Reply With Quote
I voted yes but I nevertheless personally prefer the cyclops. Better for those who don't like it to not have it, though.
Yes
No
Cyclops Debate.. Settled? Poll
I was reading up on my new acquisition, a Tudor Pelagos, and came across this gem of a quote:
"The absence of a cyclops magnifier in the crystal over the date window at 3 o'clock is a nice touch that makes for a cleaner overall look"
source: Products - Pelagos click on the READ MORE to see the bit about the cyclops
Personally, I couldn't agree more.. All I dream of doing is losing the cylops off my GMTII, but the AR tint under the crystal will look bad :( I believe I have found a solution, but that's another story.
So Tudor=Rolex therefore they admit that the cyclops looks "odd".. I'm curious what people think; should it be optional and you can choose to have one when you buy the watch?
I hope that someone from Rolex finds this thread someday and can use the poll results :)
Last edited by GTuned; 27th October 2013 at 02:19.
I voted yes but I nevertheless personally prefer the cyclops. Better for those who don't like it to not have it, though.
Im not voting on this, way back in the 80s a few months after buying my Sub, I returned it to Rolex to have the cyclops removed, joy of joys much happier ever since, let the fireworks begin
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Couldn't have said it better!Originally Posted by markrlondon
I tried asking and they refused..Im not voting on this, way back in the 80s a few months after buying my Sub, I returned it to Rolex to have the cyclops removed, joy of joys much happier ever since, let the fireworks begin
Technically we also can't do this anymore without changing the crystal.. Many new models have an AR coating the size of the cyclops on the underside of the crystal.. So when you take the cyclops off, you see the patch.. In the case of the GMT2C, I believe that a Daytona's crystal might be a good swap..
My how things have changed in 30 years.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
i am not a fan of the bubble cyclops. hence why the only rolexes that i have are sans cyclops. i like the expII but that cyclops is a deal-breaker.
This is also why I held out on buying a Rolex for so long, until finally I found out you could just remove the cyclops.. bought mine and guess what? Can't do that on the GMT2C and keep it pretty.. (as discussed above)
I wonder to what extent it affects sales numbers. Surely they must have done a study on the topic at some point..
I reckon that the cyclops is such an iconic aspect of the Rolex image that they'd rather not remove. It's part of what differentiates them. Most people probably just accept it without considering it.
Last edited by markrlondon; 27th October 2013 at 18:34.
I have previously removed a cyclops on a Sub because i don't like them.
I do think Rolex need to move with the times and offer a choice as there are a number of people i know who would buy a Rolex Exp 11/GMT etc but don't want the cyclops.At one time it was easy to remove it but it's getting more difficult.
I think the quote must be considered in context of the watch design. It is very minimalistic so you lose everything not needed which fits this design. Next to my Pelagos I have two vintage subs and I love the Cyclops on the plexi.
Didn't like the Cyclops a few years ago until I saw one in the flesh, in pictures it looks enlarged.
Having said that, I find the date harder to read with a Cyclops because you need to look straight at the dial, any other angle, and you won't see it.
I like it as it is the tradition. You can always buy a crystal with out.
The Cyclops is an important part of the Iconic Rolex look. I have one Rolex with a Cyclops, I would never consider removing it.
I would not however want two.
I prefer the cyclops on the plexiglass crystals, I like the 'period' solution. However in this day and age, it seems slightly out of date, but it's one of the things that makes the Sub so iconic...
Sea-Dweller solves all the problems though :)
I agree that it should be an option, perhaps one that the owner can choose during a service (to add or remove cyclops). I personally don't mind it, but my father didn't really like it.....until now where he says the magnifier truly helps his failing eyes see the date.
You can guess which option I chose...
replaced with a Submariner crystal so I still have an intact original crystal
The customer, being always right, should be given the option.
THIS
Assuming someone wants the date I've noticed that the Rolex camp is largely divided into three, rather than two.
1. Hate the cyclops
2. The cyclops doesn't particularly bother me
3. I really like the cyclops
I'd say option 3 is probably the minority?
Anyway, I voted for having the choice
One of the main reasons I bought Seadweller was the cyclops issue, and for the neater more concise look I think the watch has. Time and slightly failing eyesight buggered up that viewpoint!
I would have a sub no date, but I like a date, but dislike the cyclops...
