Reply With QuoteI've owned watches with date magnification and I can't really read the date without it.
But in almost every case it detracts from the look of the watch. So now I haven't got any cyclops watches and won't in future.
I've got 3 Rolex's and a few other watches with dates. However for me the Rolex cyclops magnifier for the date just spoils the overall look I think.
So are you a cyclops lover or not?
I've owned watches with date magnification and I can't really read the date without it.
But in almost every case it detracts from the look of the watch. So now I haven't got any cyclops watches and won't in future.
Plenty of threads on this subject and there is no correct answer - just personal preferences.
I prefer no cyclops and a nice domed crystal - sort of SD 1665'ish.
It's why god gave us chisels.
Didn't someone on here recently melt the glue to remove the cyclops on a Sub. Apologies for forgetting who it was and not searching, but the result was fantastic.
No for me. No also on date (not only for rolexes...) :)
One of each in my box. Sub no date - perfect. Exp 2 - not perfect, but works well.
Depends on the watch I'd say.
Is it that time again?
How quickly these things come around again.
Last edited by number2; 11th March 2016 at 09:24.
I am a big date user on a watch, but when it came to the Sub date/no date question, the cyclops just ruined the aesthetics for me.
Each to their own I guess!
". . .it must be Thursday, never could get the hang of Thursdays."Originally Posted by number2
Is it that time again?
To paraphrase the HHGTTG.
each to their own, wear in good health and all that.
'No date' version for me, the face is a touch 'busy' with the four lines of writing; the cyclops just seems too much. If you think about it, most other watches manage a date without a magnifier...so why couldn't Rolex?
My ideal Sub would have just the brand name on the face, and the second hand in red, for visibility. Any writing could be on the back. Much neater.
And 38mm with a matt bezel and thin lugs. The face could be a dark grey, and the bracelet brushed with a matt finish. That'l do it. Still no date.....
Last edited by paskinner; 10th March 2016 at 23:06.
I don't like cyclops.
Dave
I prefer not to have a cyclops but it does depend on whether the date wheel colour is the same as the dial. For example black dial and white date wheel is an eyesore. However I recently sold my Explorer 2 white dial and because the dial and date wheel are both white the cyclops really didn't feature. I've been contemplating getting a GMT but the cyclops with its white wheel is a put off for me.
Haven't had one until recently and now have two. Didn't think I would get on with them, but I am quite happy with it on the LV. My UN maxi marine diver has an inverted cyclops inside the crystal, which is much less noticeable and works well
why buy something you don't like ?
Definitely no cyclops but can't stand the thickness of Sea dweller... Submariner is nice but I prefer it with a date and so Omega 2254 it is...
Cyclops.
If it comes from the factory with a cyclops then it should stay.
Newbie. And total self confessed novice. Slightly spoils aesthetics for me.
(and I must admit i didn't even know what a cyclops was)
Cyclops is not for me, a discrete date much better
No I prefer no date.
Never had an issue.It was put there for a reason.Not that my eyes are bad but yes 1 vote for Cyclops.
No cyclops for me.
Although you need to be wary of chopping them off of modern Rolex, since they have taken to using AR underneath just the cyclops. Removing the cyclops leaves a weird AR spot underneath. Best to have Rolex replace the crystal with a non-cyclops one if that's your preference.
Last edited by Foodle; 11th March 2016 at 06:49.
To me it's a necessary compromise, so I have to accept it even if it's not the best look. So, all in all, one more vote for cyclops
Rolex will not do this. They won't do anything to a watch that takes it away from its standard state. It would have to be done ny an independent with access to the parts or by sourcing the part oneself and getting it fitted.
Since my first Rolex in the 80's if it had the date it had to have the cyclops lense.
But as with most things in my life 😊 things change and now I am more content to have no cyclops
I had only one with a cyclops, a Tudor chrono. Still have the Tudor but now without the cyclops. I never really liked it, then it got marked, probably damaged the AR on the surface, so I took a sharp chisel to it and now cyclops free.
That is not correct.
Various forum members have had RSC's replace the stock crystals (with cyclops) for ones without. Notably a Sub ND crystal on a SubC, as the ceramic models now have interchangeable crystals.
I'll have to dig up the thread ...
