Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

What may seem like a few minor design changes here and there actually mean a lot of serious firsts with the new-for-2017 Rolex Oyster Perpetual Sea-Dweller 50th Anniversary model reference 126600, making this replacement of the Sea-Dweller 4000 one of the more important releases of Baselworld 2017.

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

First and foremost, let's begin with the tech specs, as with this new reference 126660, the Rolex Sea-Dweller has received five major updates: first, it has grown from 40mm to 43 millimeters wide, making for a very considerable difference between the Sea-Dweller 50th Anniversary and the Submariner (which is 40mm). Second, it received a cyclops over the date, a first for a Rolex Sea-Dweller and as controversial an update as the growth in size. Third, it is now powered not by the 3135 but the updated 3235 caliber (the same as the Datejust 41 reviewed here). Fourth, it has a redesigned bracelet that is now wider and makes for a more secure fit on the wrist. Last, but not least, it pays tribute to the original Sea-Dweller of 1967.

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On
The first Rolex Oyster Perpetual Sea-Dweller from 1967 on the left, the new-for-2017 version on the right.

All this, of course, seriously changes the looks of the Rolex Sea-Dweller. The larger case and bracelet make it more proportionate by matching a greater diameter case with the existing thickness – that was arguably a bit disproportionate with the 40mm width of the previous 116600. Bear in mind that the thickness (no official figure on it yet but check the wristshots to get a good idea) is necessitated by the 4,000ft/1,220m water-resistance.

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

While in this regard the added width makes sense, the new-found cyclops – again, new for the Rolex Sea-Dweller altogether – arguably is an even more controversial decision. The Rolex Sea-Dweller, some argued, from the get-go should have been a larger alternative to the No-Date and Date Submariner models (instead, all three watches thus far had been 40mm wide) – but the cyclops, even Rolex admits, is a less obvious and more controversial addition.

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

A lesser-known fact is that the original Rolex Sea-Dweller of 1967 did not have a cyclops because when Rolex added it to the plexiglass front, it caused structural weaknesses in it and ultimately caused it to shatter before reaching the desired depth rating – and so the cyclops was omitted. The Rolex Sea-Dweller all until 2017 has maintained its cyclops-free looks, making yet another reason for it to be a Submariner alternative (as, clearly, not everyone is a fan of the cyclops-look). Now, in this regard, the Rolex Sea-Dweller is more in line with all other collections, with only the Deepsea now standing out from the rest, as it still does not have a cyclops over its date aperture.

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

The movement, as we have noted, is the new 3235, an automatic, fully Rolex-designed and -made caliber that complies with Rolex's -2/+2 second daily accuracy (all details here) and offers an extended 70 hours of power reserve over the previous Rolex Sea-Dweller's 48 hours. It, hence, features Rolex's high-capacity mainspring barrel, its Chronergy escapement with paramagnetic nickel-phosphorous pallet fork and escape wheel, Paraflex shock absorbers, Parachrom hairspring, a large balance wheel with Microstella variable inertia lugs and an operating frequency of 4Hz. It is the latest and greatest tech-fest that Rolex can offer at the moment.

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

The new Rolex Sea-Dweller's 904L Oyster bracelet is fitted with an Oysterlock safety clasp, Fliplock extension system for an added 26mm of reach along with the Rolex Glidelock system for 2mm-increment fine adjustments over a distance of 20mm. Typical Rolex Sea-Dweller feats such as the black Cerachrom bezel with PVD-applied platinum numerals, flat front sapphire crystal and 1,220m of water resistance enforced by a helium escape valve inside the left side of the case (see its components below) remain present.

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

Available exclusively with a black dial with white gold hands and indices and Chromalight lume, the stand-out feature (if we can call it that) here is the red Sea-Dweller designation over the usual depth rating and COSC certification reminder.

Lastly, along with the red lettering and among all other novelty factors of this Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600, we should consider the name and presentation because, in this special case, that matters too. Simply called the Rolex Oyster Perpetual Sea-Dweller, Rolex actually presented it as the 50th anniversary model in their windows around their Baselworld booth.

