Deep Sea Thoughts...

[Incurable]

There's been a lot of back and forth since the Deep Sea was announced and especially now that it's starting to show up at AD's. It seems to me, many are trying to fit the DS (DeepSea) into the wrong box. Most of us are desk-divers or relatively so. I clearly don't think the DS was designed or aimed at that market. Regardless, I think many are attempting to view the DS using an old paradigm. The DS is truly a tool watch and that is reflected in it's design. Things like comfort, size, weight, etc. have all taken a back seat to depth rating. I'm sure Rolex made this watch as small as they were comfortable with but not at the cost of depth rating. The resulting product has some inherent compromises that effect the daily wearer pretty significantly, to the point of impractical. IMO, this watch is designed for the professional where weight, size, etc. aren't important in the short term. I don't think the DS fills the need for those just looking for an 'uber' dive watch because they like the idea of it. I admit, I'm one of those. Rolex crossed over that line with this one. That said, at the cost of the SD, was this a good move for Rolex?

For those considering the DS as a daily wearer, it remains to be seen if it works out well for most. Were I Rolex, I would have lowered the depth bar some (technically, raised it) and made a more ergo-friendly upgrade to the SD. I think that's what most of us love about our Rolexes is the fact they are industrial-tough, exquisitely engineered and constructed, attractive watches that are intended to be worn daily. I'm not sure we should be judging the DS by those standards. If you look at it as a true tool watch designed to do a specific job, it's a ground breaker. As a desk-diver's daily wearer, maybe not so much...

What say you?

[gmt master x]

I agree with you. i really think tis about market share as the trend is sport watches hits the 44mm and 45mm scale, i still would like to try the ds on for size, The height and the weight are more of a concern for me. I had a pan 44 luminar on an older model bracelet, That was a very heavy watch, Most of the time it didnt bother me, When it did i couldnt wait to get it off my wrist. The look of the DS minus the lock ring text is in my humble opinion not bad at all. Is there a better fit on the market for my needs,
yes.
thanks for the topic.

[karmatp]

My Deep Sea Thoughts... Why did they change the perfect, wearable SD for the SDDS. That really sums it up for me.

Call me crazy but probably almost every day I think that Rolex made a huge mistake when they discontinued the SD and the classic GMT II. Rolex had my money in their bank when it came to these two watches , but I will never buy the SDDS or the GMT IIC.

[Ed Rooney]

My Deep Sea thoughts: Just put maxi-dial and the ceramic bezel on the current SD. Sorted.

[Gurmot]

The current SD has often been accused of being a little "bulky". That seems quite laughable now we've seen the DS. I love my Z series SD but I suppose a reasonable upgrade would have made it 2mm wider. That's all I would ever change and besides, 1000m is deep enough for anyone.

[AJF]

If the DSSD's customer base is only commercial saturation divers then the market for these watches will be tiny. How many Sat Divers are there out there?

It would not make it cost effective to produce a watch that only a couple of hundred people in the world would ever consider buying.

IMO they are using the Sat and Depth Rating as a way of hooking in more Desk Divers. This is where the volume sales will come from.

AJF.

[vjb.knife]

Originally Posted by Incurable

There's been a lot of back and forth since the Deep Sea was announced and especially now that it's starting to show up at AD's. It seems to me, many are trying to fit the DS (DeepSea) into the wrong box. Most of us are desk-divers or relatively so. I clearly don't think the DS was designed or aimed at that market. Regardless, I think many are attempting to view the DS using an old paradigm. The DS is truly a tool watch and that is reflected in it's design. Things like comfort, size, weight, etc. have all taken a back seat to depth rating. I'm sure Rolex made this watch as small as they were comfortable with but not at the cost of depth rating. The resulting product has some inherent compromises that effect the daily wearer pretty significantly, to the point of impractical. IMO, this watch is designed for the professional where weight, size, etc. aren't important in the short term. I don't think the DS fills the need for those just looking for an 'uber' dive watch because they like the idea of it. I admit, I'm one of those. Rolex crossed over that line with this one. That said, at the cost of the SD, was this a good move for Rolex?

For those considering the DS as a daily wearer, it remains to be seen if it works out well for most. Were I Rolex, I would have lowered the depth bar some (technically, raised it) and made a more ergo-friendly upgrade to the SD. I think that's what most of us love about our Rolexes is the fact they are industrial-tough, exquisitely engineered and constructed, attractive watches that are intended to be worn daily. I'm not sure we should be judging the DS by those standards. If you look at it as a true tool watch designed to do a specific job, it's a ground breaker. As a desk-diver's daily wearer, maybe not so much...