For example, post #13 mentions SF RSC in this thread:
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f23/div...-428904-2.html
Post #10 mentions London RSC doing it too:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=318888
Last edited by Foodle; 11th March 2016 at 08:26.
I prefer the sub with the cyclops intact I wouldn't have it any other way.
^
Agreed; although I once thought the magnifier was lame-o when I was new to watches and hadn't actually tried it, now a Rolex's date display looks maimed without it to me.
The lack of one is tolerable on the Sea-Dweller because the raised crystal adds a bit of visual interest of its own. Other models with lower-profile crystals tend to look too flat and boring when they're deprived of their Cyclops. Its groovy asymmetry and optical effects add a bit of character and keep things from being too sterile.
It's an æsthetically and functionally brilliant design — I say embrace the distintive look.
Iconic Rolex look, I like the cyclops plus I can't read that date without it unless I have my glasses on which I only use to read not when I'm out and about.
Really? This again?
Like, buy a watch with it
Don't like, buy a watch without it, or do a mod on the crystal
No one, really, absolutely no one is making anyone buy a watch with a cyclops that you have to have, then whinge on about it ruining the 'experience'
Plenty of choice, choose something else FFS
Last edited by nunya; 11th March 2016 at 10:11.
no Cyclops for me
The PAM0048 I had a while ago had a magnifier on the underside of the crystal. Sorry Rolex people, but I found that FAR superior to the Rolex solution. Not touch-intrusive, far less parallax, and not nearly as reflection sensitive.
So no, not a fan of the top face cyclops.
^
It's not entirely superior. The major drawback of that approach is that the crystal is only as strong as its thinnest area, so you have to increase the thickness of the entire thing to carve out an integrated magnifier. Either that, or you have to raise the crystal by the same amount so that the hands can clear an internal convex lens. Either way, you end up significantly increasing the thickness of the entire watch to get a result that can be accomplished with only a tiny raised area whose edges are unobtrusively rounded. Personally, I'll take the slimmer solution of the external magnifier every time.
Well, that and I'm one of those strange people that actually thinks the Cyclops looks good. ;)
Last edited by Belligero; 11th March 2016 at 11:54.
Cylops is the classic look on rolex. So one minority vote for cyclops here.
Both, obviously! Next!
...ok to answer the question properly, if anyone really wants to know, I used to avoid them at all costs, arguing for the 'purity' of the clean dial, and not wanting the watch to look too identifiable. Then I got an Oysterquartz and got over it, more or less instantly. Bloody useful, and frankly I'm starting to think it completely makes a vintage DJ. Subs maybe better without, but have them, don't have them, past caring is a good place to be on this particular issue!
As a relative newcomer to the site (7months ish) I've not seen a cyclops discussion so apologies if I offended your eyes, you could have just skipped the post.
I didn't say it ruined the experience I was generally just interested in peoples preferences. Of course i wouldn't buy a watch if I didn't like it.
Try top right search function, it may help in the future
I only like a cyclops, when it's on the inside, I hate them on the outside, looks awful!
Both of these: inside:
However it came from the factory.
I like cyclopes if that's how the watch was made.
I've owned three rolex watches. A sub date, a sub with no date and a seadweller.
I couldn't live with the "cyclops" on the sub with date (or the rattly bracelet and clasp) so l sold it to a mate.
Eventually, when rolex sorted their bracelets out, l bought the sub (no date) ceramic. Its face was beautifully symmetrical and it was a great watch, but l found myself missing a date. The SD4000 has a date and no "cyclops" - now lm very happy.
I dont see the appeal of the date magnifying lens, in fact l think its ugly and spoils some great watches, but l realise that some people love em. Fair play. I found the one for me. They're knocking out something for almost everyone. And, as has been said, there's always crystal replacement or the trusty old chisel!
if you are getting on a bit i.e. like me or just unlucky with your eyesight the Cyclops can be a big help...
Keith
Cyclops for me.
+1
It's nice to have a date function, but without a cyclops I can't see it unless wearing my reading glasses. It's even getting harder to see the hands these days tbh :-(
My Oyster has a Cyclops but I can't same I'm bothered ether way!
No cyclops. I cant see the date with or without reading glasses.
If it was a Rolex I might have to think twice as it's the archetypal substitute one isn't it....
No Cyclops for me, just love the Sub ND, had one and regret selling it
What exactly is a Sub ND?
Submariner with no date
Posting Permissions
