Reply With QuoteSeadweller
Probably a daft one: do they make anything with a date that doesn't have that horrible cyclops magnifying window?
Seadweller
Cellini.
I bloody hated the cyclops when I bought my Sub date but after a while you begin to like it. It has stood the test of time, so why not give it a try.Originally Posted by HenPecked
The cyclops can be removed if that helps.. knife + hammer, and YouTube it.
Can I ask the chap at Goldsmiths to do that for me or...?
:-D
The local locksmiths perhaps.
I actually rather like the Rolex Explorer II and if I ever bought one, I'd want one without the hideous cyclops...... Serious question, at service would Rolex insist on replacing the hideous Cyclops, even if you asked then not to?
If you remove the cyclops on a modern Rolex you will be able to see where it was due to AR coating.
The cyclops has never bothered me on any of my watches, I just don’t see what all the hate is about !
Where have you been?
PMSL. great reply. made me smile today.
Jim
Before I owned my SubC date I was sure I hated the Cyclops. Having lived with the sub, worn it and enjoyed it, I now think the Cyclops is a cool feature.
Now I'm hooked on rolex, own 3 and all have Cyclops.... go figure.
How is it that I can go to a car dealership and be presented with a long list of available options on a new vehicle...... yet with Rolex, a prestigious, luxury brand, its a case of "you'll get what you're given and like it".... Surely they should give the option of no cyclops and leave the fitment of these hideous things for old, half blind people who really need it...... not needlessly destroy the aesthetics of a nice watch.
I was told at Rolex St James that they would be happy to fit a crystal without a cyclops on while the watch was in for a service.
This was a few years ago and I have since sold the watch so never had it done.
It may be worth giving them a call and asking, I have always found them very helpful.
I’d suggest reading the thread about Rolex annual profit figures, before trying to suggest how to improve.
Why sell you multiple options of the same watch, when the offer more than enough differences in models? Many 116610 owners also own a 114060, so they’ve spent twice as much, as opposed to an extra hundred to add a cyclops. Their business looks in good shape to me.
Surely time for a cyclops v non cyclops poll........
About 2 weeks after buying this I returned it to Rolex for a time keeping adjustment, at the same time they removed the offending blob, never had cause to regret it
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Very nice!
About 2 weeks after buying this I returned it to Rolex for a time keeping adjustment, at the same time they removed the offending blob, never had cause to regret it
I thought the continued use of the Cyclops eye, was a nod to tradition? Which watch maker was first with a cyclops? I've always assumed Rolex, in which case - the cyclops became synonymous with Rolex.
As others say - it would be nice for folk to be able to specify with/without.
I agree that it would be nice if there was a choice.
Your point regards cars is not totally correct as you are only able to spec certain colour combos in the interior and exteriors of certain cars as they don't want their machines looking like a dogs dinner.
Less of the ageist comments please, it's not funny, it's not clever, in fact it's bloody offensive.
Deteriorating sight with age is a fact of life, when you get older it happens to a greater or lesser extent. Struggling to read things, wearing varifocal glasses, poorer night vision, you've got it all to look forward to if you're lucky to reach my age (60 next year). I`ve never had great eyesight and it certainly isn`t improving with age.
By all means dismiss the Cyclops, personally I don`t like it, but don`t refer to older people as 'half-blind'. I have an older friend who really is losing his sight, it's not something to joke about.
Sure, just attach the warranty card to it.
SeaDweller 4000 or get a GMT and replace it with a Daytona crystal.
On most models it's possible to replace the glass with a non-Cyclops version. I fitted a new (generic) sapphire glass to my Datejust because the Cyclops was chipped, it would've been easy to change to a non-Cyclops in the same size. For anyone who's keeping a watch long-term this is an option worth considering.
The other alternative is to simply put up with it like most of us do.....but I do find it makes the date easier to read in my advancing years!
Paul
That looks SO MUCH Better!!!
About 2 weeks after buying this I returned it to Rolex for a time keeping adjustment, at the same time they removed the offending blob, never had cause to regret it
That's because it looks like a SeaDweller 👍
I was certain that someone would have knocked the cyclops off a SD43 by now.
I apologise! I meant no offence. At 54, I'm not that far behind you. I personally had eye surgery 10 years ago so I really do value my eyesight, which is good now. I can read the date on my watches without the need for glasses or a cyclops..... but even if my eyes went bad I'd still not want a cyclops as there are other easier ways to check the date rather than relying on a watch.
When I'm spending £4k+ on a watch, I want it to be perfect to begin with please. It should not have features that I have to "put up with".
If they don't make it without the horrible little blob, then I won't buy it.
I'd have to agree 100%
And what exactly makes a Rolex "perfect"? Apart from:
1). Future values
2). Wish to be 'seen' with a Rolex.
No interest in heritage, tradition?
But plenty will so I would imagine Rolex don't give a sh*t!
Neither of those. And very little interest in heritage or tradition.
Quality
Whether I like how it looks or not
Are my two main criteria. A number of Rolex models meet the first criterion, and fewer meet the second. I've been looking at the blue and grey dialled Oyster Perpetuals at 39mm, although I would prefer something with a date on it. The only reason I like the fact it's a Rolex is that I know it'll last and be easy to maintain over the years. I couldn't give half a stuff about what people see me wearing.
