Rolex teaser

[ragingcao]

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.

My thoughts exactly. That's why I don't think they're chrono pushers. Perhaps moonphase or calendar sort of setters. Dress watch likely.

[Scapegoat]

Can't wait for the next teaser!

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by Scapegoat

Can't wait for the next teaser!

I know! Keep checking Rolex Instagram

[rjstuf001]

Originally Posted by ragingcao

My thoughts exactly. That's why I don't think they're chrono pushers. Perhaps moonphase or calendar sort of setters. Dress watch likely.

A dress watch wouldn't have such a wide bezel. It's probably a sports model. My guess is a new YM2. The proportions between the crown/pushers and the case seem to match.

[diverdoug]

It will be interesting to see how it looks with the small pushers.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by GB-man

I know! Keep checking Rolex Instagram

Doubt we get one their habit is 1 instagram per week.

[douglasf13]

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.

No, that's exactly the problem. We've gone from sizing according to what makes sense for the device to sizing according to what people think looks good on their arm. Long ago, Rolex decided that 34-40mm was the right combination of legibility and bulkiness for most wearers, and I think that still holds true today.

Now many Rolex wearers have essentially turned into clothes shoppers who obsess about color options and "wrist presence." :banged:

Of course, from a sales perspective, Rolex should probably just make a Sub in several sizes, like Omega, but it certainly gets us just another step further from the brand it used to be...which is important, considering mechanical watches themselves are an anachronism.

[Xerxes77]

Maybe a Sub chrono

[lecorsaire]

It must be a Sea Dweller. Can't really be anything else. The markers on the bezel are in the typical Sub/SD/DSSD positions. The 43mm red SD rumor is probably true.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by Bigsykedaddy

I think they should offer all sorts of sizes so everyone can get a watch that is perfect on them.

BINGO...that's what I've been saying for years. My first love was Omega (and those that know me know I use to be somewhat anti-Rolex as I loved their watches, but didn't like the cheap clasps that weren't on-par w/ the head). At any rate, I became a HUGE fan once they introduced the Glidelock and I haven't looked back since.

And while I absolutely love the history and traditions of Rolex, I also have been wishing they would diversify their offerings. I'm not necessarily advocating bringing out new (and "limited ed") models as frequently as say Omega (personally I think Omega changes too often), but there's got to be a happy balance. I like how Rolex has recently been offering a few different case sizes, yet not really changing the style of their iconic watches. To me that's the perfect blend of old & new.

The world is made up of MANY different body sizes & shapes, it's time Rolex starts offering a few more options in sizes, in addition to still providing watches of "classic" proportions. That way EVERYONE can partake in Rolex ownership without compromise.

And just to open up a whole other can of worms to all those purists out there...I'll still gladly take a Daytona-Date when Rolex is ready to step it up. Don't even start w/ your "Daytona is perfect...can't offer a date version or it will ruin it..." If you want my opinion on that, please refer to threads of 5+ years ago where I consistently pointed to the fact of how if Rolex used that logic, we would NEVER have a Sub-Date. What's good enough for the original Sub, I still contend is good enough for the Daytona. Offer both date & non-date versions and you're going to take strong Daytona sales to astronomical levels IMO.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Long ago, Rolex decided that 34-40mm was the right combination of legibility and bulkiness for most wearers, and I think that still holds true today.

Totally disagree. To make that claim, you're assuming the average human being has not grown in the last 50+ years, which is inaccurate. There's plenty of data proving we as a human race have grown significantly larger in the last 50 years.

My contention is 34-40mm WAS the correct, optimal size 50+ years ago, today, probably not, and thus a 1-3mm average increase is probably proportionately the same as when Rolex "long ago" decided 34-40mm was the right combo. As humans have evolved and grown (literally), so should our watches IMO.

[affalterbach]

Ceramic Explorer II

[Flywheel]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

No, that's exactly the problem. We've gone from sizing according to what makes sense for the device to sizing according to what people think looks good on their arm.

So, do you think people buy $10,000 watches to tell time, or because they look good? Because my iPhone keeps much better time than any of my Rolex watches. I'm guessing yours does too.

[lecorsaire]

Originally Posted by moby33

BINGO...that's what I've been saying for years. My first love was Omega (and those that know me know I use to be somewhat anti-Rolex as I loved their watches, but didn't like the cheap clasps that weren't on-par w/ the head). At any rate, I became a HUGE fan once they introduced the Glidelock and I haven't looked back since.

And while I absolutely love the history and traditions of Rolex, I also have been wishing they would diversify their offerings. I'm not necessarily advocating bringing out new (and "limited ed") models as frequently as say Omega (personally I think Omega changes too often), but there's got to be a happy balance. I like how Rolex has recently been offering a few different case sizes, yet not really changing the style of their iconic watches. To me that's the perfect blend of old & new.

The world is made up of MANY different body sizes & shapes, it's time Rolex starts offering a few more options in sizes, in addition to still providing watches of "classic" proportions. That way EVERYONE can partake in Rolex ownership without compromise.