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

While the model name doesn't include that anniversary reference, it's still an interesting development in the sense that although Rolex has naturally been perpetually changing and fine-tuning long-established collections (like the Daytona, Submariner, Sea-Dweller, Datejust, Day-Date, and more), it's been exceedingly rare for an all-new Rolex model to decidedly pay tribute to a previous version's design element like the new Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 does with its red Sea-Dweller text.

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

Last year, when everyone was expecting a new Daytona, I don't find it a stretch to say that many were looking forward to seeing something really quite close to the Newman Daytonas of old, or at least a perfect panda dial – and yet, Rolex has decided to tip-toe their way around that. A few years ago, the re-launch of the Pepsi-bezel GMT was also close to its predecessor but very clearly different in its colors than the original. Here, however, we are looking at a clear reference to one of the defining aesthetic elements of an early Rolex collection, making it a small change, but possibly a significant one to many Rolex fans.

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

Anyhow, the 43mm-wide Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 is the new and only Rolex Sea-Dweller in town from now on, as it fully replaces the 40mm-wide Sea-Dweller 4000. It looks bold and feels heavy on the wrist, but it carries that heft in a much more balanced manner when compared to how its predecessor had done.

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

What truly makes it an interesting step on Rolex's part is how the new Rolex Sea-Dweller now blends more into the Rolex dive watch range with its cyclops fitted over its date, and how it stands out with its boldly different 43mm-wide diameter. In closing, it is worth imagining what this watch would have been like without the red text and the cyclops but everything as it is now – it would have made for a long-expected update bringing on better proportions and a larger alternative to those who have been on the lookout for something larger than a Submariner but not as bold as the Deepsea.

Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 Watch Marks 50th Anniversary Of The Sea-Dweller Hands-On

As it stands now, however, it certainly cannot be called another safe step from Rolex – they admittedly made the controversial decision of not only considerably upping the size but also adding the cyclops, rendering this a truly new Rolex Sea-Dweller that offers more than a mere face-lift (and not just by Rolex standards). Price for the new Rolex Sea-Dweller 126600 is CHF10,800 including tax. rolex.com

What do you think?
  • I want it! (253)
  • Interesting (43)
  • I love it! (40)
  • Thumbs up (35)
  • Classy (10)
  • Yggdrasill

    I was negative first but it looks great.

  • Framlucasse

    10.000$ for a steel 3 hands watch… Rolex, thank you for the laugh.

    • Garrett Hu

      Rolex, all their professional models are up there in that range….the new Sub is $8550 now so in a couple years you’re there.

      I know it doesn’t make sense but if you want one, you got to pay and a million people do a year….it’s like the housing market here in the Bay Area, it makes no sense but people just pay it.

      But hey, they retain value like the housing market too…actually better. When houses around here took a 50% hit in 2007 recession, Rolexes really didn’t go down all that much…LOL

      • Bozzor

        Ah, you mentioned the housing market: I hover between San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago…and Sydney. Chicago prices are fairly sane, Seattle is a bit out there but not too bad, Sydney is nuts and San Francisco is like taking Sydney and injecting it with Crystal Meth and then wiping a bit of LSD on the tongue just for laughs. But for people who bought early in the latter two markets…no problems in buying this watch on a whim!

  • It’s the Submariner that nobody asked for.

    It’s a good thing Rolex owns Tudor, because the Pelagos buries this thing.

    • R Khalifa

      Too bad Tudor’s releases this year are a complete mess, even less design cohesion and innovation than this

      • I was a bit disappointed in their offerings – I like the idea of the steel bezel BB, but as a solid piece, not as an insert. And the bump from 36 to 41 on the bezel-less BB was a perfect natural progression. Not a fan of the chrono and upset at the exclusion of a GMT.

        Doesn’t change the fact that Rolex stuck a bubble on a sub and called it a day.

        • R Khalifa

          Don’t get me wrong, I agree completely – to me the Rolex releases this year are a snoozefest. I was just venting because I had very high hopes for the evolution of the Black Bay and Pelagos lines and instead Tudor did random spray-and-pray variants of the Black Bay. I love both brands, guess my expectations were just too high.

