Sea-Dweller 43 Mythbusting: What Rolex Never Told Us About The Cyclops

A Discussion around the Rolex Sea-Dweller 43mm 126600 and the controversial use of a Cyclops lens on the crystal. Was there an ulterior motive behind its use?
#RolexSeaDweller #SeaDwellerCyclops #SD43
All Images are Sourced from either Press Release Photos or Public Listings.
Below are a list of the common sources that are used in no particular order:
Bob’s Watches | Revolution Watch | HQ Milton | Hodinkee | Monochrome Watches | Jomashop | Analog Shift | Bulang and Sons | Robb Report | Watchfinder | WatchBox | Phillips Watches | Christies | Timekeepers Club | Rolex
Support the Channel: / idguy
Follow me on Instagram: www.instagram....
Contact me: [e-mail]

[@ID-Guy]

Channel Support - Patreon: www.patreon.com/idguy Latest Releases: kzbin.info/door/zf6rqsEBni5G2TSevD6F4Afeatured Follow me on Instagram: instagram.com/id.guy/

[@budapestmole]

As a former North Sea diver. The cyclops window would get all scratched when used as a working diver’s watch. Mine was bought in 1982-3 in Aberdeen, Scotland. The Sea Dweller was the standard saturation divers watch as it had the helium escape valve which prevented the crystal from popping out upon decompression. Mine has been to 760 feet, several bar brawls and one divorce and is going strong.

[@pedsgreatescape1723]

Wonderful Story and nice you still own it. Is it a daily wearer or only sometimes? I have a Submariner Ghost Bezel which I hardly wear anymore and a 2016 Submariner I wear rather a lot. Fantastic that you bought it in Scotland. Come myself out Glasgow and my mother was born in Aberdeen.

[@mazarashiuchiha9928]

Trust me... this was done/thought of years in advance. Rolex didn't just make a watch then say, "oh whoopsie, well it's ok we can just add a cyclops. Oh look it magically is exactly and precisely what we needed to fix the issue! Who da thunk it?!" They didn't just start blindly making parts only to realize they made a mistake and threw a band-aid on a gunshot wound. Years of R&D go into these things. It was meant to be this way.

[@SteelmoonWatches]

Mazarashi Uchiha agreed.

[@commentjedi]

Good argument. But I think the truth is halfway in between.

[@thunderlightning9355]

Opps I stumbled and added a Cyclops window on my 43 ...lol.. we pay for the advantage of years and years of hand made thought & design & craftsmanship ... had both domed pre red lettered & New RED letter edition .. love my Rolex's ! Dont you ? lol

[@soda5730]

Exactly. Also, how does the exact same caliber manage to fit the Deep Sea and not need a cyclops? This guy is talking kak (to use a colloquialism he is familiar with).

[@Nexus.Achiles]

IDGuy, we know you're not of fan of the SD43, you've been clear about it since its launch. But you are wrong about this. First, the dial in the SD 43 126622 has pretty much the same size as the one in the Sub 116610 and Deepsea 116660 / 126660, which is 27.4mm on all of them, give or take a tenth of mm or two. Secondly, if you remove the cyclops from the Sub 116610 or say the YM 116622, you'll find that the date is similarly placed far off the edge of the dial, so this has nothing to do with the case size nor the use of the caliber 3235 as it's the same size as the 3135's. It's like this on several 27mm Rolex dials with a date window. The reason for this is because the dial is designed with the cyclops in mind, the date window is offset to accomodate the cyclops. So it's not an afterthought but the other way around, designed from the onset. In fact if you look at all modern Sea-Dwellers and especially the latest 116600, 116660 and 126660, they all look weird without a cyclops because the date looks far off the edge of the dial, precisely because the caliber and dial are constructed with the cyclops in mind. Have a look at Rolex dial catalogue at this link: www.oysterworld.de/dials-bracelets.html.

[@silvertojnged17]

Thank you for this comment. There's just so much frustration viewing a video like this that speaks with authority, yet knows nothing and just parrots debunked falsehoods.

[@Nexus.Achiles]

@@silvertojnged17 You're welcome! And there lies the problem with YT. Someone trying to pass his opinions as truth, and he gets away with it because there's no one sitting in front to tell him why he's wrong.

[@AJ-bi6ns]

Absolutely love my SD43, great for bigger wrists!

[@FrankCastle-he8fl]

I don't only like the Cyclops but I need it my ass has gotten old and my eyes are shot

[@mikeontherock]

Do you even need a date on a watch at all? I can't stand the cyclops either...

[@americanjedi5721]

Still the most symmetrical, and dynamic watch of the sports range.

[@ID-Guy]

The proportions are terrific, there's no denying (That immediately struck me when I tried one on - for its 43mm size, they have nailed the proportions) Thanks for the comment as always, brother!

[@taipeiracer]

Just because it didn't have cyclops before doesn't mean it was the right choice of design initially. Cyclops is a signature Rolex feature. I'm glad they added it to the Sea-Dweller.

[@tomthompson7400]

No one mentions the fact you could wear this watch as a weight belt .

[@treedillinger5801]

Could be good for balancing your muscles out for people who normally use their right hand for...other things ✊🏼

[@ricchrono5907]

I have sinn U2-T on my right wrist, I love the weight of it😁

[@wineattorneys]

It is really not that heavy imo - It's as close to a daily wear for me as it gets - and the weight is never an issue imo.

