thinks it’s ideal.
I saw the docu/drama tbe last breath on Netflix. Only the coordinator is wearing a Seamaster 300. Everybody else doesn't wear a watch
The coordinator doesn't come outside.
I always enjoy your reviews. Because you are articulate and present a point of view that contains more than one consideration and always from a technical design perspective. Coming from the belief that there are other points of view and personal preferences, and that no single item is agreeable to all, I find your analyses refreshing for consideration. Here I would like to present another point of view.
Your review speaks to the developmental history of the SD, within the perspective I gather to be one of continual refinement and overall improvement. That is a very valid utilitarian approach to design. But also one that doesn’t consider other more subjective design influences. As I see it a dive watch is not only a tool, because tools sit in a toolbox when not used for tool purposes. Whereas the vast majority of wearers are not divers and at most appreciate their utility for water resistance when swimming or in the shower. But like wearing them Because there is also a strong fashion element in our watches as they represent an image and feeling we get when wearing them. It’s been maybe ten years since it was first said that the popularity of larger sized watches would go away, but that has not been the case. And despite a lot of talk justifying their need for use with larger wrist sizes, I believe it has little to do with only that, because people are no larger in size than they were say in the 70’s and 80’s. Was their suddenly a realization that there was a population of people not wearing watches due to their large wrists? Was the increase in watch size then an attempt to address this market? I think not. I believe that the reason was initially one of fashion. That unlike fashions that come and go rather quickly the popularity of 40mm+ watches was greater than expected because even those people uninterested in the latest fashion realized that the larger sizes simply looked better to their untrained eyes. I still have all my watches and they are many. The smaller watches I wore in the 70’s thru 90’s are no longer desirable to me as my eye can no longer accept the smaller diameter of smaller watches. Even the women in my life who have smaller wrists now want larger watches than those I used to wear.
Now let’s talk about the SD 43. Looking at the three SD watches side by side in your review, here is what I like about the 126600.
1. The marker at 12 and stick markers at 6 and 9 are shorter and to me more proportional than in its fore-bearer. I personally don’t like the long point at 12, perhaps for the same reason I don’t care for dress shirts with long pointed collars, I don’t know. 2. I don’t think a date is needed on a dive watch. But if there is a date that’s ok too . But then there is nothing more iconic than a cyclops on a Rolex date. When I was in my teens in the late 70’s, and I knew little about watches, it was the cyclops that made the Rolex recognizable to the average person. I like the SD 43 cyclops, as it doesn’t matter to me what came before. While I much appreciate and respect the watch history I don’t feel obliged to it. I should note that I also have the 116600 DSSD Blue and I’m glad that doesn’t have the cyclops because I so appreciate the gradient blue-black dial. I wouldn’t want it obscured by a cyclops. But the plain black dial of my SD 43 126600 is not so special for me to care. I like the traditional Rolex cyclops and frankly appreciate seeing the date in more readable fashion.
3. As for the issue of their unwieldy size, I don’t much care for wearing my watch bracelets loose and therefore have no issue with any top-heaviness in my larger watches. Moreover, by doing so I don’t feel the weight of the watch as I would if I wore it loose.
Would I still like the SD and DSSD watches if they were 42mm instead of 43 and 44? Perhaps. But I have no issue with, and in fact prefer, their current sizes. And I would not wear them if they were less than 42.
Please keep up the good work, as I enjoy your balanced and reasoned perspective. Even when it doesn’t always align with my own personal preference.
Great post.
Excellent read👍👏
Your very wrong about men being the same size as in decades past. The average man was 166 pounds in 1960. By 2002 the average man had ballooned to 191 pounds. Ref CDC data.
No doubt men are even larger now. Some of that fat is going to be distributed on the wrists.
Well I don’t wear my DSSD James Cameron every day but I wear it often and I completely love its fabulous dial and mighty wrist presence. Most Rolex sports watches are victims of their own success, ie commonplace so I chose a great tool watch by Rolex that is also relatively rare, I’ve seen one other person wearing one in the two years I’ve owned mine....can’t say that about a Submariner!
