Sky-dweller is Just Too Big

[BMess]

Too big for my small 6.25 inch wrist.

[Kenny G]

It’s a great watch for sure but the DJ41 proportions are much better imo. The SkyD’s thickness is its worst attribute but I guess that’s as thin as Rolex can make it given the movement (so far anyway) and the movement is really what makes it special so it’s a trade-off. The size is like a DJII on steroids…which was already a bit of a beast.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Kenny G

It’s a great watch for sure but the DJ41 proportions are much better imo. The SkyD’s thickness is its worst attribute but I guess that’s as thin as Rolex can make it given the movement (so far anyway) and the movement is really what makes it special so it’s a trade-off. The size is like a DJII on steroids…which was already a bit of a beast.

I agree. I had a SkyDweller and tried it for six months, but it just was too big for me. The thickness was probably the biggest issue. I am sure it is necessary for all those workings inside, but I just couldn’t get used to it.

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by showpro

It's an odd mixture of a dress style, a sports watch, a GMT, an annual calendar...and it's not great at any of them.

Not great at any of them?!? You think the super cool way Rolex shows the months and only added a few parts to achieve an annual calendar (and tossed in a GMT, whereas Patek has to add parts to a perpetual calendar, isn’t special?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rollieo]

I’m ok with the diameter, I have 7.25” wrist and the 42mm doesn’t bother me. On the larger side but I’d say it’s still good.

The watch is too thick, and is just unlike Rolex. All of Rolex watches are in the 12mm range despite complications (gmt or Daytona).

I was hoping with the new release it would’ve been down to 12.5 or below. It would’ve been on my list if it was. Maybe in another few years

[showpro]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

Not great at any of them?!? You think the super cool way Rolex shows the months and only added a few parts to achieve an annual calendar (and tossed in a GMT, whereas Patek has to add parts to a perpetual calendar, isn’t special?

The way it shows the month is innovative. It's not as readable as 3-letter window for the month like most annual calendars use. And it doesn't show the day, either. So, no, it's not a great annual calendar. I don't need it to show me the month--I generally know what month it is. To show it with a red tick mark and make me mentally look around for that little red square and calculate which number the month is--it's not a great calendar. Sorry. It's main utility is that 11 months out of the year it properly advances the date at the end of the month. Really, just 4 months, because any watch with a 31 day date dial covers 7 months properly.

It's also not a great GMT. The little GMT dial is small. GMTs with dedicated hands and rotating bezels are far better at this function than the SD is.

It's not a great sports watch. It's sized like one, but the soft-metal fluted bezel is not a sports watch bezel.

It's not a great dress watch. It has the looks of a Datejust, but it's too thick and large to compete in that arena.

So no, it's not great at any of these things. Like most do-it-all machines, it's suboptimal at any of its goals because it tries to do too much.

I think it would be a better design if it used a ceramic bezel. I'm not sure how that would work with the ring command system and still be usable as a timing bezel--a problem for Rolex to figure out.

But if they did that, you'd have a sports watch at least. Perhaps a dive + GMT watch design with the calendar trick thrown in to boot. It would be a better watch.

[GanymedeWA]

Looks ok on your wrist OP.

Here's mine: https://imgur.com/a/ajCmYYT

It is thick but still thinner than a SD43.

[Calatrava r]

It was way too big and thick for me.

[jackminny15]

Add me to the "too big" crowd. The annual calendar complication is cool but just makes the watch too thick and too heavy. The same look can be accomplished in a much smaller package in a DJ41, albeit without the annual calendar. I figured I would never be confused what month it is, so there was no reason I needed to spend extra for that complication and the added size/weight that came with it.

[Sunstreaker]

It's way too big. It's the nicest movement they make and the functionality is very cool but it's way to much of a top heavy clunker and attention seeker.

On the other hand, I believe that it would break the internet if Rolex were to release a (much) slimmer version of it one day in the future. I suspect it would catapult the model line to GMT or Daytona status at that point.

[DoricSpiker]

Not that much bigger than the DJ. It’s all in your heads!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nav01L]

Oddly, mathematically, the thickness to width ratio of the SkyDweller is nearly the same as a Sub, a DJ36 or a Daytona. Yet it looks and wears very differently. To me, aesthetically, the proportions seem quite similar to my wife’s DJ 31, which I find really pretty (even though the latter has the same thickness to width ratio as the totally different SD43).

Goes to show that you really can’t go at this by the numbers. I personally love how the Sky Dweller wears. But then again, I also like how the highly controversial SD43 wears.

[alphadweller]

A smaller dial would make the second timezone hard to read.

[watchwatcher]

When I look down at a watch, I typically don't think about its size, unless it's way outside the range I feel comfortable with.

And in those cases, I wouldn't have bought it to begin with.

[TomCarter]

Too thick, looks like a datejust on steroids

[Goose 104]

I don't own one but when I have tried it on my 7 in wrist it does wear bigger than I would like however I can forgive it because it is so good looking

[Gunzz]

Gotta love the Sky Dweller. I remember the first time I saw it in person 10 years ago, this lady was wearing it at my gym and it looked amazing, i couldn’t stop looking at it. It fits good on my wrist. But it would definitely gain more popularity if it was 1-2mm smaller. Other than that, it’s perfect.