[@ID-Guy]

Oh absolutely! I thought that was a given already? ;) They don't actually feel that heavy on the wrist though (they sit very comfortably) Thanks for the comment Tom!

[@reedgrabowski8314]

IDuy, not only Industrial Design, and now Industry Detective!

[@ID-Guy]

Hahaha this made me laugh. Industry Detective... just brilliant. Whatever next? Thank you as always, Reed!

[@martinpikna7603]

Best watch ever. One’n’done. Even nicer in 2 tone. I particularly love the cyclop lens and bigger bracelet and also the pip not sticking out like submariner has.

[@AuntyArthur]

The fact that the Sea-Dweller was 40mm was the exact reason I could never own one. Not everyone has small wrists and likes small watches. It's a tool watch by nature, the bigger the face the easier to read. Ideally it should be 44mm. Now I'm contemplating the 43, but then they added the cyclops? Would be great to have an option without out. Just like not everyone has small wrists, we don't all have bad eyes either. But now after watching your clip I understand why they did. Will they work on a movement that would put the window in the right place? This watch with the window in the correct position and no cyclops would be near perfect, to me.

[@travhammer]

I think Rolex was wrong to keep the flat crystal. It is too reflective for, "time at a glance."

[@rvsmairspace6742]

If you're used to fairly big watches 43mm is not very big actually. I don't know why everybody thinks 43mm is big. I personally thing that 40mm for a non dress watch is way too small. It's all about perception and what you are used to seing on your wrist anyway. I always liked the sub but thought is was way too small and the deepsea too thick and top heavy. This is spot on I think. I'm also licking the South African accent on these great reviews. Keep up the great work. Cheers

[@rvsmairspace6742]

Also in my humble opinion the thickness of a watch is what makes a watch easy to wear or a pain. I have an Oris small date 47mm and an Omega Seamster Planet Ocean 45.5mm and the thickness makes them prone to get hit easily and being top heavy. You are always aware that the watch is on the wrist. But the actually diameter size doesn't matter to me. I have never owned a watch made out of titanium but perhaps that would help in the top heaviness department .

[@damachine3]

This watch is on my wrist now (the Mk1 dial, the true 50th Anniversary version) and is my favorite in my collection.

[@wildbillharding]

I'm sorry to spoil the party, but my four year old SD 43 has had to go back. It has gradually slowed until it's been losing 6 seconds a day. That's as bad as my old '89 Sub, which was so inaccurate I sold it. This inaccuracy is the Achilles heel of Rolex and a subject I rarely see discussed. Privately, owners will admit to how inaccurate these watches are, but they're not so keen to shout about it in public. Oh, but Rolex is the best make out there, isn't it? It certainly isn't. All four of mine have had faults, two of which were serious. The Sub movement lasted 53 weeks and had to be replaced under warranty. I have a 2005 Fortis chronograph with an ETA movement which is tougher and more accurate and garners more comments than any of my Rolexes. I had an Omega Speedmaster automatic with quartz accuracy. Rolex, for all the hype and hysteria, can never come close to that.

[@damachine3]

@@wildbillharding I hear you. I'm not a Rolex fanboy, just a fanboy of watches in general. I own many brands, including Omega. The funny thing is, I just got my SD43 back from service and it hasn't even lost a half a second in a month! I'm sure that will change soon enough, though! ;)

[@georgetopsis6746]

Dear friends, the cyclop issue is completely subjective for each one of us. Personally, I like it a lot. I like cyclops in general, but it's just me. I was wearing an Explorer II 16570 40mm from 2003-2018. Fantastic warch! I sold it easily and I bought a brand new Sea-Dweller 43mm in Dec'18. Big change on my wrist. A watch that you can't ignore when you wear it on your wrist. But after a few weeks that I got used to it (regarding the new size and the weight), I have to say that is a fantastic watch! A "bad ass" watch that you are falling in love with it! So, to everyone that thinks of buying it, I'm saying: GO FOR IT!

[@timetravellingbunny3952]

"Begs the question" You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means. I enjoy your work. Thanks.

[@patrickcullan319]

Inconceivable

[@ID-Guy]

I flunked english badly in high-school (apologies) and thank you for pointing it out to me!

[@timetravellingbunny3952]

@@ID-Guy Thanks. It's memories of my Logic class coming back to haunt me.

[@AA-tb2hu]

Maybe try "raises the question"?

[@masonn85]

why have a cyclopes on a divers? Well, why have a date on the a divers to begin with? Most people don't know this but a divers watch can be worn out of water, yes out of water since it can give you the time 24HRs. The Date is another useful added bonus to know if you wear your divers all month long and the cyclopes, well the cyclopes is so you can read the damn small date on the dial! SD43 is perfection!

[@chuckschillingvideos]

I think most folks can read the date just fine without the fisheye. In fact, unless you are viewing the dial from a very specific perpendicular angle, the fisheye distorts more than it magnifies. It's horrible.

[@anastasevp]

My favorite rolex! Thanks for the video,

[@ID-Guy]

It is a beautiful thing. One that really captivated me when I wore it for an evening. Thanks so much for the comment Anastase!

[@mariosimas]

The same here.

[@joeyshortpants5342]

Looks way better with the cyclops.

[@strapped2time]

Your theory has one major obstacle. The Deep Sea has a slightly larger size, no cyclops, and the same exact movement. They didn’t feel the need to add a cyclops to that one and it looks fine. The cyclops was added because they could.