Agree, and being a PAM lover - 44m watches are awesome.... watches of these calibers, are not to be hidden, they are beautiful pieces of technology and art combined. And let's be truthful, we buy such items, so people do see and admire them. Of course, when working for hours at a desktop, I love to look at watches in front of me, and appreciate all the beauty as well.
usually i don't really believe what people said about watches, the only one that can judge a watch is the one who will buy it and wear it, don't let people personal opinions dictated what you like or wear. big, small, thick or thin, it does not matter if you like it that's what matters
Good presentation and content. I personally love the "Red Sea-Dweller" with cyclops eye date. I do not agree that it's a Rolex attempt to gain customer attention. Try and buy one, there is a waiting list I believe.
I own a 126600 and love it. Couple of points: 1) the larger size means the bezel can have more tick marks, which I appreciate. It makes precise setting easier. 2) When you get older, you will appreciate watches with the date bubble on them :-).
If you at all think that form should follow function, you should welcome that date bubble. It wasn't left off of the original sea-dwellers due to design issues: it was left off due to limitations in materials and manufacturing. As those limitations are overcome, we should be expecting more functionality from our watches.
The two-tone version, however, is just egregious.....
I’ve been wearing a 16600 every day since 2008 and the only thing I wish it had were the lug holes of older 16600s because I use fixed spring bars with a NATO strap. That said I love it for all the reasons you mentioned here. I never make any exceptions for when I wear it, even skating. I’ve taken some hard falls where the watch slapped the pavement and it’s never stopped. I’ve bought a few other watches that I love but I just don’t wear them because the Sea Dweller always wins.
Thats because not only is it a beautiful piece of mechanical jewellery it is designed to tolerate the same amount of abuse a Vostok Amphibia will it also copies other aspects of the Vostoks design but with a far greater accuracy straight from the factory. Like the Vostok its design is such that you can regulate it yourself due to the way the case back gasket works.
Not necessarily a design flaw but rather flawed perspective of your own opinion
Possibly the most eloquent, appropriate and cutting critical riposte I've read on YT
Always look forward to your videos.what are your views on the Rolex milgauss?
Paulienkham Vaiphei I have the z blue Milgauss, amazing watch although it’s a scratch magnet
@@Chris-oz9qx Thanks for the info about your experience with the milgauss.
Paulienkham Vaiphei no problem 👍🏻
I'm pretty sure my Rolex sea dweller 4000 is the watch that God also wears most days!
Hans Wilsdorf is busy making God a world time watch
NO.....gods bigger than that, he wears the Deepsea! He left the 40mm Rolex for the small mortal man!!!!
@@joesaave So the 116600 is a gift from God ... Makes sense.
Hahahah😂
DSSD: the finance guy's G-Shock
Joe Luck - my friend has a deep sea. He’s an overseas ‘operator’ for the military. It turns out they are bombproof - twice.
Too Funny
@@NapoleonGelignite ,, he's a Contractor ..psd pmc .. you can make enough to buy 1 .. you deserve to own 1 ..lol
Thunder Lightning - correct
😁 DSSD 44 here. ❤this ⌚but don't work in finance. My 3rd Rolex diver..
I think the new 43mm Sea Dweller is amazing. Buying one as soon as my AD gets one.
You'll love it!
IDGuy,
I bought the DSSD black dial in 2017 and wear it everyday with no arthritis lol I’m also 6’6 275 with 8.5” wrists so in relative terms, it fits me like a sub would fit most average wrists, but I love how it’s a technological marvel and among the other thoroughbreds in the Rolex dive watch stable, for me, it’s the Secretariat of them all.
Like you, I do not baby. I thoroughly enjoying using it as my daily wearer: be it while wearing a 3-piece suit or a wetsuit (yes I go diving with it among other activities that can be harsh). For me some of the nicks & scratches tell stories and bring up memories from the past. I also agree with you in questioning Rolex’s decision to make the SD 43mm. I think keeping it in line with the sub size would be fine and for the 50th, the splash of red text would’ve been perfect and do so in perpetuity as an understated delineation from the sub like some of the subtle clues on an AMG Mercedes...
Ps. If the Sub is a 911 Turbo S then the SD should be better performance in all aspects and I think GT2 RS accomplishes that way better than a GT3 RS. Then what if the DSSD? 918?
The D-Blue is one of 3 Rolex watches that ever grabbed my attention because of the gradient dial, the lack of a cyclops and the lugs that don't flare out causing that abrupt transition from the case to the bracelet as is the case with the Super Case watches. The size does bother me a bit, but then again I'm used to big Breitlings and 45mm Planet Oceans that are probably bigger and heavier 😄
Wasn’t the super-case introduced during to the Panerai craze, where they tried to make the watch look a little more like a cushion-case??