And just to open up a whole other can of worms to all those purists out there...I'll still gladly take a Daytona-Date when Rolex is ready to step it up. Don't even start w/ your "Daytona is perfect...can't offer a date version or it will ruin it..." If you want my opinion on that, please refer to threads of 5+ years ago where I consistently pointed to the fact of how if Rolex used that logic, we would NEVER have a Sub-Date. What's good enough for the original Sub, I still contend is good enough for the Daytona. Offer both date & non-date versions and you're going to take strong Daytona sales to astronomical levels IMO.

Rolex will never go the Omega route offering so many different variations to make your head spin. Their conservative approach is a huge factor in their continued success as well as that of the vintage Rolex market. Look at Apple. They release one phone and one Macbook Pro per year with slow evolution instead of offering a new phone or notebook every other month. It is a successful model. I have no idea how many variations of Speedmasters and Seamasters are out there. It makes for a confusing and frustrating purchasing experience and really hurts value retention.

[moby33]

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.

BTW...I guess I am a silver-back. All this talk of wrist size got me thinking how I have no idea what mine is. So I pulled out some floss, wrapped it and measured. Sure enough, a tad under 9" (and that was tight...whereas I prefer to wear my ss bracelet watches somewhat loose). I have never considered myself to have "big wrists" seeing as I have 4 older brothers and they all have significantly bigger wrists than I do...so I always thought I was the wrist-runt of the fam.

[SL BRABUS]

Ceramic Bezel with Chormalight display..^^^... ....

&

Price increase...!!!

[Rolex time is money]

Maybe its not a new watch at all? maybe they just introduce a new and improved bezel+crystal protection? and what you see is exactly what you get?

[Melchizedek]

Originally Posted by Rolex time is money

Maybe its not a new watch at all? maybe they just introduce a new and improved bezel+crystal protection? and what you see is exactly what you get?

An additional submariner with matte ceramic bezel with lume like a pelagos... I've said it before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by moby33

Totally disagree. To make that claim, you're assuming the average human being has not grown in the last 50+ years, which is inaccurate. There's plenty of data proving we as a human race have grown significantly larger in the last 50 years.

My contention is 34-40mm WAS the correct, optimal size 50+ years ago, today, probably not, and thus a 1-3mm average increase is probably proportionately the same as when Rolex "long ago" decided 34-40mm was the right combo. As humans have evolved and grown (literally), so should our watches IMO.

You're assuming that optimal size has to do with fashion and looks, rather than legibility and purpose. I'd guess vision is probably better overall today than it was 50 years ago, so 40mm isn't outdated.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Flywheel

So, do you think people buy $10,000 watches to tell time, or because they look good? Because my iPhone keeps much better time than any of my Rolex watches. I'm guessing yours does too.

The wristwatch was invented to make reading the time easily accessible on the wrist, rather than resorting to digging in the pocket for a pocket watch, and that hasn't really changed with a wristwatch vs. a phone. Wristwatches are still a practical tool.

Do you think a $10,000 Leica setup takes better pics than a $2000 Sony setup? Not really, but some appreciate the craftsmanship, history and workflow of the former. Of course, Leicas are made available in ridiculous custom colors/materials from time to time, and posers often wear Leicas around their neck as jewelry, too, so they're not immune, either.

[AK797]

We really do have a lot of time on our hands... damn they were right!

[ragingcao]

Originally Posted by AK797

We really do have a lot of time on our hands... damn they were right!

[moby33]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

You're assuming that optimal size has to do with fashion and looks, rather than legibility and purpose. I'd guess vision is probably better overall today than it was 50 years ago, so 40mm isn't outdated.

I didn't assume those things at all, you inferred it (how, I'm not exactly sure). I simply stated the aver human being has grown in the last 50+ years (fact), therefore it stands to reason if 40mm WAS optimal back then, simple deduction would conclude today's "optimal" size would be 40+ (again, using Rolex logic of matching size of watch to size of aver human). Nothing more, nothing less.

Fashion/looks is subjective - so I don't care to debate that. Legibility is also off the table as that was never a bone of contention (a 1-3mm swing isn't going to affect legibility one way or another in the big scheme of things). And purpose? Unless I'm missing something, the purpose of a SD in 1967 & 2017 is the same. I use it to tell time (both on land & below the surface) and use the bezel as a timer (both on land and below the surface)...and while I wasn't around in 1967, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the original SD owners used their watches for the exact same purpose.

All that said, I'll get back on point...damn do I hope the teaser is a new 42-43mm SeaDweller...only 3 more days until I'm elated, or once again let down.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

The wristwatch was invented to make reading the time easily accessible on the wrist, rather than resorting to digging in the pocket for a pocket watch, and that hasn't really changed with a wristwatch vs. a phone. Wristwatches are still a practical tool.

x2. Totally agree. Whenever I hear the "watch vs phone" time thing I think about how I actually like (and many times NEED) to know what time it is when I'm diving or on my surfboard. I sure as hell don't have my phone w/ me during those events.

Now does that answer the $10K Rolex vs $50 Casio question/debate? Not really...but that's answered in your spot on camera example.

