The SD43 is gearing up to becoming the ultimate Rolex diver...

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by VicLeChic

It's the Super Sub I've wanted for the past few years, I never warmed to the Sub nor the SD4K. From all the side by side pictures measured on screen with a ruler, the size of the dial seems identical to the Sub, SD and DSSD and this is my only gripe with the SD43. They should have slightly increased its size in accordance with the rest (case, bracelet, bezel, thicker hour hand) to keep it more proportionate. Not a deal breaker though, I'm #1 on the waiting list at my local AD, so hopefully should get a phone call soon, I'm excited! However, to take this one home and pay retail I will have to be overwhelmed when seeing it in the metal!

The watch is quite lovely as it stands.
On reflection I can't say I was overwhelmed myself and I think the watch would have definitely benefited from a gloss dial finish for that special wow factor and make the red text pop.

I'm not convinced the dials are the same size.
In the 5 digit series the visible dial diameter was always smaller on the SD as opposed to the Sub and it showed.
I held the SD43 side by side with my D-blue a couple of days ago and the visible dial diameter of the dial on the SD43 was noticeably bigger.

Unless I've been deceived by the magnification of the DSSD curved crystal.
The lume plots were noticeably smaller on the SD43 as well, which all the critics and people measuring with calipers and those scaling watch pics up and down and overlaying the images on the computer haven't picked up on yet. Also the round Mercedes lume plot on the hour hand looks like It's a little smaller in diameter than the one on the DSSD but it appears the Minute hand is fairly comparable in size.

[SeaDweller50]

Originally Posted by Dirt

The watch is quite lovely as it stands.
On reflection I can't say I was overwhelmed my self and I think the watch would have definitely benefited from a gloss dial finish for that special wow factor and make the red text pop.

I'm not convinced the dials are the same size.
In the 5 digit series the visible dial diameter was always smaller on the SD as opposed to the Sub and it showed.
I held the SD43 side by side with my D-blue a couple of days ago and the visible dial diameter of the dial on the SD43 was noticeably bigger.

Unless I've been deceived by the magnification of the DSSD curved crystal.
The lume plots were noticeably smaller on the SD43 as well, which all the critics and people measuring with calipers and those scaling watch pics up and down and overlaying the images on the computer haven't picked up on yet. Also the round Mercedes lume plot on the hour hand looks like It's a little smaller in diameter than the one on the DSSD but it appears the Minute hand is fairly comparable in size.

The dials are the same as used on the Sub's - GMT's - DSSD's and SD4K. Only the writing is different

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Airborne

The dials are the same as used on the Sub's - GMT's - DSSD's and SD4K. Only the writing is different

That all sounds interesting.
Now prove it.

[33JS]

Originally Posted by Airborne

The dials are the same as used on the Sub's - GMT's - DSSD's and SD4K. Only the writing is different

What's your reference for this? I don't believe it, quite frankly!

[Borsika]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

It's nearly impossible to tell without very precise photography, but look how the dial of the SD43 is clearly larger than the Sub's in his other pic. It's obvious just by measuring the screen.

I like the new SD but on the comparison shot it looks definitely like a sub on steroids. The original sub looks nice with any kind of outfit from suit to beach wear. However, the new SD is clearly a masculine sport watch that would look strange with formal clothing.

[VicLeChic]

Originally Posted by Dirt

The watch is quite lovely as it stands.
On reflection I can't say I was overwhelmed my self and I think the watch would have definitely benefited from a gloss dial finish for that special wow factor and make the red text pop.

I'm not convinced the dials are the same size.
In the 5 digit series the visible dial diameter was always smaller on the SD as opposed to the Sub and it showed.
I held the SD43 side by side with my D-blue a couple of days ago and the visible dial diameter of the dial on the SD43 was noticeably bigger.