[@impexRQ]

S. M. You theory is not right - they could not add the cyclops in the Deepsea because the sapphire cristal is 5mm tick and it’s domed - that’s all ...as always - it’s just Rolex marketing to cover the lack of innovation.

[@strapped2time]

Rodrigo Quintero Bejarano his point was that it looked odd, so therefore they added the cyclops. My point (no theory suggested) is that the Deep Sea has the same movement and larger diameter case and looks fine without a cyclops. They didn’t feel the need to add one to that. I don’t believe they added the cyclops to the SD43 for any other reason than they finally could.

[@PNVSAG]

@@strapped2time Wrong, the Deep Sea have the inner ring that makes the movement to fit in. Also, you can check that the watch face of the Deep Sea has the same size of the 40mm Sea Dweller, the bigger size is due the ring where it’s says “ORIGINAL GAS ESCAPE VALVE”.

[@ID-Guy]

My counter argument to this would be that the Deep Sea uses that "Ring-Lock rehaut" on the inside of the dial which pushes the indices closer together ever so slightly. Maybe that affects the overall placement of the window and makes it look slightly cleaner and more balanced? I genuinely don't know. Thanks for the comment, man!

[@ID-Guy]

My thoughts exactly, Pedro

[@thunderlightning9355]

Sadly these gorgeous watches are not available to everyone due to pricing restrictions , I've had both * domed & cyclops lenses ... Absolutely GORGEOUS ! Love my DS 43 !

[@rodriguezahr]

If you Have a look at the dial alone at Rolex website and then compare it to the one of the sub and the SD4000. You’ll notice that the date opening on the SD43 is of a completely different shape / dimensions compared to the other divers plus the cutout is done further toward the center of the dial which can accommodate the wheel to the mere 1mm difference of dial diameter. Remember while the SD43 is 43mm the dial inside is not. Rolex don’t compromise and the inclusion of the cyclops is simply because the cyclops is a Rolex trademark that should have been on the SD line since day one. Now that they become capable of doing it they did it and it’s one of the most amazing and useful features ever.

[@damachine3]

There's one other mystery solved by this, and it's a mystery that involves a watch with the same 3235 movement, that is even bigger than the SD43...and that's the 44mm Deepsea (which, in addition to the SD43, I also have in my collection). Now we know why they put that ugly outer metal ring, with all those words on it, on the dial ("original gas escape valve" at the top and "ring lock system") at the bottom. They didn't do it because they thought that technology was so cool that they couldn't help themselves; they did it because the movement and, thus, dial isn't big enough to accommodate the 44mm proportions without the date being in an even worse position than it already is with the 44mm Sea-Dweller. As for any discussion they may have had around adding a cyclops on the Deepsea, they could have set the width of that ring such that a cyclops could have been used on that watch as well (from an aesthetic perspective), but they didn't. Maybe they didn't simply because they didn't want to or maybe they didn't because they don't have the bonding technology for a watch that will go as deep as the Deepsea...and the answer to that is yet another mystery. ;)

[@thescotchguy]

I too have both SD43 and a DSSD and the big difference is that DSSD has a domed crystal don't think a cyclops would work either way love both time pieces, DSSD is the reference 116660

[@AuntyArthur]

That makes a lot of sense actually, I wonder if it is true. I have the JC also and it would look better with a larger dial and no steel ring. I have a question that I can't find the answer to anywhere. Which has the actual larger dial, the DSSD or the 43? (I don't have a 43 to compare)

[@damachine3]

@@AuntyArthur I have both (wearing my SD43 right now, actually). I'll check and get back to you.

[@AuntyArthur]

@@damachine3 Thanks, interested to know!I have my eyes on an SD43, seems like they are a popular duo. My guess is the SD43 may have a slightly bigger dial, but it is a guess

[@pl4819]

This is my first Rolex and I’m loving it.

[@patrikvogt4410]

Mine too and I also love it‼️❤ was thinking about a deap-sea first but I found it too be a bit too bulky..

[@pl4819]

@@patrikvogt4410congrats! I do like the deep-sea too, especially the facial but agree it’s a bit bulky.

[@markuswichmand3255]

The cyclops is discouraging, but I think its great that Rolex makes a diver for us taller guys with substanstial wrists. A sub has always looked dainty on my wrist. Not to say there isnt a time and place for small watches, I use my 36 mm datejust as a dress watch, but when I wear a sports watch, I want it to have a presence on my wrist.

[@ID-Guy]

I completely agree. The 43mm size is so well balanced (I had some good wearing time with it one evening) It has to be one of the best proportionally correct pieces they've made in a long time. And I'm in a similar boat (tall, but lean) there's just something I love about a slightly undersized sports watches (calling back to the 50's etc) Thanks for the comment Markus!

[@salmanalshamali89]

Could you talk about sea dweller 43 mark1 vs mark2? Difference and which one do you prefer thansk

[@Thomas_Burnett]

The SD4000 is my favourite Seadweller purely because it lacks a Cyclops! Looking at the example of the SD43 without a Cyclops that you found on a forum, that watch looked great, like a true military tool watch. The SD43 with a Cyclops has obviously been designed as a luxury piece as opposed to a tool watch and has therefore been adorned with the details that make it look like a ‘Rolex’. Of course, it is an in demand watch Cyclops or no Cyclops and will remain so among fans. Could we see a full gold model released next? A great video as always my friend. Loved the blooper at the end! Take care Everyone. ✊

[@Ossory88]

Hey look, itsThomas Burnett!

