User experience with SD43 - picture heavy!

[pl2se]

Most of you have read quite a bit about the new SD43 so I won’t give any back ground to the Sea Dweller line of watches. You all know that this is a serious tool watch that over time has developed into a extremely well engineered mechanical jewelry. (ok guys, let’s be honest – whom of us actually dives with it?) This is my initial thoughts after owning the 126600 almost 3 months. I was probably among the first in Sweden to actually get hold of one.

My first Rolex was a Sea Dweller 16600 which I bought in Italy a few years back. Box & papers, booklets, service card from Rolex and receipts. For what I know only thing that was missing was the hangtags and anchor. Considering it was from 1994 it was in a great shape. Probably because of the SC overhaul. Tritium indexes had started to turn a bit warmer and it looked really nice. You all know about the bracelet and sometimes I worn it on a brown leather strap. The brown strap complemented the slightly warm indexes and gave the watch a bit of a vintage look. I used the 16600 quite a bit so I do know how it compares to the 126600.

The second one I bought/traded was a GMT 1675 from around 1972/73 on a later bracelet. It shows some nice patina both on the hands and the dial. The tritium on the hands have cracked a bit and maybe I should have my watchmaker to stabilize it with some lacquer on its back? Indexes has turned yellowish, but not even. They are all slightly toned color wise from the edges towards the center. Moist? Maybe, but the movement looks really nice and It runs very well. I still have own it but I´m contemplating to sell it.
The third one was a GMT16700 from around 1990. On a jubilee bracelet, original with visible chamfers and all. Box and papers. I have not worn the 16700 very much so I won’t elaborate on wearing experience but I have noticed how comfortable the jubilee bracelet is.

As soon as I saw the release of the 126600 in Basel I understood that it was doomed to be a rare piece. At least in the beginning. So lining up for one was an easy decision since I didn’t have to pay any deposit. If I didn’t like I could let It pass. So the day after, as soon as the boutiques opened, I started to call around. I put myself on a que at three Rolex stores. And lo and behold – in June I got the call from one of the dealerships.

I live far away from any Rolex store so I had it shipped to my home. Unboxing it was not as exciting as I had expected. I have for a long time wished to buy a new Rolex but my newly found experience is that its more exciting to unbox an old watch that has been bought at an online auction. A new watch is new, an auction find could be everything from a total failure to extremely good. Pealing of all the protective plastic from the SD43 was tedious task. Last piece was actually removed last week, almost 3 months later…

If you’re on this forum I know you have seen a lot of pictures of the watch itself. The brushed bracelet, the polished sides of the case, the HEV (which I don’t pay a lot of interest in) ceramic bezel (my first) and of course the date magnifier. It wears smaller than expected. I have worn an Omega GSOTM, 44,25mm – 16mm thickness. The 126600 feels smaller but slightly thicker. Sometimes my shirt sleeve get stuck on the bezel even if the Rolex is 1mm thinner than the Omega. That’s because of the bezels very rough edges. One thing I do miss is the bevels that’s visible on the old cases. I do like the slightly thinner lugs compared with the other sports models.

And now on to the “elephant in the room” – the date magnifier.

Parts of the Rolex community have gone through the roof about Rolex putting on the date magnifier and increasing the size. A lot of people are praising the previous 116600, but please remind yourself about some of the reviews and opinions from 2014:

“it wears well and looks great, but it doesn't create enough space between Rolex Sea-Dweller and the more affordable, thinner and arguably more practical Submariner. While few, if any, will utilize the considerable increase in water resistance and the helium escape valve, the Deepsea has already proven there is a market for larger Rolex dive watches and the Rolex Sea-Dweller might have had a wider appeal at 42mm.”

“the new case is also less refind than the one on the earlier model, just as with the other Rolex sports watches”

“…16600 is Rolex at its absolutely best”

“…never cared for the added features of the 116600”

I don’t want to trash the 116600, it’s a really nice watch, but I think that the debate about size and magnifier will stop and maybe eventually SD43 will be praised in the same way the 116600 opinion has turned (well… as with the 126600 - quite a few loved it from the beginning!).

