Rolex teaser

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by moby33

To each his/her own...you are correct, it's all a matter of taste. I'm slightly shorter than you and weigh about the same, but 38-40mm just looks like a kids watch on my arm. Yeah I've lost some muscle mass as I've aged and now spend more time chasing my 4 kids under age 6 instead of the gym, but my forearms can still represent (I only lost 1 arm wrestling match when I was in the military years ago and that was to a legit national arm wrestling champ...which BTW...he DESTROYED me...but I digress) and because of that, watches of 40mm (and less) just look small. You don't need to be a silverback to see that point.

My desire for 42mm is because (like many I assume), I lust for the "perfect" all-around watch FOR ME. I don't know why, but I fantasy about giving up my whole collection and going with only one. The 40mm Sub (or SD) doesn't do it, nor does the 44mm DSSD. For guys like me, 42mm would be the absolute sweet spot.

I'm not asking guys like you to "let go" loving the SD or SDc, but maybe open your minds that there's no such thing as "the perfect watch size". And because of that point, I'm of the camp that thinks it's a great idea for Rolex to FINALLY provide a 40, 42 & 44mm dive watch option. Fingers crossed...

I have to side with Moby here, I'm a short (fat and ugly) dude with a small wrist, don't ask me what size but I'm sure it's small. One of the main reasons I purchased my EX II was the 42MM size, I just like it better. A 40, yeah, it's OK, but I really hope they bring out the DJ41 in SS as I'll also be picking one of those up, I just like them bigger then the 'standard" 40. To all of you that claim 40MM is the optimum size and making a model in 42 is an insult to horlology, some people just prefer a bigger watch; simple.

[Bigsykedaddy]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I have to side with Moby here, I'm a short (fat and ugly) dude with a small wrist, don't ask me what size but I'm sure it's small. One of the main reasons I purchased my EX II was the 42MM size, I just like it better. A 40, yeah, it's OK, but I really hope they bring out the DJ41 in SS as I'll also be picking one of those up, I just like them bigger then the 'standard" 40. To all of you that claim 40MM is the optimum size and making a model in 42 is an insult to horlology, some people just prefer a bigger watch; simple.

I too hope they bring out the DJ 41 in SS. It actually measures 39.25 mm and I think that's why I like it more than the DJ II (and the proportions.) I have 7-7.25'' wrists and I think 42 mm is too big on me (I think it has to do with wrist / forearm shape too.) I think they should offer all sorts of sizes so everyone can get a watch that is perfect on them.

I hope we see a nice sunburst blue dial on the DJ 41 SS next week

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Bigsykedaddy

I too hope they bring out the DJ 41 in SS. It actually measures 39.25 mm and I think that's why I like it more than the DJ II (and the proportions.) I have 7-7.25'' wrists and I think 42 mm is too big on me (I think it has to do with wrist / forearm shape too.) I think they should offer all sorts of sizes so everyone can get a watch that is perfect on them.

I hope we see a nice sunburst blue dial on the DJ 41 SS next week

Here's to it hapening Anthony! I think our chances are pretty good,it makes sense to release it in SS this year.

[Bigsykedaddy]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Here's to it hapening Anthony! I think our chances are pretty good,it makes sense to release it in SS this year.

Yeah man I think we're going to be happy

[pd999]

Originally Posted by Bigsykedaddy

I too hope they bring out the DJ 41 in SS.

[Number3]

Originally Posted by moby33

To each his/her own...you are correct, it's all a matter of taste. I'm slightly shorter than you and weigh about the same, but 38-40mm just looks like a kids watch on my arm. Yeah I've lost some muscle mass as I've aged and now spend more time chasing my 4 kids under age 6 instead of the gym, but my forearms can still represent (I only lost 1 arm wrestling match when I was in the military years ago and that was to a legit national arm wrestling champ...which BTW...he DESTROYED me...but I digress) and because of that, watches of 40mm (and less) just look small. You don't need to be a silverback to see that point.

My desire for 42mm is because (like many I assume), I lust for the "perfect" all-around watch FOR ME. I don't know why, but I fantasy about giving up my whole collection and going with only one. The 40mm Sub (or SD) doesn't do it, nor does the 44mm DSSD. For guys like me, 42mm would be the absolute sweet spot.