[thai watch]

They are very substantial in every direction

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by showpro

The way it shows the month is innovative. It's not as readable as 3-letter window for the month like most annual calendars use. And it doesn't show the day, either. So, no, it's not a great annual calendar. I don't need it to show me the month--I generally know what month it is. To show it with a red tick mark and make me mentally look around for that little red square and calculate which number the month is--it's not a great calendar. Sorry. It's main utility is that 11 months out of the year it properly advances the date at the end of the month. Really, just 4 months, because any watch with a 31 day date dial covers 7 months properly.

It's also not a great GMT. The little GMT dial is small. GMTs with dedicated hands and rotating bezels are far better at this function than the SD is.

It's not a great sports watch. It's sized like one, but the soft-metal fluted bezel is not a sports watch bezel.

It's not a great dress watch. It has the looks of a Datejust, but it's too thick and large to compete in that arena.

So no, it's not great at any of these things. Like most do-it-all machines, it's suboptimal at any of its goals because it tries to do too much.

I think it would be a better design if it used a ceramic bezel. I'm not sure how that would work with the ring command system and still be usable as a timing bezel--a problem for Rolex to figure out.

But if they did that, you'd have a sports watch at least. Perhaps a dive + GMT watch design with the calendar trick thrown in to boot. It would be a better watch.

Agreed. It seems designed by committee, IMO.

And quicksetting the date forward five times takes well under a minute of my time, in total, each year.

[Gunzz]

Originally Posted by showpro

The way it shows the month is innovative. It's not as readable as 3-letter window for the month like most annual calendars use. And it doesn't show the day, either. So, no, it's not a great annual calendar. I don't need it to show me the month--I generally know what month it is. To show it with a red tick mark and make me mentally look around for that little red square and calculate which number the month is--it's not a great calendar. Sorry. It's main utility is that 11 months out of the year it properly advances the date at the end of the month. Really, just 4 months, because any watch with a 31 day date dial covers 7 months properly.

It's also not a great GMT. The little GMT dial is small. GMTs with dedicated hands and rotating bezels are far better at this function than the SD is.

It's not a great sports watch. It's sized like one, but the soft-metal fluted bezel is not a sports watch bezel.

It's not a great dress watch. It has the looks of a Datejust, but it's too thick and large to compete in that arena.

So no, it's not great at any of these things. Like most do-it-all machines, it's suboptimal at any of its goals because it tries to do too much.

I think it would be a better design if it used a ceramic bezel. I'm not sure how that would work with the ring command system and still be usable as a timing bezel--a problem for Rolex to figure out.

But if they did that, you'd have a sports watch at least. Perhaps a dive + GMT watch design with the calendar trick thrown in to boot. It would be a better watch.

Thank god you’re not a designer at Rolex. It would look horrendous with a ceramic bezel



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Yobber76]

I think the size is great.

[Pinchy]

It's the dog of the collection. Fantastic achievement and direction but it's really a toss up between this and the YM2 for the least desirable watches in the current catalog. From an aesthetic perspective, it looks like a bloated DJ with a very busy dial.

[PenDelicate]

Originally Posted by Gunzz

Gotta love the Sky Dweller.

Those shots look absolutely gorgeous!

[Gunzz]

Originally Posted by PenDelicate

Those shots look absolutely gorgeous!

[DJ2020]

It's big and tall. If they made a slimmer and smaller 40mm version along side of the 42, sales would dictate a clear winner.

[911991]

I really liked the Sky-d, I have a 7.5 wrist so the size was fine, the weight bothered me a little, I like to wear my watches snug, but I had to wear the Sky-d tight as the weight of the watch would make it rotate on my wrist that made it a little uncomfortable when wearing it for 8 hours or more

[Gunzz]

Originally Posted by DJ2020

It's big and tall. If they made a slimmer and smaller 40mm version along side of the 42, sales would dictate a clear winner.

Obviously the 40mm!! I’d be the first to run to my AD to try and get one haha.

If they would release a 40 version, hopefully it replaces the 42, not alongside.

In the meantime I’ll try to get the new ref. with the Green Mint dial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DJ2020]

Yes, mint green would be nice!

[ttomczak]

I’ve tried it two different times, but I agree, it just never ‘felt’ right for me, an amazing watch to be honest, but not for me.

[amh]

Originally Posted by showpro

The way it shows the month is innovative. It's not as readable as 3-letter window for the month like most annual calendars use. And it doesn't show the day, either. So, no, it's not a great annual calendar. I don't need it to show me the month--I generally know what month it is. To show it with a red tick mark and make me mentally look around for that little red square and calculate which number the month is--it's not a great calendar. Sorry. It's main utility is that 11 months out of the year it properly advances the date at the end of the month. Really, just 4 months, because any watch with a 31 day date dial covers 7 months properly.

It's also not a great GMT. The little GMT dial is small. GMTs with dedicated hands and rotating bezels are far better at this function than the SD is.

It's not a great sports watch. It's sized like one, but the soft-metal fluted bezel is not a sports watch bezel.

It's not a great dress watch. It has the looks of a Datejust, but it's too thick and large to compete in that arena.

So no, it's not great at any of these things. Like most do-it-all machines, it's suboptimal at any of its goals because it tries to do too much.

I think it would be a better design if it used a ceramic bezel. I'm not sure how that would work with the ring command system and still be usable as a timing bezel--a problem for Rolex to figure out.

But if they did that, you'd have a sports watch at least. Perhaps a dive + GMT watch design with the calendar trick thrown in to boot. It would be a better watch.

Rather objective list - I think you're on to something.

I wonder if the hype will eventually wear off? Is it all FOMO-driven?