That is the reason I am looking at the Seadweller instead, but would be nice to have the option
I think for WIS people there's enough options to have no Cyclops (namely a donor crystal from another model), for non-WIS what you see in the shop is what you get
When I look at the Pelagos, I don't think
"wow, look at how it good it looks with no Cyclops"
I think 'Rolex you lazy f**kers, start using AR coatings on all your models and not just under the Cyclops"
Personally I don't the mind Cyclops, admittedly I went with the no date as it looks better all round, but it (Cyclops) wouldn't stop me buying a Rolex
I think in the brief time I've been a member of this forum this topic has been debated many times so best make ourselves comfortable
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
I have noticedI think in the brief time I've been a member of this forum this topic has been debated many times so best make ourselves comfortableHowever, I am hoping with Tudor's comment and the slightly different twist of the cyclops as an option rather than the black and white version of "Keep it" or "Get rid of it"..
On deciding I wanted a Rolex, it was this issue that forced my hand into going for an SD... and I'm really pleased it did.
I'm starting to think that this is perhaps Rolex's whole idea
This. If you want a cyclops and date, buy a Sub date. If you don't need a date, buy a Sub. If you want a date without the cyclops, buy a Seadweller. Rolex already has these three models that address every scenario. Why add a fourth model that would just dilute Seadweller sales?
AFAIAA Rolex are not making the Sea-Dweller any more in it's original form but only an oversize Deep-Sea which does not appeal to everyone. I saw an LV on here that had been repaired by the RSC and fitted with a Sub crystal so if you want a cyclops free Rolex why not ask them to change it?
I suspect if they came without them they would be the thing to have, and people would spend stupid money sending them away to be fitted.
What he said!
I think some people might - but this poll suggests that, given the choice, quite a few would not.
Those to whom it was important for their watch to scream "rolex!!!!!" would be queuing up.
The "Cyclops" is one of the first things the average joe thinks of when you mention the brand - and, again feelings are very mixed about it even to the least knowledgeable.
Actually I don't think it does indicate that. A vote for Yes in response to "Should Rolex make the Cyclops optional?" cannot be taken to imply that the voter did not like the cyclops or, for that matter, would have a cyclops added if one was not present. For example, I voted Yes simply because I think the cyclops should be optional so as to cater for those who do not want it but I nevertheless personally prefer the cyclops on models that were designed that way.
For the avoidance of doubt I take this poll to be occurring within the context of 'with-cyclops' being the default shipping option for models that currently have them.
"Would you add a cyclops if one was not present?" is an entirely different question to the one asked in the poll, as also is "Do you like cyclopes in general?".
Rolex is the cyclops. The cyclops is Rolex.
So, you agree with me then.
Good.
Personally I love the cyclops, it was one of the things that first attracted me to the overall look of the Rolex sports watches. That said I also have a sea dweller and I love that just as much!
- - - Updated - - -
Personally I love the cyclops, it was one of the things that first attracted me to the overall look of the Rolex sports watches. That said I also have a sea dweller and I love that just as much!
Im so glad that this isn't true - it would lessen the worth of such an iconic brand if it were.
rolex is, thankfully, more than a small blob on the crystal of some, but by no means all, of its watches.
As the OP, I can say that you grasped what I meant by the question
As for the "default" shipping option, they should surely ship without ;) I can imagine ADs having a special template to fit over the watch so that they could glue the cyclops in place on the spot for those that wanted it.. in a perfect world!
Do I agree with the statement that
?
No, I do not agree with that statement. For clarity I emboldened the specific section of the statement that causes me to disagree with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, I think it may well be the case that "some people" might add cyclopes and that "quite a few would not" do so if cyclopes were optional (and the default was no-cyclops), but this poll indicates nothing whatsoever about whether anyone would or would not added cyclopes to watches that did not have them if they were optional. The poll only indicates whether or not people think cyclopes should be optional (within the context of them currently being there by default and non-optional).
I do not think it is meaningful to infer a preference for or against cyclopes from the response to the question of whether or not they should be optional. Thus, as I said, the question that the poll asks is therefore orthogonal to "Would people add a cyclops if one was not present on their Rolex?" or "Do you like cyclopes in general?".
Last edited by markrlondon; 28th October 2013 at 21:34.
Glad I understood it!As the OP, I can say that you grasped what I meant by the question
Hmmm.. ;-)
Hi
I have also have a Pelagos and have never liked the cyclops on any Rolex. When I had my GMTII I removed the cyclpos myself and was much happier afterwards.
Berni
Without wanting to bandy semantics too much (which often proves to be the tragic downfall of threads on here), I would still suggest that, while, of course, some "optional cyclops" votes were simply a sensible vote in favour of free will and the customer being right, logically, some of the people who voted to make the cyclops optional did so because they would opt not to have it.
Well the good thing is it is on there for free, and there are ways of getting them removed.
It's just a matter of time...
Not all of them are removable without incident..