I'm not asking guys like you to "let go" loving the SD or SDc, but maybe open your minds that there's no such thing as "the perfect watch size". And because of that point, I'm of the camp that thinks it's a great idea for Rolex to FINALLY provide a 40, 42 & 44mm dive watch option. Fingers crossed...

Good points well made. I for one would love to see a larger option.

[Toivonen]

Originally Posted by GB-man

No offense as it's all a matter of taste but you would have to have arms like a silverback for me to think 40mm didn't look good on ya.

I'm 6'3" 225 and my wrist is around 7-7.25 and I cannot fathom how anyone would think 38-40 is not the optimal size aesthetically.

To get to the point, I'm sorry if you can't find a Rolex that suits your needs but many of us adore the SDc...it's not something we want to let go of

[deuxani]

When you compare the Daytona (which isn't a big watch) to the dark teaser, those two extra buttons/pushers/crowns look tiny:



Also, the crown itself looks small too. So the most logical explanation is that this is a dress watch and most probably, as many already noticed, a Cellini or Sky-Dweller. Actually the crown looks more Sky-Dweller like.

[jagwap]

Originally Posted by deuxani

When you compare the Daytona (which isn't a big watch) to the dark teaser, those two extra buttons/pushers/crowns look tiny:



Also, the crown itself looks small too. So the most logical explanation is that this is a dress watch and most probably, as many already noticed, a Cellini or Sky-Dweller. Actually the crown looks more Sky-Dweller like.

It's only the top of crown and pushers, so that will look different.

The pitch of the groves looks different.

[chris975d]

Originally Posted by GB-man

No offense as it's all a matter of taste but you would have to have arms like a silverback for me to think 40mm didn't look good on ya.



I'm 6'3" 225 and my wrist is around 7-7.25 and I cannot fathom how anyone would think 38-40 is not the optimal size aesthetically.



To get to the point, I'm sorry if you can't find a Rolex that suits your needs but many of us adore the SDc...it's not something we want to let go of

But there are many people with wrists much larger than yours. Over 7.5", and a 40mm Rolex starts looking rather small. I've seen many, many wrist shots on this forum of people wearing 40mm Rolexes and the watch just frankly looks way too small for their wrist. Any time you have more "wrist" showing on top and bottom of the watch case than you have covered up by said case, the watch looks too small.

[GMT13]

To me, looks like possible use of these patents below. Possibly a new twin time or something of the sort

[Nav01L]

Originally Posted by Bigsykedaddy

I too hope they bring out the DJ 41 in SS. It actually measures 39.25 mm and I think that's why I like it more than the DJ II (and the proportions.) I have 7-7.25'' wrists and I think 42 mm is too big on me (I think it has to do with wrist / forearm shape too.) I think they should offer all sorts of sizes so everyone can get a watch that is perfect on them.

I hope we see a nice sunburst blue dial on the DJ 41 SS next week

Given that Rolex sizes come from somewhere between #alternativefacts and #fakenews anyway (same with the Daytona which is no 38.5mm, everyone says so, SAD), the problem is that naming a new SD '42mm' may still just bring us a 40mm watch. Why can't Rolex state their watches' proper sizes by the way?

[Nav01L]

Originally Posted by chris975d

But there are many people with wrists much larger than yours. Over 7.5", and a 40mm Rolex starts looking rather small. I've seen many, many wrist shots on this forum of people wearing 40mm Rolexes and the watch just frankly looks way too small for their wrist. Any time you have more "wrist" showing on top and bottom of the watch case than you have covered up by said case, the watch looks too small.

Coming from a proud Silverback: Amen!

[904VT]

Originally Posted by chris975d

But there are many people with wrists much larger than yours. Over 7.5", and a 40mm Rolex starts looking rather small. I've seen many, many wrist shots on this forum of people wearing 40mm Rolexes and the watch just frankly looks way too small for their wrist. Any time you have more "wrist" showing on top and bottom of the watch case than you have covered up by said case, the watch looks too small.

Would take a large large wrist to get to that level. My wrist is 7.5-7.75 depending on how much I've been hitting the gym, weather, etc. I think there's a lot of room left. I'd guess you would need to have a wrist the size of the Rock and probably still wouldn't look too bad. The 40mm maxi cases are bigger still

[Mystro]

I would love a +40mm new Rolex as 42-44mm fit my wrist better. Either way I am excited Rolex may be coming out with something new rather than the same watch with a different dial color.

