Rolex's not so smooth transition to Big Watch trend n

[Jakx]

With the new SD 43 and DJ 41 (Basel'16 and '17) Rolex' commitment to the Big Watch trend continues. But could it possibly be also a statement that the transition may not have gone as planned since it's replaced DDII with DD40, DJII with DJ41 and now SD4000 with SD43 pretty quickly (by Rolex standards).

Could Sub be up for a design update next (away from maxi dial?).

[Snow-Dweller]

Many people felt that the DJII and DDII were not well proportioned (particularly the bezels). The DJ41 and DD40 corrected these "errors".

In my mind the SD43 fits better into the lineup (between the Sub and Deepsea) than the SD4000.....so no, imho the Sub will stay as it is.

As an aside, and whilst we're on this subject, I wouldn't mind seeing a slightly larger Daytona!

[Hairdude1]

Originally Posted by Snow-Dweller

Many people felt that the DJII and DDII were not well proportioned (particularly the bezels). The DJ41 and DD40 corrected these "errors".

In my mind the SD43 fits better into the lineup (between the Sub and Deepsea) than the SD4000.....so no, imho the Sub will stay as it is.

As an aside, and whilst we're on this subject, I wouldn't mind seeing a slightly larger Daytona!

[Atleo]

Meh.

[rusty427]

I feel the DJ41 is the closest they have got so far to cracking the big watch trend.

[Hollister]

Part of me says they couldn't make the sub any worse, but now I think actually they could.

[speedmaster73]

sorry to the OP but there is no 'trend'

[Chadridv]

Originally Posted by speedmaster73

sorry to the OP but there is no 'trend'

this!

[Flstfirider]

Originally Posted by speedmaster73

sorry to the op but there is no 'trend'

👍

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by Hollister

Part of me says they couldn't make the sub any worse, but now I think actually they could.

Brilliant! Certainly not out of the question for Rolex to either, make it larger or add polished center links.

[Hollister]

Watches are the same size today as they were in the 1950s. Discuss.

[Jakx]

Originally Posted by Hollister

Watches are the same size today as they were in the 1950s. Discuss.

[landosystem]

The larger Sea Dweller does not mean there is a trend in Rolex upsizing. The fact that they stuck on a cyclops to account for the weird position of the date window, rather than develop a new movement for a larger watch, suggests that they aren't planning a line-wide upsizing.

In any event, what's the big problem? The sub is always available for people who want 40mm, and now there is just an additional option for the bigger-wristed.

[Hollister]

Originally Posted by landosystem

In any event, what's the big problem?

They've ruined the already mildly-ruined SeaDweller. That's the main problem.

[kangajack]

Originally Posted by Hollister

They've ruined the already mildly-ruined SeaDweller. That's the main problem.

The SeaDweller was discontinued twice in the last 9 years. It's hard to comprehend your statement from a rational, objective perspective. You may have loved the watch, but clearly the consumer support for the SeaDweller in its previous iterations wasn't there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cataby]

Originally Posted by kangajack

The SeaDweller was discontinued twice in the last 9 years. It's hard to comprehend your statement from a rational, objective perspective. You may have loved the watch, but clearly the consumer support for the SeaDweller in its previous iterations wasn't there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Finally, a rational take on this

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by landosystem

The larger Sea Dweller does not mean there is a trend in Rolex upsizing. The fact that they stuck on a cyclops to account for the weird position of the date window, rather than develop a new movement for a larger watch, suggests that they aren't planning a line-wide upsizing.

In any event, what's the big problem? The sub is always available for people who want 40mm, and now there is just an additional option for the bigger-wristed.

Well said
If it comes down the a perception of value for money then there's always the economy model Sub.

[Hollister]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Well said
If it comes down the a perception of value for money then there's always the economy model Sub.

These watches aren't expensive. It's an aesthetic problem.

[Calatrava r]

Originally Posted by Hollister

These watches aren't expensive. It's an aesthetic problem.

to first time Rolex buyers which is a large segment of the market. These folks are just able to see past all the costs of transitioning into adult hood and a 1000 bucks is a big deal.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Dirt

...the economy model Sub.

That's an awfully dismissive description of the only true Submariner.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

That's an awfully dismissive description of the only true Submariner.

Yes you're right, I suppose it is somewhat dismissive.
But I believe it's accurate in some circumstances.

I take the position that a person wishing to purchase their first Rolex(preferably a diver) would look upon the non-date Sub as the most affordable option. Period.
I know I did when looking to purchase my first Rolex back in the day before internet forums ever existed. Price is a genuine factor for some.