I’ll just add, I’m glad, very very glad that Rolex don’t employ ID Guy as a design consultant.
Coming to your excellent channel and this video late.
I have owned the James Cameron, the Double Red SD 1665 and the 116600 SD4K.
To me the SD4K is the perfect modern submariner. With a case that is proportional to the bracelet, can actually experience the pool or a snorkel dive and looks brilliant irrespective of ones attire.
The SD4K is my daily driver, the best Submariner that Rolex has ever made
The poster is right. My 1980s Rolex Date Just has been to 160’ dozens of times. No rubber gaskets. No problem...ever.
That Planet Ocean at 0:30.......Sweet!
Legendary. A new SD is a stupid purchase when there are 43.5mm PO's that IMHO wipe the floor with it, for half the price.
I totally agree about the cyclops. Shooting itself in the foot is accurate.
I keep the dssd jc in my rotation and wear it regularly. I chose it over a submariner due to the size. The 40mm is just too small for my wrist and body size. Even the sd43 looked small when i wore it. Sorry not all of us men are under 6' tall and weigh 120lbs
Excellent video as always.
I personally love the new SD43 and dive with it, it's a great watch, perfect proportions, and very well built, solid, and super comfy, well balanced.... But I also have a passion for it's predecessor such as the 116600 the last of the 40mm SD without cyclops and very first of the ceramic bezel discontinued in Rolex history, or the 16600, a beautiful watch with genuine SD DNA and vintage feel, or the triple 6, while these 2 "alu bezel" ref. can still be found at relatively reasonable price, but will soon enter the vintage world, been the last of the aluminium bezel models...
I love the 50th anaversy sea dweller
Interesting video, I get where you’re coming from to a degree.
I wear the 116660 and the 126600 and rotate through each every couple of days. I love the size, if you set them up correctly on the bracelet they don’t feel too heavy and fit well on my 7.1 inch wrist. These watches are so underrated and always have been.
Enjoy whatever you wear.
I own a Sea Dweller, it's my best purchase ever,I love it, had it many years,no regrets , I'll never afford another,they've just gone far too expensive now .
Two things need to be pointed out:
1/ the deepsea blue is a commemorative model that follows a historical event based on James Cameron’s dive, and for that reason we can appreciate it, 2/ People who buy top-end Ferraris don’t so they can go over 200 miles an hour! They buy them because the nature of the design is to be marveled and appreciated well knowing that its potential far exceeds the owners abilities. Same with the sea dweller deepsea… I bought one because I appreciate the engineering even though I won’t ever really go diving!
I have a SD43 and I would not trade it for a wimpy 40mm with a date I cant read or the 44mm with a paragraph on the dial and a ton of weight! SD43 is the culmination of perfection! You are entitled to your opinion but I'm entitled to mine!
But the SD43 has the ugly cyclops. The Deepsea is a purer design in my opinion
You cannot read the date without the cyclops? Ok....
I wear a deepsea james cameron most days and I love it...
I wear a James Cameron 126660 daily without a problem. Sorry you can't. I believe the 40mm Rolexes are now too small in today's market. And Daytonas are even worse! It's the way of the world. Look at the prices on 36mm Rolexes. Their days are over, man
I agree,40mm is perfect I’m glad I still have my 90s sea dweller, the 43&44 is ok for the very big man with very large rist
if you got, flaunt it. rolex definitely has it. sea dweller and the deep sea are the ultimate in dive gear. the fact they're a fashion statement proves their spot on top.
The one Rolex I would buy if it was 40mm, and no Cyclops (I detest the Cyclops) and with the James Cameron Dial!
I wear my deep sea every day and have for over a decade. If 7.5 ounces is too heavy for your arm to get used to you need to get to the gym. Also, it is indeed overkill as far as depth is concerned…if I find myself 3900 meters under water, the time will be the least of my worries lol. It wasn’t necessarily designed to be used at those depths..It was designed to be ultra water tight and that just so happens to be its known limit. It is quite large but it’s elegant at the same time. Does it get attention? Yep…mostly from watch connoisseurs but I think all Rolex watches have that trait. I own an original Sub, a Daytona, and a Yachtmaster….I can’t say that this watch draws any more attention than the others. Beauty comes in all sizes. Though you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I respectfully disagree.
