DSSD. Good or Bad for Rolex?

[davida]

OK Guys.

Simple yes, no poll. Was the DSSD a good move or not for Rolex?

Another post on here seems to be generating some interesting thoughts so lets get the % figures in.



Sorry, Good = yes, Bad = no

[The GMT Master]

An extremely good move. Helps to remind everyone just how good Rolex engineers are. I like the fact they made a bigger watch without compromising classic Rolex looks. The fact that they're being used professionally by divers as well shows just how capable it is as a watch. It's also been responsible for bringing a lot of people who had gone to Breitling, Panerai etc. back to Rolex - some people can be negative about it, but you can't argue with sales figures

[Singslinger]

I know the arguments against the Deepsea - that it's over-engineered, too thick, unbalanced because of the relatively thin bracelet, ugly because of the writing on the dial and so on.

But I'd say yes, it was a good move to introduce the watch because Rolex built its reputation on innovation and ruggedness and no one can deny that the Deepsea represents both in ample quantities.

[SeamasterGMT]

What is bad, for any manufacturer, is NOT moving with the times and making technological advances. How boring would it be if Rolex said "right, we're not going to be at Baselworld anymore because we're never going to bring out anything new - ever"?

[Grumpy Badger]

As a technical showcase it's an incredible watch. It's good for Rolex to show off a little now and then. What would be a bad thing IMO is if it was the herald of everything else being Super-Sized, a la Breitling. If you want a big watch and want a Rolex it fills that niche but I, for one, hope that it remains the monster of the line up and that Rolex don't feel the need to bring the rest of the range up to that size before releasing a 51mm Deeper Deepsea in a few years!

[Cru Jones]

Everything about it is good, except for the aesthetics, which is a question of personal taste.

[JJG]

Looked like Kurt Busch was wearing one at the NHRA Gatornationals last weekend from what I could see on the TV coverage.

[RJC]

It's an Excellent addition!!

We now need a bigger Explorer I too

[RJC]

Originally Posted by davida

Sorry, Good = yes, Bad = no

[brettpaul]

There should have been an option for 'EXCELLENT MOVE'!

The DSSD demonstrates Rolex's engineering prowess and helps them compete in the 'big watch' market dominated by Panerai IMO.

[Paulie 50]

To be fair most diving watches probably never go beneath 10 mtrs. and then only a couple of times a year on holiday, the reluctance i have of embracing the Deepsea, is the bulkiness, and the need to look after it when swimming near coral, or rocky places below the surface. The other side of the coin is that the Watch is made to do that, but, how many of us do?, it's only my opinion, and to be honest it's a great looking watch, but for me,it's not for everyday wear.

[petespendthrift]

Mechanical diving watches are now obsolete technology that's become mainly popular for street wear. There was no need for the Deepsea and certainly no technical requirement for a watch with those capabilities - even the highest risk commercial diving will never need even 10% of the watches capability.

A major problem with the Deepsea is that it can never have any real authenticity or history like the original Seadweller which was built as a result of a genuine need. Worse the Deepsea replaces a model that did have all that provenance and history - meaning the real divers watch is no longer being made.

As far as what the Deepsea means for the brand overall - it is the first professional model produced by Rolex in which form does not follow function (in fact function follows form here) ie. it's going to be really big for fashion reasons, how high can we make the depth rating on a watch this big? - rather than what would be a useful depth rating for divers and therefore how big should it be?

Does this mean that Rolex no longer care about making the professional line practical, are they now just fashion jewellery (with bragging rights)? - if so, this makes them a lot less desirable to one market sector but likely more desirable to another - so changes the customer base significantly.

[johnbeth]

I like it, so I voted yes...

[SeamasterGMT]

Originally Posted by petespendthrift

Mechanical diving watches are now obsolete technology that's become mainly popular for street wear. There was no need for the Deepsea and certainly no technical requirement for a watch with those capabilities - even the highest risk commercial diving will never need even 10% of the watches capability.