[@ID-Guy]

Very nicely said, brother. It does feel like a watch that has approached the "Sea-Dweller" with the concept of a more luxury focused piece. The "Rolex Trivia" at the end of the day is more exciting than the watches themselves hahaha! Thank you as always for the comment and I hope you're keeping yourself well and busy, boet.

[@wineattorneys]

I own one and I very much like the cyclops. Wouldn't have bought the watch if it didn't have a cyclops. And, to be frank I don't find this "discovery" of yours to be persuasive; it hasn't been discussed because its not an issue.

[@ID-Guy]

It's not a discovery of mine at all! It's been spoken about by a few in the community since the watch was released in the 2017 (just never shared on KZbin) - but I really enjoy the SD43. I had some great wearing time over an evening and it is sublime, has to be one of the best proportionally balanced pieces they've created in a long time. Thanks for the comment Daniel.

[@wineattorneys]

@@ID-Guy Thanks very much for the reply and the clarification. Appreciate your channel.

[@DBravo29er]

Absolutely spot on. The cyclops is functionally superfluous across all Rolex models; a point of failure and useless outside of a very narrow cone of view. It’s merely a design statement for Rolex. One which they have successfully avoided criticism for, thus far.

[@omar10213245]

I've always loved the cyclops lens

[@markdance574]

Interestingly though the James Cameron Deep sea dweller version does not have the same feature over the date window

[@ID-Guy]

And the proportions on the watch looks neat (At least to my pedantic eye) ;)

[@markdance574]

To be honest I quite like the version you showed us - however the James Cameron does look better . What would be a cool variant would be full blue version of the sea dweller - go full blue dial with blue ceramic bezel in 43mm case on a rubber stap . Sorry my first love was and still is my 48mm Breitling Super Avenger 2 in Stella with blue dial . My wife brought it for me and it’s been ever present on my wrist no matter what I’m doing .

[@DBravo29er]

The Jim Cameron is easily my favorite SD version.

[@SteelmoonWatches]

That’s because the cyclops will pop off at the JC depth

[@impexRQ]

Another point which shows Rolex lack of innovation and laziness... they don’t care anymore as they know the average Joe juts want to buy the brand name even of the QC is pretty bad and the lack of innovation is there ... the reason why I sold mine and I bought instead a Glashütte SeaQ Panorama Datum 👍🏻

[@ID-Guy]

I didn't want to be too harsh with my wording, but we could (partially) chalk it up to laziness. And I factored in what you said when deciding on my first luxury watch purchase (that I think you'll enjoy) Thanks so much for the comment Rodrigo! I hope you're loving your GO!

[@impexRQ]

IDGuy thank you for your feedback and great reviews which I’m fan of... to be honest - the Glashütte SeaQ Panorama Datum is an amazing watch (the quality is amazing, the finishing on the movement and the accuracy has not comparison)... you should try to get it and do a review - you will be surprised how good is this watch

[@mikep197]

Then why is the date window in the same location on the previous 40mm version? It's always been a "flaw" in the sense that it was always inset from the right edge of the dial.

[@jeffmitchell9831]

Evening all, Greetings from London, United Kingdom 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧. Thanks for an entertaining video - a welcome distraction to the horrible events outside.... My personal views on the SD43 are as follows: 1 - The Cyclops is an absolute abomination and resembles a blister or a zit 👎🏻👎🏻!!! 2 - The larger 43mm sizing is targeting the American market where obesity is prevalent and Submariners are now too small for the average wearer. 3 - The dial is WAY too busy with text. 4 - The red lettering is on point and adds character to an otherwise larger Submariner. 5 - The bezel is also too cluttered (too many markers). 6 - Symmetry is NOT on a par with the 114060 (Submariner) - colloquially called the No Date Sub. Probably NOT what the Rolex lovers wanted to hear, but just thought I’d share my own contrarian thoughts to generate some discussion.... STAY SAFE out there everyone, and together we’ll get through this horrible COVID-19 pandemic. Until the next one...... Best regards, Jeff Mitchell

[@dommerdom]

Any Rolex with no cyclops would be welcome. They are a hideous, ugly hack of a solution. If the date is too small to read on a watch that costs $10k USD, then use a larger date wheel or add a big date complication to the movement. Don't put an ugly, hacky magnifier that completely throws off the balance of the thing and makes reading the time for 6 or 7 minutes an hour a pain in the ass.

[@impexRQ]

Domenick Doran exactly - another point to Rolex lack of innovation and they don’t care anymore as more average Joe just want to buy the name ... Rolex shall learn from Glashütte (Panorama Datum)

[@treedillinger5801]

But the fact is that the cyclops was added intentionally as a major design feature. It wasn’t some hacky solution to their inability to add a larger date wheel, quite the opposite. I personally like the cyclops 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@dommerdom]

@@treedillinger5801 at one point a removable key to wind a watch was an innovation, too. Then someone invented a permanent crown, and the whole world of watchmaking moved in that direction. Just because something was once an innovation to solve the problem (that Hans Wilsdorf's wife had bad vision) doesn't mean it shouldn't be abandoned when a better solution comes up. A big date complication is a better solution to the problem of the date being hard to read in every way. It's more advanced watchmaking. It doesn't ruin the symmetry of the dial and crystal. It doesn't impact the reading of the time. If Rolex wants to charge haute horology prices, is it ridiculous of them to do some actual haute horology? TAG put a big date on the Aquaracer. Rolex can't put it on a single movement in their lineup?