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by moby33

My desire for 42mm is because (like many I assume), I lust for the "perfect" all-around watch FOR ME. I don't know why, but I fantasy about giving up my whole collection and going with only one. The 40mm Sub (or SD) doesn't do it, nor does the 44mm DSSD. For guys like me, 42mm would be the absolute sweet spot.

I'm not asking guys like you to "let go" loving the SD or SDc, but maybe open your minds that there's no such thing as "the perfect watch size". And because of that point, I'm of the camp that thinks it's a great idea for Rolex to FINALLY provide a 40, 42 & 44mm dive watch option. Fingers crossed...

I understand. Hey at least I already have my 116600 frankly i can and do wear 42mm as I adore the pelagos. If they can manage to make the caseback a touch flatter it may be something I fall for

Originally Posted by moby33

You and Tony might think this looks good, but I do not. As you said...all a matter of taste.

That looks like a 34mm not a 40

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I have to side with Moby here, I'm a short (fat and ugly) dude with a small wrist, don't ask me what size but I'm sure it's small. One of the main reasons I purchased my EX II was the 42MM size, I just like it better. A 40, yeah, it's OK, but I really hope they bring out the DJ41 in SS as I'll also be picking one of those up, I just like them bigger then the 'standard" 40. To all of you that claim 40MM is the optimum size and making a model in 42 is an insult to horlology, some people just prefer a bigger watch; simple.

Paul you beat yourself up far too much for a former fighter pilot. More maverick less goose

I don't think watches over 40 are an insult lol just less than ideal for those with wrists under 8" aesthetically. To be honest my range is 38-44 but I need to love the watch to go outside of 40-42.

Originally Posted by chris975d

But there are many people with wrists much larger than yours. Over 7.5", and a 40mm Rolex starts looking rather small. I've seen many, many wrist shots on this forum of people wearing 40mm Rolexes and the watch just frankly looks way too small for their wrist. Any time you have more "wrist" showing on top and bottom of the watch case than you have covered up by said case, the watch looks too small.

In that scenario the guy would have to have an 8.5" wrist or more.

[subtona]

Looking at the lip, I'm wondering,
Exposed movement or homage to movement.


My best guess would be a Cellini chrono w officer type case back for this one.

[bdex75]

Originally Posted by GMT13

To me, looks like possible use of these patents below. Possibly a new twin time or something of the sort

Hence the "XL" cyclops proportions.

I think the big cyclops is on a DJ/Cellini type model and the SD50 is a completely different animal. If they do go 43mm as RPR suggested I hope it is all dial, not the ring like inside of a dssd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jagwap]

Originally Posted by bdex75

Hence the "XL" cyclops proportions.

I think the big cyclops is on a DJ/Cellini type model and the SD50 is a completely different animal. If they do go 43mm as RPR suggested I hope it is all dial, not the ring like inside of a dssd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think the cyclops is XL, unless the whole watch is especially big.

The material being stretched over it is blurring the edges.

[THEPAM687]

Could be a cushion case whatever it is it's a twin pusher bezel new line

[904VT]

Originally Posted by bdex75

Hence the "XL" cyclops proportions.

I think the big cyclops is on a DJ/Cellini type model and the SD50 is a completely different animal. If they do go 43mm as RPR suggested I hope it is all dial, not the ring like inside of a dssd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're right, the cyclops does look especially large proportion to the rest of the crystal.

I haven't read many mention a new DJ 36 with 3235 movement, but perhaps that's an option too

[Bernie.H.]

Originally Posted by moby33

Well thank you my good man. I wouldn't go so far as to personally say I hate the 40mm, but it's just too small on my wrist as well (hence the reason I constantly go back & forth between the DSSD & Sub). I just get annoyed when people say, "DON'T produce a 42mm watch...40mm is PERFECT!!!" Perfect for whom? Yeah, a lot of people look great in a 40mm watch, but some of us, not so much.

I'll never forget the first Rolex I got (ironically it was a SeaDweller back in 2006). My main daily wearer at the time was my Omega Seamaster Pro Chrono at 42mm. You can imaging how deflated I felt when I put it on and thought, "Damn, this looks too small...but I'll give it some time to adjust to it." My disappointment only grew exponentially when my wife got home and instantly declared, "That looks like a girls watch on your wrist!" Great, thanks dear!