The 43 mm size, and the wider bracelet, makes the watch a lot more balanced than the 16600. The difference it big and noticeable. Even more so the new clasp and its extension mechanism. I don’t care much about the diver extension and after removing it I think that the clasp sits better, more centered on my wrist. I have worn the watch about 6 weeks in total and of course it now have a few “scars”. Noting big but you can easy see it on the bracelets brushed parts. I understand its totally normal and that it’s easy to remove. But just as with a new car, you DO see he first small blemishes as well as a stoplight on a dark empty road! Remember that this is my first new watch since 1997.

The ceramic bezel is also a new experience for me. At least on a Rolex. (GSOTM is all ceramic). It’s very beautiful with its glossy shine. It reflects light in a nice way looking anywhere between dark black and steelish gray. The dial has a similar way of behaving. Most of the time I don’t think it looks matte, but sometimes, in certain angles, it is very obvious. Maybe its somewhere between the glossy 16600 dial and the 116600? Lume is very good. The wider hands and indexes, compared with the GSOTM, makes it a lot easier to see in the dark. This morning it was clearly visible after 7h in total darkness.

I have now worn the watch for a couple of weeks. Since I put it on I have been using the app Twixter to measure how it keeps time. If I wanted exact time I could have bought a Casio Quartz but the new, top notch movement, impresses me a lot. As of today it measures -1,1s a day.
All in all – I´m very happy with the 126600!

BR
/Peter

[HK Islandboy]

Great post! It is a superb watch

[dr.fiddy]

Thanks for sharing :)

[watchwatcher]

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by HK Islandboy

Great post! It is a superb watch

X2


Until last Friday, of the Rolex watches I've owned, my 16600 was my favourite. As of Friday, my SD43 now takes that crown (sorry - bad pun)

There is literally nothing I would change.

At first I did wonder if a glossy dial like the 16600 would have been nice, but the satin dial is more appropriate as it doesn't reflect.

And I am a big fan (now) of the most controversial point. The cyclops. For two reasons.

The first is quite simple. My distance vision is perfect, but as happens with age, my close up vision isn't as good as it once was. But the cyclops lets me read the date without the need ofr any optical enhancement.

The second is asthetic. For those of you who hate the cyclops becase of how it looks, please consider this. The cyclops actually helps balance this watch. And heres's why:

The 116600 has, in my opinion, one small asthetic issue. One of those "what has been seen cannot be unseen" moments. It's date window is too far inset which spoils the symmetry, especially when compared to the 16600. Its not a lot, but to me its quite noticable. It's something I've read often on this forum so I know I'm not alone in that though.

I believe we're all agreed that the SD43 has a slightly larger dial. The inset is slightly more again. What the cyclops does is follow the curve of the hour markers above and below and at the same time better balancing the 9 o'clock lume stick opposite. I've come to appreciate that the cyclops actually helps the asthetic balance of the watch, rather than detracting from it. So for me its a a win-win.

[joejoe1225]

Awesome Piece!!!

[ap1]

Nice write up Peter and great new watch

[BVLDARI]

nice post. thanks for sharing. cool pics.

[Danny83]

Nice

[Boaters]

Great Write up I can't wait to try one on someday.

[pl2se]

Thank you all for you kind words. As I told you I started calling the Rolex store 10.00 sharp (opening time) the day after release in Basel. I put myself in que at a couple of stores. And obviously it payed off. Yesterday another store called me offering a second SD43. And no - I didn't buy that one to sell quickly...

Maybe I'm a dump *s?
: )

/Peter

[A.I.]

Great post thanks.

Love mine - simple as.

[strafer_kid]

Great post ......great watch!

[HK Islandboy]

Originally Posted by Devildog

X2


Until last Friday, of the Rolex watches I've owned, my 16600 was my favourite. As of Friday, my SD43 now takes that crown (sorry - bad pun)

There is literally nothing I would change.

At first I did wonder if a glossy dial like the 16600 would have been nice, but the satin dial is more appropriate as it doesn't reflect.