Unless I've been deceived by the magnification of the DSSD curved crystal.
The lume plots were noticeably smaller on the SD43 as well, which all the critics and people measuring with calipers and those scaling watch pics up and down and overlaying the images on the computer haven't picked up on yet. Also the round Mercedes lume plot on the hour hand looks like It's a little smaller in diameter than the one on the DSSD but it appears the Minute hand is fairly comparable in size.

I have the feeling the dial might appear slightly larger due to the bezel insert being actually larger, as some sort of optical illusion. But when measured with a caliper for real or a ruler on picture, members of this forum and elsewhere are finding no difference in size compared to Sub/SD4K/DSSD with regards to the dial.

However, it will come down to initial impression in the metal and on the wrist. It's got to blow me away. I don't to want to raise my expectations too much. I'd like to remain calm and cool in from of the beast, listen to what she's got to say and take it from there. That's far more important than one millimetre here and there.

[sensui]

Originally Posted by Airborne

The dials are the same as used on the Sub's - GMT's - DSSD's and SD4K. Only the writing is different

No idea if this is the case but it's possible I guess. All I know is Lee Fowler (one of the 1st incomings) took a caliper to the diameter of the dial and measures 27mm around the same as a modern sub dial.....we see multiple pics of the watch next to modern 6 digit subs and SD4K having apparently the same dial size and just a larger bezel/insert.....to me this seems fairly conclusive. But hey, I'm open to more measurements always. Even if the SD43 did really increase the dial size....it is completely miniscule for sure and the bezel is where the gain really is on the face side. That probably is my biggest issue of the watch (OK, and not having manly wrists to rock it lol).

[josephlab]

Originally Posted by sensui

Something that's been bothering me about these types of descriptions for the new SD43......what is the reasoning people say it's perfectly proportioned? I mean, the sea dwellers have always maintained slimmer lugs and reasonable lug to lug lengths away from the norm of the maxi cases....so this followed naturally while increase the case size.....but how is the face of the watch perfectly balanced? We know that the dial measures the same size as a submariner and sd4k (27mm apparently) and the only thing that increased is the bezel/insert size to fill the 43mm size. How does this look balanced? I don't personally think so unless all the dials/bezels previously were unbalanced to start with? Sorry but I still think with the jump to 43mm they should have increased the dial size just like they did with the Explorer II change from 16570 to 216570.

I tried an SD43 on today and agree with your comment. The sub is better looking and possibly the previous seadweller. They have changed the proportion of the bezel to the dial, i.e. Increased it. This is aesthetically a negative in my view. I tried on the Deapsea as well. If you can live with the thickness it is a better looking piece. The domed glass is fantastic.

[33JS]

I've held the SD4k and SD43 crystals together and the SD43 is larger, albeit slightly.

Sent from my SM-G355H using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by VicLeChic

I have the feeling the dial might appear slightly larger due to the bezel insert being actually larger, as some sort of optical illusion. But when measured with a caliper for real or a ruler on picture, members of this forum and elsewhere are finding no difference in size compared to Sub/SD4K/DSSD with regards to the dial.

However, it will come down to initial impression in the metal and on the wrist. It's got to blow me away. I don't to want to raise my expectations too much. I'd like to remain calm and cool in from of the beast, listen to what she's got to say and take it from there. That's far more important than one millimetre here and there.

As you say, initial impressions will be critical in coming to any conclusions.

With reference to my earlier post I had them in my hands side by side a couple of days ago.
I also spent a fair amount of time making comparisons between them without having the luxury of being able to take measurements.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by josephlab

I tried on the Deapsea as well. If you can live with the thickness it is a better looking piece. The domed glass is fantastic.

My sentiments exactly.

However, I think the SD43 is a better looker than the SubC.
It's really hard to make a fair comparison due to the lug width on the SubC and the bezels have different graduations.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by 33JS

I've held the SD4k and SD43 crystals together and the SD43 is larger, albeit slightly.

Sent from my SM-G355H using Tapatalk

That's a rather definitive observation.
Rolex wouldn't go to the trouble of making the crystal larger unless there was a requirement. I imagine cost would become a significant factor.