The point is, people have to remember that 42mm on some wrists looks identical to 40mm on others...so saying "Don't change, don't offer a 42mm..." really annoys me because I take it as a very closed-minded statement. A coworker (who happens to be significantly shorter & less weight than I am) sports a non-date Sub and sure enough, that watch looks more massive on his wrist than my DSSD looks on mine.

Rolex has been in desperate need of a 42mm dive watch to go inbetween the iconic Sub and new(ish) DSSD...what better model than the SD? As for the cyclops debate...I've already given my 2 (probably closer to 15) cents on the topic. As long as they produce a 42-43mm SS diver, I'll be happy with or without the cyclops...I'm just not going to get worked up over its inclusion to the point some people get.

Good posts Moby33

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by chris975d

But there are many people with wrists much larger than yours. Over 7.5", and a 40mm Rolex starts looking rather small. I've seen many, many wrist shots on this forum of people wearing 40mm Rolexes and the watch just frankly looks way too small for their wrist. Any time you have more "wrist" showing on top and bottom of the watch case than you have covered up by said case, the watch looks too small.

I'm the opposite. I have a 7" wrist and wished the 40mm looked smaller on my wrist, because I love the way classic watches look and feel. I'd probably be into original sized, 37mm Sub and Daytona watches.

I'd have to have well over an 8" to even start thinking about going over 40mm. I don't know, maybe it's too "hipster" or whatever, but small watches are becoming popular again. Go over to Hodinkee, and the most common complaints about new models is that they're too big.

What I like about my 16570 is that it effectively wears like my 36mm DJ, since they have the same dial size. A small watch just makes arms look bigger, which I don't think is a bad thing. Granted, it doesn't really make a difference to me, because Rolex designs already jumped the shark for me.

[chris975d]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I'm the opposite. I have a 7" wrist and wished the 40mm looked smaller on my wrist, because I love the way classic watches look and feel. I'd probably be into original sized, 37mm Sub and Daytona watches.

I'd have to have well over an 8" to even start thinking about going over 40mm. I don't know, maybe it's too "hipster" or whatever, but small watches are becoming popular again. Go over to Hodinkee, and the most common complaints about new models is that they're too big.

What I like about my 16570 is that it effectively wears like my 36mm DJ, since they have the same dial size. A small watch just makes arms look bigger, which I don't think is a bad thing. Granted, it doesn't really make a difference to me, because Rolex designs already jumped the shark for me.

The thing that looks "weird" (to me) is when they (Rolex) have tried to somewhat give in to the pressures of people wanting a bigger watch, and upsized the case instead of the dial as they did on the maxi case Sub. I don't like the look of a smaller dial in a larger, swollen case. It kills the proportions that the watches weee always known for.

[Flywheel]

Arguing that a 40mm watch is perfect and should never be changed or diversified is like saying suits should only be offered in size 40 regular.

[mps354]

Originally Posted by subtona

Looking at the lip, I'm wondering,
Exposed movement or homage to movement.


My best guess would be a Cellini chrono w officer type case back for this one.

[chris975d]

Originally Posted by Flywheel

Arguing that a 40mm watch is perfect and should never be changed or diversified is like saying suits should only be offered in size 40 regular.

Agreed. Hard to call one size perfect/standard for people with varying body/arm sizes and preferences isn't the best idea. There's two different sized DateJusts, which is arguably Rolexes most known/iconic model. So why not at least two different dial sizes in the diver?

[Tony-GB]

Originally Posted by Flywheel

Arguing that a 40mm watch is perfect and should never be changed or diversified is like saying suits should only be offered in size 40 regular.

You nailed it. Discussion is over.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by chris975d

The thing that looks "weird" (to me) is when they (Rolex) have tried to somewhat give in to the pressures of people wanting a bigger watch, and upsized the case instead of the dial as they did on the maxi case Sub. I don't like the look of a smaller dial in a larger, swollen case. It kills the proportions that the watches weee always known for.

It works perfectly for me, the larger 42mm feel works better on me as I don't like too much of my wrists showing, as pretty as they are, and I find the 42 Exp 2 to be too wide on me and not so well balanced. As this all shows, each to their own and Rolex are in the business of satisfying as many as possible so they will cater for many tastes and looks like the 42/3 SDc is filling another gap.

[Gunbucker]

Welp, we'll know for sure in 3 days' time...