When researching my first Rolex purchase I looked at every Sub and Sea Dweller model from the 1960s to the present. The 5513s etc were too pricey, and I narrowed it down to a 14060. I was on the point of buying, and the seller said he had just got in a Sea Dweller, 40mm, 2008, lightly worn. I was smitten. Perfect size, alu bezel, no cyclops, not the heavy bulk of the supercased ones. In my opinion the perfect Sub.
My best friend bought an 16600 sea dweller for his fiancée instead of a ring. He has a deep sea.
@User 2389 - sorry to disappoint you, no. He bought it while on leave in Dubai from Afghanistan. He likes functional and reliable objects.
@User 2389 - he's an SF op, so as you might expect his wife is slim and beautiful....
You know Charlize Thuron has a SD?
@User 2389 - no.
Out of interest, what which do you wear? I bet it’s an iWatch....
Or maybe a G-shock?
@User 2389 - lol of course you do. And I wear one of my Daniels’ every day...
G-shock - no thanks.
My beater is an early 80s Poljot military.
I don’t like electric watches. Or overweight yanks with an inferiority complex and failed marriages.
In the end, which is problem in design?
I had a Rolex DSSD for 7 years. I finally sold it in 2018 and replaced it with a ND Sub. The Sub is way more comfortable to wear.
Did you profit on the sale? How did you do it?
Did the same, however now I’m looking for the SD4K (116600) as I miss the date and don’t like the cyclops)
The increased size has turned a lot of people away from the brand? That’s humorous because I can’t find one at any AD. Also.... want the smaller case? Get a subby. I happen to prefer a larger watch for my larger wrist.
agree, I wear 42+ only. all those people with skinny hands..
I wish Rolex had two lines of sports watches: Classic and Super Case. To me, the lugs of a watch make or break the aesthetics. I won’t purchase a Rolex with a Super Case.
I have to agree, the Super Case most certainly breaks the sleek but rugged looks of the Classic. I’m a bigger guy and a Super Case still looks acceptable on my large wrist circumference but you can’t beat the elegance of a Classic sized timepiece.
So even though you recognise that the SD43 caters for those with larger wrists, you'd still want it to be 40mm. Just because the SD has always been 40mm and so should it stay forever. So people with larger wrists should essentially suck it up.
Well I can't disagree more. The SD43 far surpasses any other diver in terms of beauty, elegant proportions and satisfying wrist presence. I have 7in flat wrists. The Sub 116610 feels underwhelming and looks boxy. The SD4K 116600 was riddled with off-putting proportions, questionable protruding crystal and misaligned end links. It was a total commercial failure.
The SD43 on the other hand not only addresses all the issues from its predecessor but goes much further. It is the most compelling luxury diver ever made, not because it is the best at everything, but because overall it is the most attractive package you can find today in modern luxury divers. The best all rounder, the closest thing to perfection in this segment.
100% AGREE!!
Had the 116600 you are so right on that. Sold mine because the eyes kept reminding of that fact , so got the sd 43. All good at last
Never in my life have I come across an owner of a dive watch being scared of the rain 🤷🏻♂️
I agree completely. The larger size of the DeepSea is an example of form following function. The larger size of the current Seadweller is simply form for the sake of form, and this is not how Rolex has traditionally designed sports watches.
A lot turned away from the brand due to low supply and high price. Those watches are stunning in person.
yes but is 43/44mm really that big? many gshocks are 50mm+ and dont even seem that big relatively speaking. i appreciate the case is very thick though...
The 43 is not too large at all.. I've found that when people takes pictures on the wrist, it makes the watches look larger than it really is.
All Things Important 89 even on a 22cm wrist even the deepsea james cameron looks big, bulky and top heavy, but the dial is amazing.
Yes 44mm is big. If you're not obese or a body builder it is absurd.
@@Macca-95 Dont agree atall. I have 7inch wrists, it looks fine. try all metal gshocks or mudmaster etc, they dont look too big and some are are 50mm dia/15mm thick.
The 1665 Rail Dial is the best.
IDGuy needs to take chill pill. The subject is watches. The whole point is to enjoy them, not treat them like a tumor that needs treatment.
Lol
As a former commercial diver I worked for the company that followed Comex and others later on.
My Dweller was an extension of my wrist and I wear it everyday.
To keep it locked away and not enjoy it would be wrong and not in keeping with the history and provenance of such an amazing timepiece.