[@treedillinger5801]

Domenick Doran ...are you talking about an actual big date complication or just using a larger date wheel? A big date is a completely different type of watch and I’m not sure how that applies to this conversation. That’s like saying a helicopter is more advanced than a car so Ford should be making helicopters. 🤔Btw, I find them much uglier than a cyclops, but that’s just my opinion. They could have alway simply used a bigger date wheel but they didn’t. There’s a physical lack of space in a 24 or 26mm ladies watch that doesn’t exist in watches 36mm+ so they could have simply put a larger date window in men’s watches but again- they CHOSE not to... but how much bigger can that date be? 250% bigger? Doubt it. They could make it 50% bigger and then most people with decent vision would be able to read it... but it would be appear significantly smaller than it does now with the cyclops, not really an innovation. Again, personally I disagree with your opinion on the looks of it. With or without the cyclops the date at 3 o clock is asymmetrical...and a lot of people, myself included PREFER the asymmetry of it. However, I will agree with you that for 2 minutes per hour it gets a little hard to read the minutes. It takes an extra half a second out of your life. It’s not something that has ever bothered me. Not even a little bit.

[@dommerdom]

@@treedillinger5801 I mentioned both the possibility of using a bigger date wheel, and a big date complication. I don't know if you watched the video, but the point of it is that the cyclops on this watch was just used to hide the fact that the movement is too small for the case, there's a biggass movement spacer between the case and the movement, and thus the date window is way too close to the center of the dial. The cyclops helps to obscure that. It's actually quite effective at it. It's still a complete hack. A slightly more elegant solution would be to modify the movement so the overall diameter is larger. This would allow for both a larger date wheel, and would move the date window out to where it belongs. An even more compelling solution is to add a big date complication to the movement. It's a much more compelling complication. We're going in circles here, though. If you like a cyclops, more power to you. I hate them. They just look like the watchmaker said, "meh, good enough". Watches are all about sweating the details, and for me, a cyclops is a watch ruining detail. There is a simply better mechanical complication that solves the problem of the date window being hard to read. It's the two-wheel big date complication. It's better in every way except that it is more complex, and thus harder and more expensive to manufacture. Does Rolex not have faith in their ability to manufacture one reliably? Or do they not have room in the profit margin on their watches? Neither seems likely to me. It seems more like they just have a bunch of people making excuses for their lazy watchmaking and thus have no reason to improve their product, outside of maybe changing the color of the bezel insert, or putting a jubilee bracelet on a watch that used to only come with an oyster bracelet. Sadly, that's what passes for "innovation" at Rolex these days.

[@M_MTsc]

Thanks. You've answered a question I've had for years. Will now have to go and look at mine to see what I suspect will no be obvious.

[@truebluemiata]

I'm in the 'Ban the Cyclops' club. It's a deal breaker for me. I wear 42 Glycine Combat Sub with white on black date wheel framed in silver. Looks lovely. And yes you don't need the date complication while under, but sure comes in handy up top. 👍

[@blueshirtbuddah1665]

Another great IDGuy. Thanks as always.

[@ID-Guy]

And it's always a pleasure, Blueshirt! I hope you're well and taking good care of yourself

[@caseyzaft6734]

the cyclops lens is glued onto the crystal, what a shame

[@jjlad5037]

Who needs a date function on a dive watch...how long are you spending down there?

[@quetz666]

Who dive with mechanical watches this times?

[@jjlad5037]

@@quetz666 ...who goes racing with their Ferrari? Very few, but it still is designed for purpose.

[@quetz666]

@@jjlad5037 you can see many Ferraris at a race tracks around the world these days and I wish you luck to see any divers wearing Sea Dwellers underwater.

[@rucksackrules2266]

Keep in mind there are people staying submersed for more than a quick dive, while on oil rigs, submarines or while cave exploring, so through the lack of an optical day and night a date function comes in handy.

[@greatchalla3799]

No.....I’m definitely in favour of the cyclops lens. Easy to read makes it a sensible feature. Perhaps they should offer a model with and without. While there at it, offer the newer 43 in a 40 mm size.......and make it more readily available form the dealers. It’s still nice to dream!

[@Daavi85]

I don't own any Rolex but the Sea-Dweller was always my favorite Rolex but I really wish they did without the cyclops on the new 43mm size which I do like but I've never been a fan of the cyclops, still a beauty though.

[@ID-Guy]

The SD really is a gem (I had some hands-on time with both the 16600 and 43mm in one evening) Both feel very compact and thoroughly thought through, but I just couldn't get over the cyclops on the crystal. Thanks for the comment David!

[@jeanpaulceulemans9973]

The cyclops is acquired taste. My first rolex was a 14060 exactly for the reason that I hated the cyclops but then I bought a 16710 and learned to like it but I still think that the models without one look just as good as the ones that have it Now imagine the SD43 without a date altogether, now that would have been my absolute dream watch

[@esteemedwatches1768]

Great video. This is really interesting and new to me but makes total sense now you’ve said it. I was one of those who hated the cyclops and vowed never to buy one, but, guess what... every picture I saw of someone wearing one wore me down a bit more until I was offered one from my local AD recently and I had to have it. I really do love it now as my JC Deepsea is a bit big for daily wear.