If we were talking about cars. Any make of car for that matter.
The one without fast glass and central locking, or AC and power steering would've been the economy model.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by landosystem

The larger Sea Dweller does not mean there is a trend in Rolex upsizing. The fact that they stuck on a cyclops to account for the weird position of the date window, rather than develop a new movement for a larger watch, suggests that they aren't planning a line-wide upsizing.

In any event, what's the big problem? The sub is always available for people who want 40mm, and now there is just an additional option for the bigger-wristed.

Of course there's been a Rolex trend of upsizing, but it didn't start with the new SeaDweller. It's been happening over the last decade with maxi-cases, DJII, Explorer 39mm, etc. The SeaDweller is just a bit of a double-down on larger watches, after maybe getting a glimpse of hope with the SD4k.

No matter, Rolex already jumped the shark to me with most of the 6-digit line, and they're not bringing me back.

[Hollister]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Of course there's been a Rolex trend of upsizing, but it didn't start with the new SeaDweller. It's been happening over the last decade with maxi-cases, DJII, Explorer 39mm, etc. The SeaDweller is just a bit of a double-down on larger watches, after maybe getting a glimpse of hope with the SD4k.

No matter, Rolex already jumped the shark to me with most of the 6-digit line, and they're not bringing me back.

Yep.

The OP line is the only one which appeals to me on any level, the OP 39 having particularly fine case, dial and bracelet proportions. A throwback to the elegant-looking Rolex sports watches of old. The irony is that this is their cheapest model, but it's also the only one I'd be seen wearing. The Daytona has escaped the ravages of case inflation, and doesn't look too bad, either.



It wears comparably to a 16610, but has a slimmer profile.

[bmdaia]

When the sub bloats out to 42mm people will smell the Starbucks

Originally Posted by landosystem

In any event, what's the big problem? The sub is always available for people who want 40mm, and now there is just an additional option for the bigger-wristed.

[AK797]

SD43 is larger to fill a clear gap in the market, DD40 and DJ41 are noticeably smaller than their predecessors, no trend here. Subc is selling very well so no need to mess with it.

[Jakx]

Originally Posted by AK797

SD43 is larger to fill a clear gap in the market, DD40 and DJ41 are noticeably smaller than their predecessors, no trend here. Subc is selling very well so no need to mess with it.

correct. Part of the point I was trying to make (obviously not well enough) is that they might have overplayed the size bit with DD and DJ and now have gone back to more reasonable sizes. SD would actually be the opposite direction: anticipating a more traditional demand for 40mm (SD4k) when in fact the market is looking for a larger diver that doesn't quite reach the Deepsea proportions. The larger point is that it's not usual for Rolex to bring these big correctives in such short intervals. One might expect it from Omega but not Rolex, at least historically.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Lausanne

correct. Part of the point I was trying to make (obviously not well enough) is that they might have overplayed the size bit with DD and DJ and now have gone back to more reasonable sizes. SD would actually be the opposite direction: anticipating a more traditional demand for 40mm (SD4k) when in fact the market is looking for a larger diver that doesn't quite reach the Deepsea proportions. The larger point is that it's not usual for Rolex to bring these big correctives in such short intervals. One might expect it from Omega but not Rolex, at least historically.

Yes I do think they respond quicker now, but then we are in an instant internet age so they can access feedback and real customer feelings much more rapidly now.

[GB-man]

I totally understand the move, but I hate it.

Many buyers want a larger sub but want something more well executed than the dssd. Now they have it. I predict this will far outsell the SDc and dssd combined.

[Hollister]

Originally Posted by Lausanne

correct. Part of the point I was trying to make (obviously not well enough) is that they might have overplayed the size bit with DD and DJ and now have gone back to more reasonable sizes. SD would actually be the opposite direction: anticipating a more traditional demand for 40mm (SD4k) when in fact the market is looking for a larger diver that doesn't quite reach the Deepsea proportions. The larger point is that it's not usual for Rolex to bring these big correctives in such short intervals. One might expect it from Omega but not Rolex, at least historically.

Rolex are under new management - a protege of JC Biver, no less - and we know Biver likes huge cartoonish watches. I think they need to slow down with all the changes.

The 16600 is looking very attractive right now.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Hollister

I think they need to slow down with all the changes.

The 16600 is looking very attractive right now.

On the contrary.
I would posit the 16600 is looking dated.
Further, I think the 116600 is now looking irrelevant and little more than a footnote in history