What say you?

I disagree 100%. Deepsea for Professionals; hardly, I think it is aimed directly at desk divers.

First of all why would you think that this statement is true in any way "designed for the professional where weight, size, etc. aren't important". You obviously have no idea what it is like to live in and work from a Saturation System for 2 to 3 weeks where everything is cramped, all the surroundings are metal, there are pipes, tubes, bulkheads with hatches, tools, hoses, etc. all around. And when you are in the water it is no friendlier to a large hunk of metal on your arm that you don't need. This is the perfect place to destroy a $10,000 watch, and I have yet to meet a Professional Diver who was not for the most part cheap except with their drinking.

Professional Saturation Divers don't need a watch rated beyond 1500 feet, because they have never been there and are not likely to go there any time soon. And they don't need a watch that is huge, or one that is expensive and if you want to know the real truth they don't need one at all. And if they did feel that they need a watch it would be much better to have one that had the largest most visible dial rather than taking a downsized dial from even the Submariner. The extreme over-rated depth and expense of this watch screams non-professional diver or desk diver to me. I would challenge you
to present a Professional Saturation Diver that uses this watch in the water unless it was issued and the company asked them to wear it which is extremely unlikely unless it is an advertising scheme by Rolex.

These DSSD's are aimed exactly at the people who will by them the Desk Divers and Sport Scuba Divers who want bragging rights and will never dive them deeper than 100 feet or their local swimming pool.

[Defiancekofb]

I think you should only try to swim in the deep sea if you know how to swim, if not then you should not even attempt to.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by vjb.knife

I disagree 100%. Deepsea for Professionals; hardly, I think it is aimed directly at desk divers.

First of all why would you think that this statement is true in any way "designed for the professional where weight, size, etc. aren't important". You obviously have no idea what it is like to live in and work from a Saturation System for 2 to 3 weeks where everything is cramped, all the surroundings are metal, there are pipes, tubes, bulkheads with hatches, tools, hoses, etc. all around. And when you are in the water it is no friendlier to a large hunk of metal on your arm that you don't need. This is the perfect place to destroy a $10,000 watch, and I have yet to meet a Professional Diver who was not for the most part cheap except with their drinking.

Professional Saturation Divers don't need a watch rated beyond 1500 feet, because they have never been there and are not likely to go there any time soon. And they don't need a watch that is huge, or one that is expensive and if you want to know the real truth they don't need one at all. And if they did feel that they need a watch it would be much better to have one that had the largest most visible dial rather than taking a downsized dial from even the Submariner. The extreme over-rated depth and expense of this watch screams non-professional diver or desk diver to me. I would challenge you
to present a Professional Saturation Diver that uses this watch in the water unless it was issued and the company asked them to wear it which is extremely unlikely unless it is an advertising scheme by Rolex.

These DSSD's are aimed exactly at the people who will by them the Desk Divers and Sport Scuba Divers who want bragging rights and will never dive them deeper than 100 feet or their local swimming pool.

I must say I agree with you.
I am not a diver of any sort, but the whole thing is marketing IMO.
''LOOK WHAT WE CAN DO!!!!''
Nobody needs a watch whatever the size to be capable of 12,000+ feet it is pretty much useless, but a great talking point.
Most Scuba divers will never venture much below 300 feet from what I have been led to believe and as you point out saturation divers 1500 feet, so I can only imagine the whole concept was brought about to beat the depth rating of all other divers watches on the market and create some hype.
That said I have no problem with that as Rolex are a business and businesses are about making money and marketing is very important.

[Courmayeur1]

Everyone usually balks at any change in design direction, especially if they are so passionate about the companies products. BMW is a good example when Mr. Bangle introduced some of his new "designs" which were met with less than enthusiastic reviews... Change is inevitable and, as in the case with BMW, accepted and soon there is no more talk about it. I myself have many of the classic's that Rolex has produced over the years, and continue to buy most of which comes out that I like. I will buy a DSSD on Monday and see what the fuss is all about, I did the same with the Sea Dweller back i the 80's when that was considered a "Monster" as well. Skip ahead to 2028 when the DSSD will be the classic near and dear to all of our elderly hearts.

[astcell]

I bet if DEEP SEA had been written in red, they would fly off the shelves.