[@--RSL--]

i bought an homage to this watch, its better in every way and only costed $250. same materials, HRV, better movement, 2000m rated and over tested to 3000m, no ugly cyclops. looks exactly the same. a moment of silence to anyone who wastes money on a rolex.

[@carlhaluss]

Very interesting about the dial placement of the date window on the SD43! Personally, I never used to be a fan of the cyclops on any model, but over the years I have come to see it has a trademark of Rolex. I really did like the 40mm SD, but I always thought it looked odd without the cyclops. For that reason, I was glad to see it re-introduced on the SD43. Thanks for the great review!

[@carmasterz9733]

Not sure if this story (thinking) is correct. The diameter of the dials on both versions 116600 and126600 are the same. Apart from the bezel, the much wider engraved rehaut beef it up to 43mm.

[@mt24Carson]

Another informative video. Many thanks indeed. I still appreciate the 40mm old-school SD version.

[@ID-Guy]

Always a pleasure David. Give me a classic Planet Ocean or a 16600, now you're talking ;)

[@cedarcanoe]

You had a sharp eye as always! Good review

[@ID-Guy]

Quirky detail right? Thank you as always for the comment, Cedar! I hope you're well!

[@devinpowers4368]

It's a sub without a Cyclops lens and with red writing. No one I know is going over 300m when diving.

[@ID-Guy]

Nicely said, Devin. I'd personally always opt for a thinner profiled dive watch, but some enjoy the bragging right (but let's be real, not many can comprehend just how deep 30 meters in the sea is, let alone 50 and 300)

[@chuckschillingvideos]

@@ID-Guy Here's the thing. Many/(most?) "dive" watches overrate to a preposterous extent their water resistance. (Not saying this is the case with the Sea Dweller, of course, but unless a watch adheres to ISO6425, any statement regarding water resistance is, well...hypothetical. So to be safe, you have to assume an enormous fudge factor in the water resistance claimed by a manufacturer - so when you see a watch that claims water resistance of 100 meters, for example, and you see it doesn't have a screwdown crown or screwed in caseback, you know for damn sure you can't take that thing into a running shower, let alone on your next mixed gas dive. Most recreational divers will never dive deeper than 30 meters or even need a watch because most recreational divers dive with a guide. And anyone who would take a Sea Dweller worth thousands on a recreational dive is crazy rich or just crazy stupid. Assuming you choose to wear a watch in the first place (many divers don't), there are lots of just-as-capable dive watches you can choose at a tiny fraction of the price that you don't have to worry about damaging or losing. Lots of things can go wrong on a dive trip. Don't make one of them losing a very, very expensive watch when you would have been, instead, just as well served by a Citizen or Invicta diver for about a hundred bucks.

[@Christmas205]

​@@ID-Guy can't that be said for any mechanical watch since most people find the time on their phone and not their wrist? Why bash this watch and the people that prefer it? Looks petty and reeks of jealousy.

[@TheRunningManZ]

I don't know for sure this is true, it's certainly true that the SD43's date window looks stupid without the cyclops, but so does the sub's. If you look at the sub's date window it's way out for the markers because of the cyclops. You might be right, but I don't think the video proves anything for sure at all. The date window is still further away from the central point of the watch on an SD43 than it is on a sub. These secret photos you've found just look like a standard sd43 with the wrong crystal, if you did that to any date sub they would look equally stupid too.

[@clivenelson4484]

Just think: removing the cyclops and tidy it up by adding a small indices to balance the dial symmetry.

[@ID-Guy]

Speaking my language, Clive... I think you'll like what I chose as a first luxury watch in the next week ;)

[@damachine3]

4:04 We don't know for sure that the addition of a cyclops was an afterthought. We're just assuming so. For example, what if they wanted the cyclops the entire time and the afterthought was making it 43 mm...since doing so put the cyclops in a great position for that bigger dial?

[@watchesgiggles5659]

Love mine. Thanks for the vid! 🍻

[@ID-Guy]

Always a pleasure, brother! I sincerely love the proportions of the 43mm (had some great wear time with it one evening) It's a real beast

[@georgeftoulis704]

Thanks for the video!, I am a big fun of Rolex. In 1990 I bought my first sd 1600 for three decades as my main watch and really loved it for most of the time, I really enjoyed every moment with it, keep in mind that I was a professional diver with >10.000 dives, with a lot of dives pressure, sun, salt, boat vibrations, etc, without ever addressed any operational problem.I didn't like the lack of cyclops and the white color of models name. Fortunately these changes happen on SD43. I definitely agree with Daniels opinion and others... adding cyclops or increasing diameter it's not an issue, really no sweat... instead of submariner super case which after a week on my wrist can't stand it. Rolex knows how to play the game (great Marketing & RD).

[@chuckschillingvideos]

The cyclops is pointless and ugly. For decades, the Sea Dweller fared just fine without this hideous fisheye. Suddenly, it's necessary? Nope. Suddenly, a single line of red text is necessary? Not hardly. I'll soldier on happily with my 16600 - the last true Sea Dweller before the insanity.

[@FrankCastle-he8fl]

Some of us have gotten old and our eyes are shot and we need the Cyclops so we can actually read it

[@neilpiper9889]

I have a 43mm Sea-gull diver and love the cyclops. I also wear 36 and 38mm watches. I have a seven and a quarter inch wrist.