A major problem with the Deepsea is that it can never have any real authenticity or history like the original Seadweller which was built as a result of a genuine need. Worse the Deepsea replaces a model that did have all that provenance and history - meaning the real divers watch is no longer being made.

As far as what the Deepsea means for the brand overall - it is the first professional model produced by Rolex in which form does not follow function (in fact function follows form here) ie. it's going to be really big for fashion reasons, how high can we make the depth rating on a watch this big? - rather than what would be a useful depth rating for divers and therefore how big should it be?

Does this mean that Rolex no longer care about making the professional line practical, are they now just fashion jewellery (with bragging rights)? - if so, this makes them a lot less desirable to one market sector but likely more desirable to another - so changes the customer base significantly.

Who has ever done a dive to 4000ft as per SD4000? Was that watch over-engineered too? By your logic - yes.

So the mechanical dive watch is obsolete - so too is the timing capability of a Daytona, the second timezone of the GMT for pilots. You really have missed the point of this watch - engineering at its best.

[mike]

Other than the IIc (my personal favorite) it's great.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Paulie 50

To be fair most diving watches probably never go beneath 10 mtrs. and then only a couple of times a year on holiday, the reluctance i have of embracing the Deepsea, is the bulkiness, and the need to look after it when swimming near coral, or rocky places below the surface. The other side of the coin is that the Watch is made to do that, but, how many of us do?, it's only my opinion, and to be honest it's a great looking watch, but for me,it's not for everyday wear.

Would seriously doubt if 90% of all dive type watches sold ever see water other than perhaps a shower or dip in the pool.

[swissautopro]

I think the DSSD was a good move. However, I believe some iteration of the 16600 should have been kept in the lineup for those not seeking such an extreme design. Perhaps a 16600 case with maxi dial and handset, and a new generation, non PCL bracelet, for example.

[m5blitzer]

Excellent move. I especially like its size.

[johnnydeepsea]

[IMG][/IMG]

I love mine I feel like Iron Man when I wear mine

[Paulie 50]

Originally Posted by petespendthrift

Mechanical diving watches are now obsolete technology that's become mainly popular for street wear. There was no need for the Deepsea and certainly no technical requirement for a watch with those capabilities - even the highest risk commercial diving will never need even 10% of the watches capability.

A major problem with the Deepsea is that it can never have any real authenticity or history like the original Seadweller which was built as a result of a genuine need. Worse the Deepsea replaces a model that did have all that provenance and history - meaning the real divers watch is no longer being made.

As far as what the Deepsea means for the brand overall - it is the first professional model produced by Rolex in which form does not follow function (in fact function follows form here) ie. it's going to be really big for fashion reasons, how high can we make the depth rating on a watch this big? - rather than what would be a useful depth rating for divers and therefore how big should it be?

Does this mean that Rolex no longer care about making the professional line practical, are they now just fashion jewellery (with bragging rights)? - if so, this makes them a lot less desirable to one market sector but likely more desirable to another - so changes the customer base significantly.

Well put.

[RoliSubMan]

Originally Posted by Paulie 50

Well put.

With DSSD and subsequent ceramic/wide lugs/new spot welding bracelet & clasp "improvement", rolex is shifting from tool watch maker to now jewelry and fashion brand. They have lost a customer..

[RoliSubMan]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

An extremely good move. Helps to remind everyone just how good Rolex engineers are. I like the fact they made a bigger watch without compromising classic Rolex looks. The fact that they're being used professionally by divers as well shows just how capable it is as a watch. It's also been responsible for bringing a lot of people who had gone to Breitling, Panerai etc. back to Rolex - some people can be negative about it, but you can't argue with sales figures

You've said it, DSSD is only created to win back market share from panerai and breitling, nothing else.

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by SeamasterGMT

Who has ever done a dive to 4000ft as per SD4000? Was that watch over-engineered too? By your logic - yes.

So the mechanical dive watch is obsolete - so too is the timing capability of a Daytona, the second timezone of the GMT for pilots. You really have missed the point of this watch - engineering at its best.