While I realize the Casio is more accurate (and cheaper), it's not a work of art. Fine mechanical watches are art, and I really appreciate that point. I still marvel at the idea that so many tiny gears are working in perfect harmony to actually tell time so accurately. I understand that many people don't care, nor appreciate that fact, and that's fine...for those people we have lovely Casio's and smartphones. Enjoy!

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by moby33

I didn't assume those things at all, you inferred it (how, I'm not exactly sure). I simply stated the aver human being has grown in the last 50+ years (fact), therefore it stands to reason if 40mm WAS optimal back then, simple deduction would conclude today's "optimal" size would be 40+ (again, using Rolex logic of matching size of watch to size of aver human). Nothing more, nothing less.

Fashion/looks is subjective - so I don't care to debate that. Legibility is also off the table as that was never a bone of contention (a 1-3mm swing isn't going to affect legibility one way or another in the big scheme of things). And purpose? Unless I'm missing something, the purpose of a SD in 1967 & 2017 is the same. I use it to tell time (both on land & below the surface) and use the bezel as a timer (both on land and below the surface)...and while I wasn't around in 1967, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the original SD owners used their watches for the exact same purpose.

All that said, I'll get back on point...damn do I hope the teaser is a new 42-43mm SeaDweller...only 3 more days until I'm elated, or once again let down.

That's my point. It don't think it has much to do with how big people are now or then (and I'd imagine wrist sizes aren't all that different these days, anyways.) They made the Sub/Sea Dweller big enough to read, but not so big that it's clanging around when fitting the hand in tight spaces. That concept really hasn't changed in 50 years.

The recent move to bigger watches in the last decade or two is for fashion's sake, not utility's sake.

Either way, I think you'll get your larger SeaDweller, and I think it will be a good seller.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by moby33

x2. Totally agree. Whenever I hear the "watch vs phone" time thing I think about how I actually like (and many times NEED) to know what time it is when I'm diving or on my surfboard. I sure as hell don't have my phone w/ me during those events.

Now does that answer the $10K Rolex vs $50 Casio question/debate? Not really...but that's answered in your spot on camera example.

While I realize the Casio is more accurate (and cheaper), it's not a work of art. Fine mechanical watches are art, and I really appreciate that point. I still marvel at the idea that so many tiny gears are working in perfect harmony to actually tell time so accurately. I understand that many people don't care, nor appreciate that fact, and that's fine...for those people we have lovely Casio's and smartphones. Enjoy!

Agreed. Most tools have varying ranges of quality, from cheap and disposable to pushing the edges of logical. For some reason, the later seems to get me when it comes to watches, but I still use them without worry.

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by moby33

BTW...I guess I am a silver-back. All this talk of wrist size got me thinking how I have no idea what mine is. So I pulled out some floss, wrapped it and measured. Sure enough, a tad under 9" (and that was tight...whereas I prefer to wear my ss bracelet watches somewhat loose). I have never considered myself to have "big wrists" seeing as I have 4 older brothers and they all have significantly bigger wrists than I do...so I always thought I was the wrist-runt of the fam.

Wow!

I rest my case. You deserve a larger Rolex for sure. I'll survive with what is offered.

Man if I were you the AP 44 Ti would be calling my name hard

[speedmaster73]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

That's my point. It has nothing to do with how big people are now or then (and I'd imagine wrist sizes aren't all that different these days, anyways.) They made the Sub/Sea Dweller big enough to read, but not so big that it's clanging around when fitting the hand in tight spaces. That concept hasn't changed in 50 years.

The recent move to bigger watches in the last decade or two is for fashion's sake, not utility's sake.

disagree...the iconic speedmaster professional is 42mm

40m divers are old news...ghost of the past......rolex will keep making but todays buyers want 41-42-43-44mm divers.....

steamin willie beamin said it best.....


I look at those pictures on the wall, it just makes me sad. Its like a room full of ghosts. When I'm done with the game, or the game is done with me, I don't wanna be some ghost up on the wall, I wanna be more than that.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

The recent move to bigger watches in the last decade or two is for fashion's sake, not utility's sake.

Kind of. I would agree when you're talking about the 45-50+mm watches of relatively recent years...those are total fashion statements.

I was simply referring to the idea that a 40mm SD on an aver males wrist in 1967 proportionately would look the same as a 42mm SD looks on the aver males wrist in 2017. That statement is based on the assumption if I were 40 yrs old in '67, I probably wouldn't be as big as I am at 40 yrs old today.

[speedmaster73]

Originally Posted by moby33

Kind of. I would agree when you're talking about the 45-50+mm watches of relatively recent years...those are total fashion statements.

I was simply referring to the idea that a 40mm SD on an aver males wrist in 1967 proportionately would look the same as a 42mm SD looks on the aver males wrist in 2017. That statement is based on the assumption if I were 40 yrs old in '67, I probably wouldn't be as big as I am at 40 yrs old today.

anyone who calls 41-45mm 'fashion watches' have not been paying attention...

they are here to stay