In reality we are only talking about a Millimetre or a good fraction of, here or there in this instance.

[Ginseng]

Originally Posted by Dirt

That's a rather definitive observation.
Rolex wouldn't go to the trouble of making the crystal larger unless there was a requirement. I imagine cost would become a significant factor.

I'm seeking a bit of context in regard to cost items.

It seems to me that for as long as Rolex has been making these modern watches, they must have cost pretty well worked out of their processes and their capital equipment amortized. So, I wonder how any single item, especially the crystal, can have a significant impact on their cost decisions. Design decisions, of course. But cost?

I own a few watches in the $350-$550 range that have sapphire crystals and in those cases, I can see how a $10 item can be significant if the bill of materials is $100. But on a $12,000 watch? It just doesn't makes sense.

I had always imagined the choices Rolex made to be extremely minimally driven by materials or machining cost. After all, it would probably affect sales not at all if a watch was priced at $11,250 vs $11,750. That is, Rolexes are highly price inelastic. Is this not the case?

Not looking to stir controversy, just trying to understand.

[GradyPhilpott]

I bought my first dive watch back in the seventies, when I worked on the potash mine loading dock filling hoppers for the bulk-loading stations, because I needed a robust, durable watch that also could track elapsed time. I had a two-ton bucket and the belts ran at three tons a minute.

With a little arithmetic, I could take an occasional break and not have the hoppers run dry.

I've been a fan ever since.

I might not dive, but having a durable, iconic watch with a convenient complication is desirable.

My 14060M fulfills those needs perfectly.

I think the same things can be said for any Rolex dive reference.

[SeaDweller50]

Originally Posted by 33JS

What's your reference for this? I don't believe it, quite frankly!

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Ginseng

I'm seeking a bit of context in regard to cost items.

It seems to me that for as long as Rolex has been making these modern watches, they must have cost pretty well worked out of their processes and their capital equipment amortized. So, I wonder how any single item, especially the crystal, can have a significant impact on their cost decisions. Design decisions, of course. But cost?

I own a few watches in the $350-$550 range that have sapphire crystals and in those cases, I can see how a $10 item can be significant if the bill of materials is $100. But on a $12,000 watch? It just doesn't makes sense.

I had always imagined the choices Rolex made to be extremely minimally driven by materials or machining cost. After all, it would probably affect sales not at all if a watch was priced at $11,250 vs $11,750. That is, Rolexes are highly price inelastic. Is this not the case?

Not looking to stir controversy, just trying to understand.

I see your point.
I have also wondered about the overall cost of a crystal, but it's not just about the size, the thickness must play into the equation and this must go up in relation to the required depth rating without taking into consideration the cyclops.
Obviously only Rolex will know the answers and they aren't telling anyone.
We can only surmise.

To me, Rolex has demonstrated a history of being cost conscious in minutiae or in other words they have demonstrated a capacity for penny pinching.
I mean this by the example of the T-rex.
Others may give the example of the bracelet on the DSSD which is allegedly taken directly off the Sub where it should've been scaled up to suit the watch head proportions.

To that is seems to me that every dollar counts in Geneva and a larger crystal must be a factor.
There are bean counters at Rolex too.

Regarding your assumptions about cost comparisons.
It's obvious that a crystal is not a particularly cheap item to produce or they wouldn't be charging around the $300-$400 AUD range for a service replacement.
We as mere mortals aren't privy to the manufacturing processes, degree of difficulty, material specs or specified level of finishing.
But I imagine the tolerances must be absolutely critical for a Saphire crystal on a top of the range Rolex diver.

It all adds up at the end of the day

[Rodrigo082]

Now that I have the SD43, D-Blue, BLNR and a Submariner LV, I can truly tell that the SD43 is indeed the perfect diver watch.

The Deepsea Blue is a amazing watch but I wish they could adjust the bracelet like the SD43.

The new movement, the new case, the bracelet - everything is an amazing upgrade.
It's a daily beater and if you have a male wrist, you Can easily put it on.