  • IG

    Wow, they glued a magnifier to a bigger case! Revolutionary …in Rolex terms. Definitely the most important release of Baselworld.

  • A_watches

    the non cyclops date is a hallmark of the sea dweller, my understanding is that at great depths, there is a chance the cyclops malfunctions hence it was excluded in previous versions. Whilst Rolex has obviously solved this, I’m with the purists and I don’t like the cyclops (for the sea dweller) . I’m not sure about the red text, as I read it as Rolex paying homage to popular vintage models which they typically do not do. Anyway whatever!

  • Jamie McKay

    I’d have loved everything about this new SD, the red, the size, the movement. But the cyclops is a HUGE disappointment. SD has always been the most utilitarian Rolex watch but the cyclops takes out the tool watch look and makes it more showy, hence disrespect the history of why the SD was born in the first place. A major thumb down to Rolex’s decision.

  • DanW94

    I’ll take the smaller Sea-Dweller 4000 without the magnifier over this beefed up brethren any day.

  • Pete L

    Love the new size and proportionally a great improvement but not sure why they felt the need to add the cyclops. A lot of money too when you consider the competition in this sector; no doubt the speculators will have this one up to a two year waiting list before long so another ‘money in the bank’ rolex?

  • ProJ

    Most likely that cyclops was an afterthought. Without it, the movement would’ve been ‘exposed’ to be too small for the case.

    • Chefcook RLX

      Good point!

  • SuperStrapper

    The line of red text will ensure that in 2066 someone pays a million dollars for one.

  • Chefcook RLX

    It’s not that I don’t like the new Sea-Dweller but it does not excite me too much as well. Sure, the new movement is nice. That Rolex got rid of the protruding bracelet end links and finally gives us a Sea-Dweller with a correctly fitting bracelet is very nice. The red writing is nothing but a tacky, however. All this retro-BS on non-retro watches annoys me to death.

    • A_watches

      Who heardtedly agree on the red being tacky and a mistake. I hate the whole retro bs also. I also can’t wait until those omega trilogy tribute watches are reviewed on here or hodinkee, gonna be torn to shreds

  • Word Merchant

    I think this change makes a lot of sense: I always thought the Submariner and the Sea Dweller were a little too similar, and now there’s a useful differentiation. The Sea Dweller is now for those who like a bit more heft to their watches, but don’t want to go for the monster Deep Sea. The new movement is a welcome addition, as the slightly meagre 48 hours reserve of the old one, shared with the Deep Sea, was looking a bit old fashioned. I’m happy with the cyclops.

    So my favourite new model is the Sky Dweller steel with white gold bezel – an astonishing saving over the full gold version (albeit not quite as aesthetically pleasing), but this new Sea Dweller comes a close second.

    I’d really hoped Rolex would give the Explorer II some love as well – perhaps a ceramic bezel – but it was not to be. Maybe next year.

  • Mark1884

    Without being too repetitive, I will just say……… get rid of that Cyclops window!!!
    It is not a SD with that thing on it!!!!!

  • bsprtsgrp

    This feedback is spot on…”This Sea Dweller makes perfect sense for Rolex, the old SD was too similar to the sub. The DSSD was too thick and chunky to be an everyday watch, not to mention the disproportionately thin bracelet. It gives everyone a hardcore dive watch that is unique. It stands out from the basic 40mm crowd, but isn’t too big. It is an actual “new watch”, not just a colored bezel or different dial. This is a new watch that has never been produced before and there is a real reason to add it to the collection…If you long for a 40mm black dial dive watch, buy a Sub….and they added a bit of red for nostalgia!”

    • DanW94

      But what if you long for a 40mm Rolex dive with a date BUT no cyclops? The Sea-Dweller’s your watch…..

      • bsprtsgrp

        Find a new 116600 while you still can

      • JCRV

        I don’t mind the 43mm, it might actually help with the somewhat bulgy look it has. But the whole reason for me to save up for a dweller in stead of a sub, was the absence of the cyclops. Every time I see it, it reminds me of the magnifying glass my grandfather used for reading and that is exactly the feeling a watch with a cyclops gives me: old! For everyone who enjoys the practicality of it: Good for you! But I cannot separate the two.
        For me, since I’m not there yet savings wise, I now have to decide between a second hand (or maybe NOS if I’m lucky) dweller or a no-date sub.