[gmtobsessed]

Originally Posted by karmatp

My Deep Sea Thoughts... Why did they change the perfect, wearable SD for the SDDS. That really sums it up for me.

Call me crazy but probably almost every day I think that Rolex made a huge mistake when they discontinued the SD and the classic GMT II. Rolex had my money in their bank when it came to these two watches , but I will never buy the SDDS or the GMT IIC.

X2!
No offence for current owners
I like "old" look more.

[Z-Sub]

on Rolex's part. I agree with that comment.
Already no one dive to 4000 and why one with even deeper rating? Just a way to beat other competitors who makes dive watches as well.

[koronet-kid]

I think we may be missing the point a little, of course a lot of the hype is purely marketing, but is that not how we all got hooked on Rolex watches in the first place?

I am of the opinion that Rolex made this watch just to prove that they could, also they have always pushed the bounderies of watch making through out thier history. of course its over engineered then so is the sea dweller model that it replaces.

I also wonder what percentage of submariner owners actualy go diving(in the sea that is! not muff or desk diving) i suspect its very small, but this watch is clearly marketed as a divers watch. but we all love it because it is probabaly the most iconic watch on the planet.

I am sure that the Deep Sea will grow on us all, just as the Sub and SD before have. (hell i am even starting to like the Yacht master II)

Keep up the good work Rolex.

best regards

sean

[moby33]

Originally Posted by Spark

Most Scuba divers will never venture much below 300 feet from what I have been led to believe

Are you kidding me? 99% of divers will never go below 60-75 ft, let alone 300 ft. Once you start breaking 100 ft on a 'sport' dive the game changes dramatically and there is a very good chance of hurting yourself if you don't know what you're doing due to nitrogen build-up in the body and the need for decompression stops...hence the reason most will not (and should not) go much deeper than 60 ft on a typical sport dive. 300 ft is no joke...you don't see sport divers at that depth EVER.

Kind of like all the guys & gals driving sports cars that can easily do close to 200 mph...99% of those drivers will never break 150 mph...and that's a good thing due to the risk to themselves and others on the road. Cheers.

[moby33]

I don't get all the DS backlash of late...everyone is different and has different tastes. If someone likes the watch and never even takes it into the shower; I say who cares...live & let live for crying out loud. I've said it before & I'll say it again. The Sub is overkill. The SD is overkill. And now the DS is the latest overkill. I dive a lot, but I'll never get close to the Subs depth limit. Does that mean I'm not worthy of wearing my Sub? Of course not.

Many bitch & bitch & bitch about the size of the DS to the point you would think it stole their high school sweetheart and kicked their dog just a few days ago. If you don't like the size & think it's ridiculous then don't buy it & get over the fact that some might like it. I hate vanilla ice cream...but I sure don't bitch & bitch & bitch when my wife eats it. I think there are many watches made for men (a few by Rolex) that are way too small IMO and look like a females watch wrt their size...but you won't catch me bitching about how ridiculous I think it looks and complain ad nauseam about how small, thin, or too dainty looking I think it is.

Yes, the DS is over built & over kill. Yes, the DS is extremely thick. And Yes, 100% of owners will never require its extreme depth rating. And you know what, I'm sure many will think it's the perfect watch and that's all that really matters. Cheers.

[DJF881]

There is no problem that currently exists in the world for which the most efficient solution is a mechanical watch. A Rolex is a product that nobody needs.

The Swiss watchmaking industry persists on the idea that these things are elegant or beautiful or more sophisticated and the notion of exclusivity as a function of luxury; that a product which is handmade by a skilled artisan is more desirable than a product made by machine or industrial process.


The tool mechanical watch is dead because a user seeking a tool will naturally gravitate toward an inexpensive option that has the same functionality.

A quartz watch is a better tool than a mechanical watch, because a quartz keeps better time, doesn't need to be wound, doesn't need to be serviced, and costs far less. I don't really think this will change the mind of anyone who laments Rolex's lost tool heritage, but the advent of quartz necessarily created a circumstance where Rolex was forced to either make quartz watches or reposition itself as a luxury goods company.

I have no doubt that pro divers would not wear a deepsea or even a sub. I am sure most of them wear digital when they dive. Probably true of mountain climbers as well.

Whatever purpose a Rolex is ostensibly designed for, a $6000 watch is necessarily a watch for people who will spend $6000 on a watch.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by DJF881

There is no problem that currently exists in the world for which the most efficient solution is a mechanical watch. A Rolex is a product that nobody needs.