The SD4000 it never called my attention, there was not enough differences to the SubC - besides been ticker and non-cyclops.

The SD4000 was a totally mistake from a Rolex and that's why they phase out so quick.

[Rodrigo082]

IMG_3950.JPG

[Rodrigo082]

IMG_3949.JPG

[scooba]

Sorry to arrive here late , Back in May I was in Rolex StJames and talking with a Technichan who said it may very well be possible to swap the crystal out to the one on the Sub non date , she would look at it when she had time. Obviously this wouldn't be something they would be able to do ,

Is anyone brave enough to try , I know there was lots of talk the cyclops just was wrong , but I think we have learned to love it

[Wcdhtwn]

I've had the SD43 for a little over a month and it's great! I also own a GMT LNc. Both sizes work for me, I have a fairly wide wrist and could pull off the DSSD but I didn't like how high it sits on the wrist. I've never owned a 5-digit Rolex reference but I'd imagine the difference in feel of someone going from a Subc to a 5-digit sub is similar in feel from taking off the SD43 and putting on a 40mm ceramic sub/gmt.

[HK Islandboy]

I much prefer the dimensions of the SD43 over the other dive watches. It wears fantastically and is a nice balance of aesthetics and remarkable technical specifications

[Tridor]

Coming to the party a bit late, but I think the SD43 looks out of proportion. Specifically, the width of the bezel, coupled with its "busy-ness," overwhelms the watch. I much prefer the wider lugs on the SubC Date, which keeps the center of the watch proportional to the wrist. Just my $0.02.

[Mrngrz46]

Originally Posted by Smarties

Although dial size are the same, the case diameter is bigger, thus lug to lug is larger (2mm longer than Sub). It wears bigger.

Sorry dial is not the same: hour and minute and second hands are bigger and also chromalight indicator are more spaced. Dial is bigger

[padi56]

Originally Posted by SubMarine

I'm so excited to be buying this game-changing reference later this year!

Cannot see why its going to be the ultimate diver as most real divers today any watch rated to 200m would be fine for all scuba.And would doubt if 90% of all diver type watches bought today ever see any water other than perhaps in the shower or pool.And all of these high depth rated watches will never be used to the max rated depth by man or superman.But saying than my own personal favorite was my late 1990s 16600 SD served me well with over 600 hours underwater used as a working tool .

[Mick P]

Originally Posted by padi56

Cannot see why its going to be the ultimate diver as most real divers today any watch rated to 200m would be fine for all scuba.And would doubt if 90% of all diver type watches bought today ever see any water other than perhaps in the shower or pool.And all of these high depth rated watches will never be used to the max rated depth by man or superman.But saying than my own personal favorite was my late 1990s 16600 SD served me well with over 600 hours underwater used as a working tool .

Rolex dive watches are not purchased to dive with, they are simply a big boys toy. Half of them get taken off when it rains.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Tridor

Coming to the party a bit late, but I think the SD43 looks out of proportion. Specifically, the width of the bezel, coupled with its "busy-ness," overwhelms the watch. I much prefer the wider lugs on the SubC Date, which keeps the center of the watch proportional to the wrist. Just my $0.02.

Now that I own one I can say that the busy bezel graduations and bezel proportions appear very different in the metal to pictures.

Side by side with my Sub in the metal (as opposed to distorted close up pictures) it's proportions seem more classic. Yes the Bezel,is wider. For me that's part of the appeal. The crystal is thicker and the rehaut appears more angled. That adds the perception differences too.

I'd also say the hands and lume plots are the same as the DeepSea but that the DS domed crystal distorts them a little. Could be wrong though.

The dial is definitely a little bigger in diameter than on the the DS and the sub. It's a very small amount however.

[A.I.]

Originally Posted by Mick P

Rolex dive watches are not purchased to dive with, they are simply a big boys toy. Half of them get taken off when it rains.

The other half are just reckless risk takers. I'm one of those who throw caution to the wind....and the rain.