It would be akin to owning an unplayed Steinway in my opinion.
Wear your watches and know the history behind them. They are so much more than an investment.
Submariner - 911
Sea-Dweller - 911 GT3 RS
S-D Deepsea - 918 RSR
Having a small wrist the Sea Dweller has never been on my Radar. I looked at the Sub but ultimately picked the Omega Seamaster 300 pro 2017 as my Diver. Pretty much the same specs as the Sub for Thousands less.
You don't buy a Rolex for the specs... lol
@@stockholmpublishings2937 this is true but you also buy what you love. I liked the Seamaster better a lot better. My next watch I bought was for the investment. A Rolex GMT Black Master II.
I have the 116600 and love it. 40mm, no cyclops and the most capable dive watch ever built.
I wanted the ceramic Ref. 116600 so bad. But one day, I tried on a 16600 and immediately loved the aluminum bezel AND the case size. It looks great on my wrist and although I have another Rolex, the SD is the one I wear 90% of the time.
Had the 116600 went back to the 16600. Couldn’t handle the misalignment on the date ( too far in on the dial )and the end links didn’t match the lugs. Too top heavy . 16600 the last TRUE 40 mm diver. Sd 43 is a cracker as well
If the new SD43 is trying to get my attention . It's got it. It's subjective. If you like the 40 with no cyclops. Buy it. You like a 43 like me. You buy that. I think a 43 is just superb
I am a big man and have a very large wrist and 43 & 44mm is proportional on me were a 40mm looks way too small, girly. Thats why rolex brought out larger size watches thinking outside the square for larger size wrists. I reckon ID Guy wrist is skinny as..... 43mm for me.
@@alexanderlindtner1234 that's exactly right. Horses for courses. There is no right or wrong when choosing a piece for yourself. The right choice is what you love and right for you.
Thanks for posting your views. ⌚🤴👊
Good piece. I’m on the fence between a 14060M and a 16600... the no date dial is something I like, but I am enticed by the capabilities of the SD. What would you choose?
I have the 14060 t25 and the sd 16600
40 mm is too small for 20+ wrist but deep sea is too topheavy for anybody.
Someone knows what they're talking about! Compared to a sub, SD always had an issue with top heaviness, magnified by the DSSD
I rocked the JC DSSD for around a year.
It was a bit too top heavy but if Rolex had made the bracelet 22mm like in this new model it may have worn better.
With that in mind I think the SD43 50th will be perfect.
Most people don't realize that Rolex wanted the cyclops on the original Seadwellers but it compromised the integrity of the "crystal" and they burst under pressure.
Now technology has made them able to do their original design.
While I am not a huge fan of the cyclops (for aestetic reasons) as I get older (49) the magnifier on the date makes it more legible.
The SD43 is the ultimate dive watch. Well balanced.
I`m pretty sure the 116660 will increase in value over time, that it`s "too big" and over engineered is not a problem but rather the opposite.
Helium valve's are pointless. The only time that you could possibly be in a helium environment is on land in a totally dry decompression chamber stuck there for 24 hours just waiting... If your worried about the glass popping out as they reduce the pressure and change the gas your breathin back to air, just unscrew the crown.
Decomposition? Dry rot?
James Bond needs it to blow things up, so it has a use on Omegas
@@Seriously140 Thanks for your comment 👍 typing too fast and stupid spell checks
@@thegorn Your right when it comes to advertising in the latest films. In the original books however he wears a Rolex Explorer 1. The same watch the writer Iain Fleming wore
Remember to unscrew the crown is not practical. More often than not you'll forget until the crystal pops out to remind you.
Ok great vid but small correction inbound; In the 50th anniversary Sea-Dweller the cyclops and the crystal is actually one and the same piece of sapphire.
You are correct. Rolex told me this.
I doubt that. I am pretty sure that I read that Rolex said the issue was always about the glue, and they now have a glue that works.
@@tn_onyoutube8436 Rolex told me it is moulded on.
Fair enough. Though if by Rolex you mean an authorised dealer I would take that with a pinch of salt. I have read in several seemingly authoritative articles that it is glued on, but, whatever.
Michael Turner - monochrome-watches.com/the-rolex-cyclops-lens/
And beckertime.com/blog/whats-rolex-cyclops/
Ohhhhhh the Comex ! Superb !
