Cyclops......or no cyclops?

[Dapper]

I've nothing against modifying a watch to suit individual taste. However, in this case, I'd stay original & keep the cyclops

[Belligero]

Elaborate please teacher....

OK.

The magnifier itself can't fail from overpressurization; it's a solid piece of sapphire or acrylic. Nor does it have any effect on the watch's pressure resistance. You can easily test this yourself by taking two Sea-Dwellers — identical in all respects except that one has had Rolex's magnifier glued on — and placing them in a pressure testing chamber, then noting the point at which they fail. Note that you'll need a rather stout apparatus for this to work properly. Repeat as many times as necessary to get a statistically valid result, and you'll find that the presence of a cyclops (or even a dozen cyclopes and a cyanide capsule) on the crystal makes absolutely no difference.



(You could also demonstrate this fully-understood property of fluid mechanics by using cheaper materials, such as ping-pong balls with and without wads of chewing gum affixed, but where's the fun in that?)

[number2]

OK.

The magnifier itself can't fail from overpressurization; it's a solid piece of sapphire or acrylic. Nor does it have any effect on the watch's pressure resistance. You can easily test this yourself by taking two Sea-Dwellers — identical in all respects except that one has had Rolex's magnifier glued on — and placing them in a pressure testing chamber, then noting the point at which they fail. Note that you'll need a rather stout apparatus for this to work properly. Repeat as many times as necessary to get a statistically valid result, and you'll find that the presence of a cyclops (or even a dozen cyclopes and a cyanide capsule) on the crystal makes absolutely no difference.



(You could also demonstrate this fully-understood property of fluid mechanics by using cheaper materials, such as ping-pong balls with and without wads of chewing gum affixed, but where's the fun in that?)

Appreciated, so in conclusion its for appearance only unless you have failing eyesight?

[bigup]

id only have cyclops on a Rolex, not on other watches

[Jim W]

I find a cyclops very practical.......saves getting my specs out!

Me too.. I think it's great, and it's a classic Rolex feature.

[Belligero]

Appreciated, so in conclusion its for appearance only unless you have failing eyesight?

Affirmative.

FWIW (which ain't much), I've come to appreciate the look of that little magnifier. Aside from the function, it adds a bit of extra visual interest as well as a dynamic element to the watch, and I find the asymmetry appealing. I find that my Sea-Dweller looks a bit plain without it, in fact.

[verv]

Love the cyclops. It's iconic and an acquired taste, but if you don't like it, there is a Sea Dweller...

This.

[hiver]

Without, please

[JeremyO]

Don't like the cyclops at all which is why I've got a 14060M Sub.

[JakubL]

I am for both on specific Rolex (not other brands) models and have nothing against cyclop however proven truth is that most people I met who are not too much into watches and look on the watch only from aesthetic side never liked cyclops. 70% of them said it looks too old-fashioned, seniorish and the rest 30% said it looks just ugly.

[Velorum]

Ive had a few homage's fitted with cyclops (as Im about as likely to own a Rolex as be invited onto the first Mars mission) and thought that they looked OK.

In my view a date window is an eyesore anyway that upsets my sense of symmetry so if its got to be there then why not make more of a feature of it?

[Montybaber]

I Like them!

So there

[bitfield]

FWIW (which ain't much), I've come to appreciate the look of that little magnifier.

What's more, it works. Jokes about advancing age and failing eyesight aside, it's actually way easier to read the date at a glance. On many of my other watches I have to tilt the dial just the right way, catch the light, and peer closely at it. On one watch the date wheel is so recessed you practically need a torch to see it.

Under less than ideal viewing conditions the cyclops helps a lot.

[Johnosul]

No cyclops always. The cyclops is plain ugly.

[number2]

Every 12 months or so this blo**y Cyclops nonsense rears its head, and every year I fall for it and join in, sheesh I should know better by now

[NenoS]

No cyclops, never.

[Yorkshiremadmick]

if you bought it with the cyclops, keep it. on a personal note, the cyclops has been a real barrier to me buying a sub date. thankfully, there's the sea dweller :)

I had a sub bi-metal blue dial Loved it. Hated cyclops. I now have a sea dweller but can't read the date with out my glasses But my phone has the date on it so I don't mind

No Cyclops for me

[scrog10]

I'm not a fan of the cyclops. I know it makes the date easier to read straight on but any other angle it makes it harder to read.
Its easy enough to remove as its only glued on. The ceramic Rolex do have an AR coating only under the cyclops so if removed it may look a little strange.
Personally I would like to see Rolex use AR on the whole Crystal like most other higher end watches.

[fedagent28]

I'll go with the original specification of the watch.

If its a Rolex Submariner, then its with the cyclops.

[Enda]

None for me. It's one of the main reasons I don't like rolex

[P9CLY]

Cyclops......THIS:- No cyclops.

[chester]

Love for the cyclops can be pretty hard to find but I don't mind them.

[Lammylee]

I would go for an option ( ND or seadweller) without cyclops rather than convert one to this specification!

[guli]

I don't like the cyclops, would like to get it off it on mine, but I'm too chicken!!!

[anoetic]

I would normally go with with, but on the two watches pictured i prefer without