The Swiss watchmaking industry persists on the idea that these things are elegant or beautiful or more sophisticated and the notion of exclusivity as a function of luxury; that a product which is handmade by a skilled artisan is more desirable than a product made by machine or industrial process.


The tool mechanical watch is dead because a user seeking a tool will naturally gravitate toward an inexpensive option that has the same functionality.

A quartz watch is a better tool than a mechanical watch, because a quartz keeps better time, doesn't need to be wound, doesn't need to be serviced, and costs far less. I don't really think this will change the mind of anyone who laments Rolex's lost tool heritage, but the advent of quartz necessarily created a circumstance where Rolex was forced to either make quartz watches or reposition itself as a luxury goods company.

I have no doubt that pro divers would not wear a deepsea or even a sub. I am sure most of them wear digital when they dive. Probably true of mountain climbers as well.

Whatever purpose a Rolex is ostensibly designed for, a $6000 watch is necessarily a watch for people who will spend $6000 on a watch.

Agree on all points. Well said.

[Parachrom]

DS is nice. regardless of desk diver or sat Diver, it is an individual choice to buy or wear or not. choice is what it is about, we now have that choice. . Frankly I would have liked to see Rolex come out with some improvements to the regular SD, namely a ceramic bezel . My bezel markings wore off after continued pounding underwater. The new DS caught my eye. only because I already own a SD. for me it would be nothkng more than a upgraded version of what I had. For someone who does not own a Sd already, it is a huge step to buy something so large. Almost giving the person "size shock" I went through the same shock when i went from a sub to a SD. These are good solid upgrades in the new DS. Do we need them. Not sure, personal choice there. I like teh DS enough and its improvements that to me the few extra dolars (once i square away the finacial aspect) make enough of a difference to want to have this watch. But then again if you already wear a SD, the new DS is only a minor step up

[padi56]

Originally Posted by karmatp

My Deep Sea Thoughts... Why did they change the perfect, wearable SD for the SDDS. That really sums it up for me.

Call me crazy but probably almost every day I think that Rolex made a huge mistake when they discontinued the SD and the classic GMT II. Rolex had my money in their bank when it came to these two watches , but I will never buy the SDDS or the GMT IIC.

Originally Posted by Ed Rooney

My Deep Sea thoughts: Just put maxi-dial and the ceramic bezel on the current SD. Sorted.

Could not agree more but for a tool watch the present bezel is fine its worked well for 20 plus years now, and insert quite cheap to replace if needed.

[cwru32]

Originally Posted by vjb.knife

I disagree 100%. Deepsea for Professionals; hardly, I think it is aimed directly at desk divers.

First of all why would you think that this statement is true in any way "designed for the professional where weight, size, etc. aren't important". You obviously have no idea what it is like to live in and work from a Saturation System for 2 to 3 weeks where everything is cramped, all the surroundings are metal, there are pipes, tubes, bulkheads with hatches, tools, hoses, etc. all around. And when you are in the water it is no friendlier to a large hunk of metal on your arm that you don't need. This is the perfect place to destroy a $10,000 watch, and I have yet to meet a Professional Diver who was not for the most part cheap except with their drinking.

Professional Saturation Divers don't need a watch rated beyond 1500 feet, because they have never been there and are not likely to go there any time soon. And they don't need a watch that is huge, or one that is expensive and if you want to know the real truth they don't need one at all. And if they did feel that they need a watch it would be much better to have one that had the largest most visible dial rather than taking a downsized dial from even the Submariner. The extreme over-rated depth and expense of this watch screams non-professional diver or desk diver to me. I would challenge you
to present a Professional Saturation Diver that uses this watch in the water unless it was issued and the company asked them to wear it which is extremely unlikely unless it is an advertising scheme by Rolex.

These DSSD's are aimed exactly at the people who will by them the Desk Divers and Sport Scuba Divers who want bragging rights and will never dive them deeper than 100 feet or their local swimming pool.

very well reasoned post. what kind of watch professional divers use? can u provide some links?

[Ed Rooney]

Originally Posted by DJF881

There is no problem that currently exists in the world for which the most efficient solution is a mechanical watch. A Rolex is a product that nobody needs.

The Swiss watchmaking industry persists on the idea that these things are elegant or beautiful or more sophisticated and the notion of exclusivity as a function of luxury; that a product which is handmade by a skilled artisan is more desirable than a product made by machine or industrial process.