    • Garrett Hu

      I agree somewhat to the general folk, but I feel many WIS have enjoyed the similar aesthetics that make a Rolex a classic. It’s the minute subtle changes that differentiate a great deal in my opinion. There are significant differences but yet they look the same to the untrained eye…I love that about the my pre-C Seadweller. Over the years Rolex watches have morphed from tool watch to bling. My SD, despite being from 2004 already has too much bling to it so I’m afraid this new behemoth will be obnoxious like those Breitling Super Avengers with fully polished case and bracelet.

      There is now Sub and Sub XL. SeaDweller is now just a name.

  • TrevorXM

    Relax, Rolex fanbois — there is a solution to this nightmare!

    https://youtu.be/YNnxKrf820g

    • Word Merchant

      I need to go and have a lie down.

    • Mark1884

      Watching that upset my stomach.

    • Garrett Hu

      Yeah, I’m going to spend $10k on a watch and chisel that cyclops off….just get the older one.

      Funny I called Tourneau and they said people have been calling for the existing SD, ones in store have been spoken for..and only a couple calls for the new one looking to put their names down.

  • Garrett Hu

    I wore my pre-c Seadweller in light of the 50th Anniversary. But this is more of a new product launch rather than a celebration of an existing watch. The name remains, but it’s a completely different watch.

    More of a Submariner “Pro”

    But I see why this model makes sense, but as I already have one there isn’t anything there I would want to upgrade to.

    I too prefer mine more, these new releases just add value to older models IMHO.

    • A_watches

      Quite true, disappointing iterations only strengthen the desirability of previous versions

  • Alex Digenis

    The original was supposed to have the cyclops. Designed with it in. Cracked under pressure….so now they can include the cyclops and achieve proper depths. Listen I own a Sub. I won’t call it a sub with no date…I own the sub. I Like the clean lines of the model. Rolex will sell all they can produce of this new piece. I am glad they are paying attention to larger watches and not just pandering to the Asian market with smaller sized pieces.

    • Katnip Everlean

      They’ve been at 40mm for most of their watches for decades, how is that pandering to Asians? And how about the bigger Deepsea?

      • Alex Digenis.

        I never suggested they were pandering. Omega has 14 offerings being launched at 38 mm this year. My point was that I was happy to see them growing in size instead of shrinking.

  • Raymond Wilkie

    How much ! ?

  • bsprtsgrp

    11,350.00 USD

    • Raymond Wilkie

      It was more an unbelievable exclamation than a question.

      • bsprtsgrp

        did not see that punctuation….

  • bsprtsgrp

    I’m #2 on my AD’s list. I have an email into a contact I have at Rolex to find out when they will be actually shipping the new SD. As soon as I know I’ll post it.

    I have an 8″ wrist and my daily driver is my 42MM Explorer II. I have tried on the DSSD and found it to be a little much (thickness) Rolex did well with this release in my opinion. It definitely fills the gap between the Sub and the DSSD nicely.

  • TrevorXM

    If I were in the market to buy a new Rolex I would now pass right over the Submariner and buy this watch. When you’re already spending Rolex level money, what difference does a little more make? Seriously, this a nicer size for a normal average man’s wrist like mine (7 1/2″) and it’s a more attractive case design than the “new” Submariner modular design. It really was not the “perfect” Rolex tool watch before with the too-small bracelet, and the lack of a cyclops on the date was just simply out of place on a Rolex, and didn’t work. Better new(ish) movement with much better power reserve. And it’s even got a little touch of much needed colour. Really, Rolex has finally reached perfection with their Submariner — but it’s with the Sea Dweller.

  • Willy Chu

    Hardly any difference in price–only $700–between this new 43 mm (1220 m depth) Sea Dweller and the 44 mm (3900 m) Deep Sea. Is this new one proportionally overpriced?