[@tygaz3061]

for haters of the cyclops.. just look at how unbalanced the watch looks without the cyclops... after this enlightening video i think no one would buy it without a cyclops..

[@waynesilva3129]

I am thinking of getting the sea dweller. my first choice is the sub. one question. i'm five feet five. a tad under 150 lbs. i have been wearing a GMT for over fifty years. the weight doesn't bother me. my day date with the solid link i never think about weight. the cyclops is fine with me. my only concern is. will it be to big for my wrist. it won't be an every day watch. hopefully i'll get use to the thickness.

[@JR-nl3mh]

Love mine but Omega PO on my wrist today.

[@bobernhardtlanger4415]

Brilliant observation! I have shared it on my Danish, 34,000 members “Rolex Gruppen” on Facebook!

[@numberstation]

Hmm, I can’t believe it was beyond the ken of Rolex to fit a larger date wheel. Sounds like they simply went for a cheaper option....penny pinching?

[@Swedeslung]

Note: from a Professional Diver, the hrv doesn’t increase or promote water resistance at all.

[@Ranghocsing]

The don’t mind with the cyclops lens I’m happy with this watch... and as we move forward a little change will always be a bit better for the to embrace the future of rolex watches... like the 42mm explorer 2, sky dweller... good day and nice video again detective haha

[@djones1304]

i don't think the dial on the SD43 is 3mm wider than the Sub. the size difference is made up with small increases in dial, bezel, and case.

[@SparkyMarkyMark23]

I agree they should've done The Sea-Dweller without The Cyclops Eye.

[@ianjackson4042]

Hi, have you considered the Rolex Milgaus with either a blue or green dial? It is a simple watch that is rugged & waterproof to 100 metres. Ian.

[@NisokiesNafokies]

If I were to buy my very first Rolex, this would be it.

[@ID-Guy]

It's a banging watch. I got some good hands-on time with one and it's a gem. Thanks for the comment Nisokies!

[@rootedrotor525]

@@ID-Guy The gem of my little collection - love the SD43

[@algorithm007ify]

If you want a beefy watch with more tool centrism, get the new version of the Seiko MM300,,.. much more cool IMO.

[@timgreen6952]

the red text makes all the difference...but it is just that bit too big for me!

[@ID-Guy]

You and me both, brother. I had them both (16600 and 126600) in hand for an evening. Both feel terrific, compact and thought through. But the 43mm size hits the wrist confines for me as well (sadly) Thanks a ton for the comment!

[@twang96]

To put it simply, are you saying the date window is too far from the edge of the dial because the movement is too small and the cyclops disguises this fact?

[@juniorjohnson5961]

Thank you for your time and effort!😷🧴👏🙏

[@ID-Guy]

It's always a pleasure, Junior! And thank you for taking the time to watch the clip! I hope you're well and taking good care of yourself

[@andrewbrown5636]

Same date placement on the DSSD , in both the 3135 and the current 3235 . Looks ok to me👍🏼. There’s hardly any difference between the dial diameter on the Submariner, SD43 and DSSD..if any.

[@DrZbo]

Who else spotted this on 'Mario Tabraue' in 'Tiger King'

[@ID-Guy]

Okay, now that's badass... Thanks for the comment Stephen!

[@jamessymington2466]

I had the the predecessor Sea Sweller 4000 for a decade as my main watch and really loved it for most of the time until I just got bored of it and flogged it. This 43 is ridiculous though - too big and the cyclops a mistake (and now we know why - so thanks). My real beef with all of Rolex these days is that they just try to appeal to the posers. What were they thinking when they thought it was tasteful to engrave ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX all around the blasted rehaut. Look at me posing in my Rolex! I think that one style decision says all you need to know about the target market for Rolex. Shame.

[@ID-Guy]

It's so great hearing from someone who's experienced the brand for so long. The SD4000 is such a gem (shame that you sold it). But it's the whole concept of "subtlety" that's been thrown out of the window by so many brands today. And I think you'll enjoy what I chose as my first luxury watch next week (I factored in all that you have mentioned when making my decision) Thanks for the insightful comment James!

[@wildbillharding]

They put the ROLEX, ROLEX, ROLEX round the rehaut partly as an anti-faking measure.

[@jamessymington2466]

Bill Harding Yes - I think it’s time they put it on the case back instead.

[@georgegian2582]

I don’t agree. Personally I was waiting for a >42mm watch from Rolex. Submariners and all the rest 40-41mm watches are for women’s wrists, not for males. Glad they upgraded the model as it should have been from the start. Got one

[@realalexmackenzie]

@@georgegian2582 Yep! Exactly why I will be taking my AD up on their kind off of an SD43 tomorrow. The small wrist club is mighty loud sometimes!

[@brianbauman8875]

I love it when internet gurus comment on the “entertaining” engineering of Rolex watches ... I think they know what they’re doing.

[@cnaarndt]

Great analysis my friend!

[@ID-Guy]

Always a pleasure, Curtis! I really hope you and your wife are well and are taking good care of each other!

[@cnaarndt]

@@ID-Guy Thanks, and FWIW, Oisin O'Malley at the Timeless Watch Channel just gave your channel a great compliment in his latest video, The Perfect Three Watch Collection! Check it out, it's an awesome video... kzbin.info/www/bejne/p2aZhpVmptytac0

[@mrp9498]

Omega Seamaster = Helium Release Valve Rolex Sea Dweller = Helium Escape Valve 😁

[@ID-Guy]

Hahaha! A guy can get tongue (brain) tied ;) I say: Get rid of both to lessen the confusion! Thanks as always for the comments, man

[@truebluemiata]

Seiko Tuna= doesn't need either👍

[@edwardo737]

Give us a no date Sea Dweller.