The tool mechanical watch is dead because a user seeking a tool will naturally gravitate toward an inexpensive option that has the same functionality.

A quartz watch is a better tool than a mechanical watch, because a quartz keeps better time, doesn't need to be wound, doesn't need to be serviced, and costs far less. I don't really think this will change the mind of anyone who laments Rolex's lost tool heritage, but the advent of quartz necessarily created a circumstance where Rolex was forced to either make quartz watches or reposition itself as a luxury goods company.

I have no doubt that pro divers would not wear a deepsea or even a sub. I am sure most of them wear digital when they dive. Probably true of mountain climbers as well.

Whatever purpose a Rolex is ostensibly designed for, a $6000 watch is necessarily a watch for people who will spend $6000 on a watch.

Very well said. I have no misconceptions that these are tool watches anymore. Nowadays it is a luxury to wear something vintage, or vintage in purpose. Some people wear subs or SD's sport diving, but I'm sure the average diver would be more comfortable with something cheaper on their wrist, and just as a backup bottom timer.

These days, when I think of a tool watch, I'm thinking Suunto ABC watches for adventurin', Timex Ironman for fitness, Casio G-shock for all-around abuse, or Citizen Aqualand as a backup for the dive computer.

So, most of us agree that the SD and DSSD aren't really worn by commercial saturation divers anymore, so someone has to wear these watches!

[vjb.knife]

Originally Posted by cwru32

very well reasoned post. what kind of watch professional divers use? can u provide some links?

I was a Saturation Diver and nobody wore watches because you don't need one. I wore one on one Sat just for giggles and it was fine even without a Helium Relief Valve. Nobody on the crews that I knew wore a watch on a regular basis. That also goes for non-saturation professional use.

I wear my Submariner or similar now when I sport dive.

[Green Arrow]

Originally Posted by Ed Rooney

My Deep Sea thoughts: Just put maxi-dial and the ceramic bezel on the current SD. Sorted.

+ 1 Or even take it up to 44 mm, but keep it flatter, simpler, and increase the lume and hand size.

[Green Arrow]

Originally Posted by vjb.knife

I was a Saturation Diver and nobody wore watches because you don't need one. I wore one on one Sat just for giggles and it was fine even without a Helium Relief Valve. Nobody on the crews that I knew wore a watch on a regular basis. That also goes for non-saturation professional use.

I wear my Submariner or similar now when I sport dive.

Vince:

How hard was it for you to adjust to the smaller diameter, less lume capable Submariner after the Glashutte and the Seahawk II Pro 3000? I was thinking about getting a current model Seadweller, but my GMT Master II C looks very small to me compared to my (now former as of yesterday) Seahawk II Pro 3000.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by Green Arrow

Vince:

How hard was it for you to adjust to the smaller diameter, less lume capable Submariner after the Glashutte and the Seahawk II Pro 3000? I was thinking about getting a current model Seadweller, but my GMT Master II C looks very small to me compared to my (now former as of yesterday) Seahawk II Pro 3000.

Obviously I can't speak for Vince, but personally I would say you probably want to stay away from the SD if you're concerned about dial size. I know from experience that the smaller appearing dial & less lume of the SD is hard to get use to when use to larger faced watches w/ more lume. I purchased a SD after going years wearing an Omega SMP Chrono...but after only a limited time of ownership I had to flip the SD in order to purchase a Sub LV w/ the slightly larger looking dial and obvious more lume from the Maxi simply because I could not get over how small the SD dial looked and lack of lume at night. If you think your GMTIIC looks small, the original SD will drive you crazy. Good luck.

[Singslinger]

.

Whatever purpose a Rolex is ostensibly designed for, a $6000 watch is necessarily a watch for people who will spend $6000 on a watch.[/QUOTE]


Well said. Rolex's approach throughout history has been to put its watches out in the market regardless of critcism - just look at how unpopular the Daytona and Explorer II were when they were first introduced. If in time the design proves too unpopular, then it gets discontinued and well, we all know what happened to the prices of those watches. (Recall that until recently there was a range of Daytonas in pink, blue, green and yellow, a range which has been dropped because no one wanted to buy such hideously coloured watches. According to my AD, these watches are now very highly-sought after. In his words "that was a 'fun' range and how often does Rolex do 'fun'?).

It charges what it thinks is a reasonable price and it's attitude is basically "here it is, take it or leave it - and for everyone who chooses to leave it, there will probably be hundreds, maybe thousands who want to take it''.