Very similar to another watch I am looking at for a similar budget - the Speedmaster Pro. I love it, but for a smart watch I would wear to the office, I would like it to have a date. I've tried a Reduced, but it looks too small on my wrist. Again, with little interest in heritage or tradition, I'd love a Pro with a date window.
Let's just say the money is not burning a hole in my pocket. I have been looking for some time, and will continue to do, until I find the absolute perfect watch.
Cool. I'm not asking them to. I'm asking if they do offer anything that may suit, as it's a fairly rare occasion that I can get to the high street these days, and fairly rare that anything desirable with a Rolex logo on hangs around long enough for me to see it, so they may already offer what I'm after, I just didn't know about it. Their website doesn't let you filter their whole range by criteria such as "annoyingly ugly blob on glass - Yes/No".
But I didn't need a Seadweller, as a diver I knew a would never need a watch capable of even 1000ft, so on that basis a watch capable of 4000ft would just be pointless willy waving, the majority that buy them are afraid to get them wet and when selling them are at pains to emphasize that the only marks are due to desk diving.
Last edited by number2; 14th October 2017 at 02:27.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Fair enough! I had you pegged unfairly.
apologies. :)
Al
Being a 'gentleman of leisure' (aka retired) I spend much of the time struggling to remember which day it is..........the date ceases to be significant!
I'd never dismiss a watch I like simply because it lacked a date function, I like watches for that very reason......because I like them. The one current Rolex I'd like to own is the Oyster 116000, with no date, and all the nicer for it IMO.
Just been working on my 1950 Omega Seamaster calendar today, the first date model Omega produced with a date function. It's superbly engineered but it's fair to say it's over-engineered! Lots of screws and nicely made small parts, but there's no way of advancing the date quickly! The date's at 6, and it's far too small to read, But in it's day it would've been a desirable feature.
Back to the dreaded cyclops, I had a 60s Omega Seamaster on the bench recently with a cyclops. It had a genuine Omega acrylic glass, possibly original, and I managed to repolish it sucessfully. What intrigued me was the way the cyclops was moulded on the underside of the crystal, giving the benefit of magnification without the protruderance! An elegent solution, I liked it a lot, why didn't Rolex do it this way?
Paul
"The Rolex cyclops crystal is a Rolex patent since expired, and a trademark-sign that the watch is a Rolex. Starting in 1954, the Rolex cyclops has adorned Rolex DateJusts making the date easier to read by magnifying it by 2.5 times. "
Trademark sign, tradition?
10yrs passed before Omega came up with non-protruding cyclops
For a WIS, I think that is a hopeless quest. But, good luck in your search.
For me, it's not just the protruding blob I don't like, but also the magnification. I have plenty of watches with very small date windows that I can read just fine without magnification. I don't like it, I don't need it, and I won't be buying a watch that has it on. We all like different things. I'm sure many of you would dislike some of my favourite ani-digi pieces, or the gaudy orange and green ones, but I like them.
For now, I'll keep looking. Thanks to the kind answers to this thread I now know it's probably not a Rolex I'm after. I''ve just tried on the new X-33 Speedmaster for one thing...(see my previous mention of my ana-digi fetish)
As others have said, anti-Cyclopsism tends to fade and then turn into affection once you actually try one. Besides, non-magnified dates are boring.
I've had and own watches with a cyclops on. In fact, I've got a Tiger Sub that I really like, apart from the bloody cyclops. Almost everything else with one on, I've sold.
I think you'd be able to find that in a Cellini.
Find a pre ceramic sapphire model and get the cyclops chipped off.
They're pretty much glued on and don't have the AR coating that the new models do.
In fairness though I think it's probably a good thing that you seem to have settled on looking at other manufacturers.
You referring to loosing money faster than setting fire to it?
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Paul is knocking on the door of 150......
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I don't think I've ever seen a Cellini. Are they like Rolex's version of Omega's "De Ville" dress watch line?
Whatever I buy will instantly lose me the entire purchase price, as I will not be selling it.
I'm 60 and two eye diseases, have to wear glasses, but can still see ok. I thought your comment was tongue in cheek and ok, so I wouldn't be worried too much, you didn't offend me :)
milgauss, explorer1, plenty of no-date oysterperpetuals about - 5513 etc...
So the no-date Oyster Perpetuals with a date?
I recently bought the Mona Lisa and can't stand that smile.
Does anyone know why Leonard Da Vinci doesn't offer one without that hideous smile?
As I paid upwards of £790 mil I should have had the option that I wanted.
Last edited by luddite; 17th October 2017 at 14:22.
I'm just a very naughty boy.
Good deals with- VINSTINK, kevkojak, Optimum, Omegary, seikoking, acg, SPEEDY, kfman, Card Shark, wajhart, Jot, danboy, zenomega, gaz64, minke, Mal52, Alas, norfolkngood, Sparky, rdwiow, mrteatime, gravedodger, joeytheghost, lordoftheflies, Silver Hawk, Filterlab, brooksy, marmisto, Fray Bentos, Bootsy, Harvey69, Mantisgb, bristolboozer, Jedadiah, newtohorology, Zephod, jimm1, Draygo, Raptor.
I may have forgot one or two, apppologies.
Posting Permissions