Sorry to disappoint you, but even the two-tone has a waiting list and is being sold for a premium on the gray market. This is why I have changed my mind not to get the Sea Dweller. Rolex knows better than we think.
the only problem that I see is that i dont have one......
Mate its called bling , dont forget rolex is a business and is moving along cleverly with modern demographic . Unlike times gone buy not all people with money are doctors , and stock market stiffs . Rock stars , sports stars and dot com boomers want a rolex too. Plus the james cameron is the coolest rolex yet.
Would you ever do a video on some Sinn diver models? In my opinion, they are the most advanced from technological standpoint when it comes to dive watches--and also under priced and under rated.
Totally agree. And I've owned Sea Dwellers and Subs.
Great video!!
The 2017 SeaDweller 43 is watchmaking at its finest.
All good points with which I agree.... you have been reading my mind .
Sorry, but you presume that everyone wants a Rolex and that therefore Rolex doesn't need to compete....
Rolex however knows otherwise.
So when the general push towards Oversized watches happened about 10-12yrs ago, ROLEX ALSO had to hop on that bandwagon, or risk having All there other watches appear to small (which they absolutely did, side-by-side). Not just Panerai.. but literally Every watch on down to a cheap Amazon Bling watch was Large.
Even if they knew that trend would pass, were they supposed to stop manufacturing for 5-10yrs, and then hire and retrain Labor once the demand for normal sized watches would return?
So they brought out +40mm sized watches.
AND those sold well as the Market desired. AND Rolex kept being seen as relevant and not passé or cute "vintage" designs.
And One more thing... we don't make these items. But Rolex does.. and they know what design shortcomings Need to be addressed.
And when they brought the Ceramic bezels out, to make them more durable/scratch proof from impacts and scratches, they Learned something they hadn't anticipated:
People (esp dopes in N
America) actually Drop their watches and have hard marble or ceramic Floors.
And guess what... Their "rugged" Ceramic bezels became Brittle, fragile components and CRACKED.
Enter the Larger Watch:
The Wider Ceramic bezel isn't nearly as delicate as a thin rim (like and aluminum bezel) would be.
And moreover... a Heavier watch has More Mass. So that, with luck.. the watch will crack the tile floor, and not the other way around.
So you can see that Rolex HAD to keep up with Market trends to Big watches, AND they used that to address the shortcomings of their own newer, more durable designs.
I have a vintage GMT. Nice thin case.
One wrong smack on my excavator or tractor and my fragile aluminum bezel will get easily scratched, gouged, gored.
No thanks.
I'm considering the two-tone Ceramic Sea-Dweller now for everyday wear.
And you know, what with So Many gorgeous top-end watches out and about now... Yeah, i won't mind a couple more millimeters so that someone who wouldn't normally know, might say.. "is that a Rolex?"... and i can have a conversation starter ~
The newer Sea Dwellers can be used as knuckledusters,and just like Vostok watches suffer no ill effects :)
🇬🇧 Great video once again. Thought provoking and interesting. Never considered the 16600 before, but a great alternative to the Sub. Thank you
The 16600 is a great buy, still overlooked, great example can be had for descent price, as they are not yet vintage, but last of the aluminium bezel, which in Rolex seperates the "old" from the modern "ceramic bezel". The 16600 is definitely worth it!
Titi teatea Thank you. Seriously considering it 👍🏻
@@Mark..P, one thing to watch out, is that the SD 16600 was produced from 1989~2009, 20 years, and has small changes along the years, going from tritium dial, to luminova to super-luminova and SL (solid end links) towards the last production years... For me, if it is to wear every day, one of the last model is the one to get, but if it is for collecting, a tritium dial or even a triple 6 (16660) is good to buy, as they are also still quite affordable in Rolex world...
Titi teatea Thanks. It’s for definitely wearing, I don’t collect for future value. Thanks for the help with this. Really appreciated. 👍🏻
Love my deepsea. Had it for a good few years now and it gets the most wristtime of all my watches. I’m quite big so it looks just right size wise. I think it’s a stunning piece.
I think it would be helpful to see this side by side on the wrist but from a bit of a distance so we can take in the full sense of proportion. The new massive grills on several BMW ruin the car. I don't think this size increase does that here.
The sea dweller is ok but the deepsea is simply too thick. The width is ok but the depth is crazy. I’ve knocked my Milgauss several times off a hand rail or door frame so if I bought a deepsea god only
Knows how bad it would be beaten.