I agree, I too think that that is likely. But just because it is indeed likely it does not follow in either statistical or logical terms that one can meaningfully or usefully infer what you are inferring from that likelihood. In other words, whilst it is probably true that "some of the people who voted to make the cyclops optional did so because they would opt not to have it" there is no way whatsoever to know the key details (that would have allowed a meaningful inference to made) of how many people had that as their voting decision motivation or what their true personal preferences were for or against cyclopes. I.e. The information on which to base a meaningful inference (beyond the fact that some people undoubtedly would have voted as they did with that as their motivation) is simply not present in the results from the poll as it stands.
This is why I do not think it is meaningful to infer a preference for or against cyclopes solely from the response to the question of whether or not cyclopes should be optional. The information on which to base such an objective inference is simply lacking, even though it looks at first glance that it might be there.
To put it another way, one thing cannot be objctively or meaningfully inferred from the other because the question that the poll asks is logically orthogonal to "Would people add a cyclops if one was not present on their Rolex?" or "Do you like cyclopes in general?".
In short, the poll does not suggest that anyone would or would not add a cyclops. Such a thing may well be possible but the poll cannot be used as objective or meaningful evidence one way or another, over and above the general observation (which could be made without the poll at all) that some people would add a cyclops, some people would leave watch alone no matter how it came, and some people would remove a cyclops.
**edit**
P.S. If you read the above and you think I am being very pedantic then I couldn't possibly disagree! :-) Howeve,r I have a thing about truly objective interpretation of results. 'Over-interpretation', by which I mean injection of subjective expectation or unwarranted extrapolation not based on evidence but instead based on supposition or said expectation, is very easy to do without realising it. Even where such an expectation is quite reasonable in its own right, as in this case, it is still important to remember that the results of the poll/survey/questioning do not necessarily provide evidential support for it. Leaps of extrapolation from polls, elections and surveys and the like are all too common and all too misleading. It is this very same risk of 'interpretation' that led to the phease "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics".
Last edited by markrlondon; 28th October 2013 at 21:55. Reason: Added postscript
Mark. You will never - EVER - get the time it took you to type that back...
Without actually reading it to any extent, Im guessing that you made some points you felt were really important and, whether right or wrong, you enjoyed composing the post.
Great stuff. Good job!
Edit - google "Viz mr logic"...
I may be wrong, but are we talking about the little bubble of glass above the date window on a Rolex sports watch? - and is it really worthy of this level of scrutiny?
I read the date on my Sub many times a day and frankly it's a non-issue. I don't wear or need glasses but I don't find it ugly or annoying, if I did I wouldn't have bought it. What are stupid/annoying are those windows that show 3 dates. What the hell is that about??!!
On the other hand it's about change; and the beauty of google mixed with the hope that someone influential at Rolex somehow trips over this poll and changes their cylops (cycloptic?) policy. After all it is named after a mythical creature, a damn ugly mythical creature at that :D
The cyclops is one of the key visual clues that, with the Mercedes hands, the WG markers and the edged bezel, identifies a Rolex Sub as a Rolex, and not as, say, an Omega SMP. It's as much part of the visual identity for those who like others to know that they have a Rolex (and therefore for Rolex themselves) as the Flying Lady is to Rolls Royce.
Now, on this forum we like to kid ourselves that we are above that sort of crude merchandising. So we favour the SD above the Sub, and the Milsub (no WG, no mercedes hands, no cyclops) above all others.
But Rolex doesn't build watches for people like us - if it did, it would have continued a parallel run of matte dial acrylic crystal Subs and SDs, of a smaller size. Instead, it builds them for the emerging wealthy who want the world to know their new status - so any Rolex without the same visual clues has to be really big (DSSD, the 114060) or visually enhanced (GMT IIC BLNR) in some way.
Much as we'd love Rolex to reconnect with their past, in the way that Omega's Speedy Pro has been pretty much unchanged, except in micro details (ducks for cover) in 50 years, I doubt it will happen. They'll chase the dollar, and the local currencies of the new wealthy, rather than the niche WIS market.
And if I was an AD stocking Rolex models, I'd find it hard enough to deal with the multiplicity of models without having to carry a choice of cyclops or not...
ROFL! Good attempt at being patronising.
Sorry, didn't mean to appear condescending (that means when you talk down to someone). ;)
Now let's get back on topic, or it it time for the Poll we're all curious about ;-P
Since this thread seems to have reached its natural end, it's time for the actual poll to answer some questions above..
Rolex Cyclops: Love it, Hate it or Indifferent.. POLLTime!
Let the truth come out!
Posting Permissions