And I am a big fan (now) of the most controversial point. The cyclops. For two reasons.

The first is quite simple. My distance vision is perfect, but as happens with age, my close up vision isn't as good as it once was. But the cyclops lets me read the date without the need ofr any optical enhancement.

The second is asthetic. For those of you who hate the cyclops becase of how it looks, please consider this. The cyclops actually helps balance this watch. And heres's why:

The 116600 has, in my opinion, one small asthetic issue. One of those "what has been seen cannot be unseen" moments. It's date window is too far inset which spoils the symmetry, especially when compared to the 16600. Its not a lot, but to me its quite noticable. It's something I've read often on this forum so I know I'm not alone in that though.

I believe we're all agreed that the SD43 has a slightly larger dial. The inset is slightly more again. What the cyclops does is follow the curve of the hour markers above and below and at the same time better balancing the 9 o'clock lume stick opposite. I've come to appreciate that the cyclops actually helps the asthetic balance of the watch, rather than detracting from it. So for me its a a win-win.

(Not to start a mutual appreciation society or anything ) But I have exactly the same view on the SD43's cyclops. It adds to the watch rather and certainly doesn't detract from its appeal

[KrismanX]

This should be moved to the Watch Reviews section! Great write up! You're tuggin at my wallet strings, bro

[carlhaluss]

It is a gorgeous watch to be sure, and thank you for your excellent review, photos, and history of other watches.
While I do really appreciate this watch, I was more impressed with it's predecessor. Simply because of the engineering that would have to go into creating a relatively small diver watch with such an incredible depth rating. That is just how I feel, not being a engineer in any way. I do prefer the looks of the cyclops, and a lot of other aesthetic features. However, I don't think I could go for one, just for the reason I pointed out. If I went with a Rolex diver it would be the Sub 114060.
Nevertheless, it's rarity precludes any chance of my trying one on my wrist, let alone even seeing one in real life. Perhaps if I ever do get that chance it might make me change my mind!
Congratulations!
Carl

[Rodrigo082]

Great review and I totally agreed with you. After owning many Rolex models (Submariner LV, GMT BLNR, Deepsea Blue, Daytona 116500) I can definitely say that the SD43 is the perfect watch.

I was waiting so many years to find the perfect watch and here it's - the SD43

[RolexEDC]

I wear mines daily also, only wish the bezel would "lock" in the 12 position like the new Tudor watches. A lil bump or adjusting my shirt catches the bezel and always move it slightly off

[Singslinger]

Originally Posted by RolexEDC

I wear mines daily also, only wish the bezel would "lock" in the 12 position like the new Tudor watches. A lil bump or adjusting my shirt catches the bezel and always move it slightly off

Ah so, this was a problem I encountered with my Deepsea - a bezel that turns a little too easily. I wonder if it's common to all new Sea-Dwellers?

To the OP - great post about a really great watch!

[regnant]

Thanks for sharing and posting a run down for it
Happy Days

[1William]

Great review and I agree with your points. I have owned my SD43 almost since release and for me it is everything I have ever wanted in a Rolex dive watch. For me this could be a one and only if I had too. There are a lot of options for anyone looking at a Rolex Diver.

[Racerdj]

Great write up!

[sager]

Excellent photos!

[ejvette]

Great review

[gummy]

Great pics!

[VicLeChic]

Thanks for the great shots and nice writeup. Congratulations on this fantastic piece of Rolex history.

Purists might not like it but I believe Rolex did the right thing with this Sea-Dweller. It's nice to see them trying new ways to please customers who were asking for a larger size. Very similar watch to the 116600,, but different. Still the Rolex way, a slow evolution rather than a revolution.

I had to have it too!

[A.I.]

Originally Posted by VicLeChic

It's nice to see them trying new ways to please customers who were asking for a larger size. Very similar watch to the 116600,, but different. Still the Rolex way, a slow evolution rather than a revolution.

Spot on! The larger size is amazing but not overpowering. I've been lucky over the years to own many Rolex - this one is the first one to feel 100% right.

09.09.17 AD2.jpg