I would also love to know what's your take on the Rolex Milgauss :)
underrated, one of the only steel sports Rolex that you can pick for a good price in the grey market, that is below MSRP for good & modern example, and even find at AD's... If you like it, buy it, it's a great watch.
@@rollywood2793 Thanks for the info!
For once, the SD is making some sense to me, despite the opinion you may hold of the current generation.
Any thoughts on the Oysterquartz?
I agree with you completely. As much as I love the James Cameron dial, it is just too much. Thank you for another excellent video :)
As a brand new James Cameron deep sea owner I don’t disagree with anything you said but I have to say that I absolutely love this watch. I’m a bigger guy and I think the size looks better on my wrist. I bought a sea dweller in 1991 and wish I still had that one too.
Just got one,collection getting better,also have the planet ocean orang face,brietling super ocean,tag aqua racer now looking for an AP but it needs to be within my budget.
116600 allllllll day
Once again, IDGuy, you’ve knocked it out of the park with this one. While I consider the Sea Dweller to be the Mercedes G-Wagen of watches, I’d also offer an alternative car analogy. If the Sub is the BMW 5-Series, then the Sea Dweller is the M5. If the Triple 6 and 116600 are the E34 and E39 M5s (subtle, elegant), then the James Cameron is the E60 and F-Gen M5. Loud, obvious, boasting tons of extra visual adornments, and screaming to not be mistaken for the standard model. Yes the new models are technically better in nearly every way, but the subtle art of flying under the radar has been lost.
Got 1 SD43, cannot complain, looking back for the design on the early SD.Very comfortable, stable on the wrist due too the old style lugs,22mm bracelet and case back width.The bezel is larger too.For cyclop Rolex cannot set one on the old time , now they can !
For 126660,wonderfull watch but too heavy and gravity center too high unlike the SD43.So not that much comfortable on the wrist.
Great review. I agree with you on the points of form and function - fit for use. I am heavy into outdoor activities to include diving, surfing, climbing and triathlons, and I prefer the 40mm 11660 (if I am using a mechanical watch) due to its lighter weight while still being super robust. I see there are many negative comments from the arm chair enthusiasts below in defending the 43mm. The fact is the 43mm is the only SD that is tracking on the secondary market at or below list (source Watch Charts) while the 40mm versions are selling at 6000-8000 USD above their initial retail - a clear indication of the higher demand for the original design. As for the comment below of ‘try to get one’ (43mm), this is BS, because over the last 6 years there has been a huge demand for ALL Rolex sports watches which now seems to be leveling out - a testament to Rolex’s brilliant marketing of ‘Rolex Ownership = Success’. I believe that Rolex will revert to the original dimensions of the sea dweller, and if the massive demand for the 11660 and 116600 are any indication, they would be well to do so. Moreover, the 40mm design just makes more sense for a watch that is at home in the board room as well as the most extreme outdoor settings.
I totally agree. Technology might make it possible to add the cyclops on a Sea Dweller but Rolex solved a problem that shouldn’t be solved. The cyclops makes it harder to read time and under water being able to read the date is not a priority. I have owned the 126600 but sold it feeling that it was a tool that had become a fashion statement. It’s bigger for no reason. Also, Rolex is showing their lack of understanding of the Sea Dweller heritage by making the current reference in two tone. Thats like making a two tone wrench. 116600 was the last iteration where improvements from previous versions are understandable even if some might prefer aluminium over ceramic.
Great video and it totally agree on your point of view. The only thing i dislike that at least half of the people who did view this are not looking for vintage sea dwellers and driving up the prices!!!!! ;-)
My grail would be a birthyear 16660
Not a fan either.
The Seadweller is too topheavy.
And 20mm oyster looks ridiculously thin on the supercase Submariner.
I only like Datejust in the Rolex lineup.
But the lugs on the SD43 are 22mm, as therefore is the bracelet
43mm SD has a 22mm bracelet.
The understatement of a rolex watch. Such an oxymoron. Besides the author forgets about the dimension of thickness here. Which makes the 116600 a shot glass. Leading the rolex design department to spread this 4000m thickness over a wider diameter - making it more balanced on the wrist. Something to consider. Not mentioning the better legability of the magnified date.
Hi ID Guy, respectfully, have you worn a Deepsea for an extended period of time? I have worn one for over 7 years and absolutely have none of the issues you mention. Not being defensive, just facts.
Exactly right. Watches are just getting too large in general...