+1

add to your list all mechanical watches, since digital or quartz models are more accurate and more efficiently/cheaply made.

[RoliSubMan]

Originally Posted by SeamasterGMT

Who has ever done a dive to 4000ft as per SD4000? Was that watch over-engineered too? By your logic - yes.

So the mechanical dive watch is obsolete - so too is the timing capability of a Daytona, the second timezone of the GMT for pilots. You really have missed the point of this watch - engineering at its best.

Sorry to say, the DSSD is merely produced because rolex "had" to. It's the "Mine is bigger than yours" syndrome. In this case Rolex created a watch that has the best water resistant rating and It's mission is to win back the market.
If you really think the DSSD is that much of a engineering breakthrough, think again - back in the 50s and 60s, when the majority of watch were not resistant to water and the trend was 32-34mm in size, they created the submariner, water resistant to 200mm in a 40mm diameter case - that's what i call engineering breakthrough and pioneering.

Today, the DSSD is created in 44mm because panerais are, breitlings are, omegas are.....

rolex should've stood ground and retain the tradition which made them special.

I just don't find rolex special with any of their new era product, I will keep my 16610 thank you.

[Rolex116520]

Great watch , Rolex just wanted to show it still can come up with an extreme watch . For years now professional and recreational divers have been relying on dive computers and a back up . Admit , a Deepsea or any Rolex dive watch as back up is class with a heritage .
Commercial trends will certainly have been taken in account too . They could easily "blown up " any other sports model to 43mm or more without the production costs of the Deepsea if size had been their only motivation .

[rolexertion]

No = just silly. Sorry, that's how I feel.

[rolexertion]

Originally Posted by petespendthrift

Mechanical diving watches are now obsolete technology that's become mainly popular for street wear. There was no need for the Deepsea and certainly no technical requirement for a watch with those capabilities - even the highest risk commercial diving will never need even 10% of the watches capability.

A major problem with the Deepsea is that it can never have any real authenticity or history like the original Seadweller which was built as a result of a genuine need. Worse the Deepsea replaces a model that did have all that provenance and history - meaning the real divers watch is no longer being made.

As far as what the Deepsea means for the brand overall - it is the first professional model produced by Rolex in which form does not follow function (in fact function follows form here) ie. it's going to be really big for fashion reasons, how high can we make the depth rating on a watch this big? - rather than what would be a useful depth rating for divers and therefore how big should it be?

Precisely. I agree with every word.

[Paulie 50]

Originally Posted by RoliSubMan

Sorry to say, the DSSD is merely produced because rolex "had" to. It's the "Mine is bigger than yours" syndrome. In this case Rolex created a watch that has the best water resistant rating and It's mission is to win back the market.
If you really think the DSSD is that much of a engineering breakthrough, think again - back in the 50s and 60s, when the majority of watch were not resistant to water and the trend was 32-34mm in size, they created the submariner, water resistant to 200mm in a 40mm diameter case - that's what i call engineering breakthrough and pioneering.

Today, the DSSD is created in 44mm because panerais are, breitlings are, omegas are.....

rolex should've stood ground and retain the tradition which made them special.

I just don't find rolex special with any of their new era product, I will keep my 16610 thank you.

Another well put post. For the last 25 years or so i have worn Subs, or latterly a Seadweller,it's my everyday watch, i wear it to work and play, which includes sailing and swimming, never had a problem, rinse it off, and wear it for the Restaurant, a perfect watch for every occasion.

[Lion]

From the comments posted it sure seems like people either really like the watch or they hate it. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.....

[jamesbondOO7]

My brother-in-law got one as a present from a Turkish business client (well, they were 6 consultants and they each got one after dinner). The first time I saw it, I did not think it was a Rolex (OK, I can expect some people saying that coming from Turkey, it is a fake anyway...but it ain't). Just so big and clunky and being a new model I did not know about.
After seeing more and more pictures on this forum, I am starting to warm up to it. So next time I'll see my BIL, I'll have a closer look at it. But it is definitely much too big for me.