    • Chaz

      $700 is for the RED script…

      • Garrett Hu

        Looks nice but hope no one buys in hopes it will go up in value…the new ones will be made in the millions guys so there will simply be too many for it to even stand a chance outside of the standard Rolex increases.

        • Carter

          Another “underwhelming” Baselworld from Rolex! Sea Dweller with a cyclops….. They’re having a laugh!! What’s next… Porsche celebrating the 911 with a front wheel drive model?!

    • Garrett Hu

      Not really, the DSSD has a cool Ti case back and an incredible depth rating but it’s just so ugly. The new SD looks much better and has a new movement with a 3 day power reserve….oooh ahh!!

      Yup they are like Apple, Android has had features for years and all of a sudden it’s the next greatest thing when those features show up in an Apple product.

      3 Day power reserve everyone!!! Earth shattering, barn burning news indeed. Lol

      • Pete L

        Love the Apple/Android analogy!

  • Eugene Smozhevsky

    Cyclop! And suddenly size and better movement mean nothing to me. I would be fine with a regular submariner or even batman gmt, but cyclops! So happy i bought sea-dweller 4000 last spring – it does not have this stupid ugly bump. Gonna stay on that.
    Ps: it’s imo of course but i cannot get how people can be ok with that. A tactile feeling og that sore bruse… why don’t they do it at least inside, like UN – it’s just so much better! Especially if you really take the watch into water and dirt – cyclops just collects these around itself.

  • James

    I think this is fantastic. Having previously owned the SD4K for a week because I absolutely detested the way it sat on my wrist, as well as the DSSD which was a box queen due to the thickness (wont fit under a cuff) and disproportionate bracelet. This is the perfect fit IMO;

    – It is now different from the Submariner in terms of size, and more proportional in terms of thickness vs case width (and therefore comfort and wearability)

    – The original SD DID HAVE A CYCLOPS, PEOPLE! It just kept popping off in testing so was removed from the production run. So technically speaking, this is true to the original design (original, not production for the pedantic among you)

    – IMO stylistically this is ahead of the DSSD as it no longer has the mini dial with that gawd awful “Original gas escape valve” ring. Eww, nor is it 4 inches thick like the DSSD

    Horses for courses, if you’re a traditionalist you won’t like it. If you’re not, you probably will prefer the updated size and cyclops. I think it’s a good show of RLX to move with the times and recognize consumer demands, and identify gaps in their current product line.

    • pigsnuck

      I agree with you, especially regarding the disproportionately narrow bracelet on the Deep Sea. I look forward to trying one of these on, but don’t look forward to 10 grand eating a hole in my pocket. 😉

    • Garrett Hu

      Uh,,,the original prototype had the cyclops you mean? And so it basically failed testing so they removed it from production. So…. we can’t really say the “Original” had one no?

      • James

        The original design did, the original watch available to be purchased, did not.

        Rolex intended the SD to have a cyclops but were prevented in retailing the first SD with one due to mechanical/material constraints. Now, 50 years later, they’re able to produce the watch as originally intended cyclops-wise.

        • David Bredan

          Yes, that information is confirmed by Rolex (and is in the article from the get-go).

          • bsprtsgrp

            David..can you ask when Rolex will begin shipping the new SD?

          • David Bredan

            Hey, so just heard back and probably around May or June, I’m told. Make sure you put your name down at an AD so you get a call and get a chance to go check it out – I don’t expect the first pieces to spend too long in the stores.

  • Raymond Wilkie

    Just a thought,……………….the only abbreviation i read on this blog is IMO…………go figure.

  • Lawrence

    I have seen better

  • Johnny Tank (Forever Autumn)

    I want it, in the worst possible way.

  • Buy and Sold

    So now the Rolex Sea-Dweller blends more into the Rolex dive watch range with its cyclops fitted over its date, and this move to conform with the other Rolexes is controversial? Not so much. It just shows how boring Rolex is that they are merging distinct models to be like the others.

  • Jim

    Tantalisingly close to the 5-digit proportioned 42mm Sub with 6-digit movement, bracelet and glidelock clasp of my dreams. If only it wasn’t so thick.

  • KorvMos

    Do anyone think the Submariner will get the 3235 movement soon?