[@FrankCastle-he8fl]

I like the Cyclops some of us are getting old and don't want to have to put on a pair of cheaters to see

[@ForbinColossus]

Coming soon: Rolex Rolex Rolex Rehaut Ring (of Magnification)!

[@Rockthespaceship]

It makes absolutely no sense to have a cyclops on this but not on the Deep-Sea. The cyclops is ugly and completely unnecessary.

[@johnhaddock373]

You don't need to know the date when you're underwater so why include it in the first place and spoil the symmetry? Clearly this applies to most dive watches but this is a proper heavy duty tool watch and inclusion of the date is even more superfluous.

[@mohawkman4506]

The infamous Rolex wart

[@patrickcullan319]

ID Guy sees through the marketing BS - and does so without the need of a cyclops! I‘m in the camp that always found the SDs appealing specifically because they were without the cyclops. A stealth Sub with greater capability and better aesthetic balance. Great video again!

[@ID-Guy]

A guy can try, Patrick ;) I've always loved the SD for its lack of cyclops, slightly thicker case and just under the radar profile. But hey, sadly Rolex doesn't care all that much about making "sleeper" watches anymore. Thanks for the comment!

[@stevefox8605]

Really dislike a date on a "dive" watch, ruins the symmetry & it's credibility as a diving tool & the cyclops is such a carbuncle (even tho my old eyes aren't so good) Cheers, stay healthy 👍🏻

[@jimmysplit7729]

Hey mate I always believed the Rolex technical feat, not anymore! Thanks

[@dariusbrainiac]

lol. thats a interesting fact. id just scrap the date, like on proper subby ;)

[@ref6122]

The hughness of this watch just brings to mind the word “monstrosity”. So far removed from the oyster perpetual language of the 50s and 60s.

[@ID-Guy]

I had it on my wrist for an evening and it really does feel compact (but also really reaches the wrist confines) It just doesn't feel anywhere near as elegant (and regal) as the divers that made the name so famous. I think you'll enjoy what I chose as my first luxury watch next week ;)

[@ref6122]

That’s the word that comes to mind “regal” when thinking of the golden age of Rolex , it was the golden age for a lot of other things to.Cant wait to see your choice. I think it’s going to be classic and understated.

[@chrisrussell63]

Curious: How many people on the planet will actually need to go deeper in the ocean than the 1000 feet the Submariner is rated for?

[@mustardfj40]

Wrong! The date wheel can be easily made bigger. Check out the Omega Planet Ocean 41 and 43 which use pretty much the same movement but different size date wheel. Rolex could have done easily the same and probably save the research and extra cost of the cyclops

[@ha6737]

I reached a half of a century and my eyesight isn’t what it used so the cyclops becomes very useful to me. Plus, I consider it as the submariner’s bigger brother. 😄

[@ricchrono5907]

yea, no fugly cyclop....16600 still remains my favourite.

[@ID-Guy]

We need to see the SD4000 return (but I'm also a lover of the 16600 - It's such a sleeper) Thanks for the comment Ric!

[@tippykaffu4047]

This is why Rolex should have made a new larger movement with a larger date disc. They have the money to create make one. The cyclop is for cutting costs if we think about that.

[@ID-Guy]

That was my immediate thought... but I find it so strange that a company would actually go that far to cost cut with their movements... Maybe we'll see a change in the future? Next the Submariner will be 43mm's ;) Thanks as always Tippy!

[@DavidDatura]

Fascinating stuff 🙂

[@ID-Guy]

Weird right? adds to the strange chapter that is "Rolex Trivia" ;)

[@redastrachan8978]

Cyclops is ok, but domed, without it, I'd prefer.

[@ID-Guy]

And I'd take a domed crystal instead of anything flat ;) thanks for the comment as always Reid!

[@chauberthecat7469]

Here's a better idea. Just get a breiting superocean 17360 from the mid 2000s. Classic styling. Tank tough build quality. 1500m wr. Chronometer specs. Best of all it's affordable.

[@drwindsurf]

Thank you for this very interesting look at the Sea-Dweller 😊👍

[@alienhatz3265]

Rolex gives us a 43mm option, everyone bitches forever

[@Jamestreeman]

I disagree. Looking at my sub it is set in as well

[@SouthBayEngr]

James Treeman wouldn’t there be the same in-set on the 44mm sea dweller as well? Not sure if I agree with the video either.

[@ApolloReyes]

The crystal of the SD 43 is much thicker than the usual Submariner (I could be wrong) . . . If so, then they also must have fiddled with the way the cyclops would magnify the date window, don't you think ? . . . or it does not make a difference whether the crystal is thicker or not . . .

[@georgegian2582]

I don’t understand the problem you are describing. To me, you can simply remove the cyclops and it looks like the older versions, can’t see any flaw. On top of that I find it very difficult to agree that Rolex designed a watch and they didn’t know what to do so they applied a hot fix: let’s throw a cyclops to cover an issue🤣🤣🤣🤣 you may have experience in Rolex obviously you have no idea in design and development. It’s a product that has been in production for 4 years now. :)