  • Djsherif

    You can love or hate the cyclops. Either way it does not belong on a dive watch. Find one person who actually? dives who checks the date while diving. If you need to check the date while diving, you are probably dead already.

    NO CYCLOPS ON DIVE WATCHES!

    • TrevorXM

      Find one person who actually dives who doesn’t wear his dive watch when he isn’t diving…

      Rolex introduced the first Date Submariner in 1966 with the model 1680, and the
      cyclops has subsequently been used on all Date Submariners to this day. You think you know more about what should and should not be on a dive watch than Rolex does?

      At this time, dates belong on ALL dive watches. Those without dates are watches for poseurs.

      • Djsherif

        What a ridiculous answer. You like listening to yourself talk I’m sure. You clearly are not a Diver, or you would not make such a stupid statement like “At this time, dates belong on ALL dive watches. Those without dates are watches for poseurs.”

        Rolex added the cyclops and the date for poseurs to use your word. Your logic is amusing so thanks for the chuckle, gave me a good laugh. Carry on being ridiculous.

  • otaking241

    I find it interesting that Rolex decided to distinguish the SD from the Sub at this juncture, after having been so similar for so long. I do wonder what prompted that decision–they could simply have added this as an additional option with the 40mm SD4K remaining in production, but to cancel that model just a couple years after introducing it seems strange.

    I had noticed that prices on the secondary market for the SD4K had dropped pretty significantly in the past year or so, with examples in good condition listing for a much greater discount from MSRP when compared with the standard SubC (the “Hulk” SubC and “Batman” GMTIIC models seem to do the best in terms of depreciation). I wonder if that reflects that it was doing poorly in the market as a whole, leading to this wholesale replacement?

  • Aldo Jacobi

    AWESOME Basel Vlogs gentlemen!! Thank-you!

    My first Rollie was the previous pre ceramic SD 16600 with the really “crappy” stamped-looking clasp. I loved everything about it though, (including the hidden clasp push-extension) & the non-cyclops date which made it “special” for me (not so common as the subs) & I loved its chunkiness. For many years (since I sold it – financial issues), I wished ROLEX would release a bigger dive watch, since I’d moved on to other brands with larger diameter dive watches.
    When the DEEP SEA came out – I seriously considered buying it except for the RIDICULOUS silver ring under the bezel, the shrunken dial – in comparison to the 44 case & the PATHETIC attempt at the bracelet width which completely killed it for me & ROLEX for many years. The proportions were ALL and it seemed like an un-finished “concept” watch….no thanks! So many times I re-visited it & wanted to love it but, no….

    Fast Forward to 2107 & I see this a “matured” SEADWELLER rather than an “XL sub” or “shrunken” DEEPSEA.
    It’s its own beast & a great MODERN-homage to the original 60’s RED original.
    I like the bigger case (about time ROLEX & another few mm’s would’ve been better still!), the thicker more in-proportion bracelet & all the technical advancements etc., etc. RED SD looks cool, cyclops not a fan, but could work….

    But at the end of the day it has to look right on my wrist, considering it’s only 1mm smaller that the DS it could work – will have to wait until I see it in-the-metal.
    I’ve done many “fittings” with the DS to make sure the case size works & the 1mm less may be O.K.

    To the purists – I get that it’s not a “copy” (or closer version) of the original, but the brand needs to evolve with the times & the market. There’s not point having all the watches (I’m only speaking with regard to the DIVE models) looking the same, with date, without date & some colour options….etc.

    The price is crazy (2 x the asking $ when you compare it to an OMEGA PLANET OCEAN, which is fantastic watch) – but ROLEX can ask what they want & fans will pay it.

    If it’s not for you, don’t buy it, but surely you can appreciate the tech & the fact that ROLEX are “pushing the envelope” in a very ROLEX-kind of way.

    I for one, cannot wait to take one for a test drive…..

  • funNactive

    I liked the 40mm size. I’ll have to try this one on.

  • Pingback: Top 10 Watches Of Baselworld 2017: A Trade Show At A Crossroads | aBlogtoWatch()

  • Ross Diljohn

    Much better than its predecessor.