Reply With QuoteThat looks so much nicer - congratulations on taking the plunge!
Before.....
After.....
Thanks to our own Cannop for removing the pesky little blighter. A friend saw the images and said it was like having a wart removed from a beautiful lady's face
That looks so much nicer - congratulations on taking the plunge!
That looks crap. Like having a front tooth removed from a beautiful woman's face.
I actually prefer it with the cyclops in this case, but I'm sure many wouldn't !
It looks much better without, in my opinion.
Sorry to say it but I prefer it mit.
A vast improvement, well done chaps.
Great job, looks far better
I prefer this watch without the "wart".
A cyclops looks just not right, it lacks balance.
Not sure? How did you remove it just for interest.
I don't usually prefer the end result of cyclops removals but in this instance I think it's an improvement. There's certainly enough happening on a chronograph for it not to be missed.
Was it the application of heat, which made the wee beastie jump off?
SOOOOOO much better without that big lump on the front.
personally I'm not particularly dislike the cyclops and luckily it is the those older Rolex crown and caseback editions that I certainly won't touch it.
Looks great well done, so far every watch I've ever seen looks far better with the carbuncle removed.
My sans wart Sub date says welcome to one who dares to be different
Last edited by number2; 3rd December 2014 at 06:53.
Much better!
Fixed that for you...Originally Posted by SimonK
That looks great - that's the watch the Daytona should be.
Chaps
I have to say that the watch looks much better without the Cyclops.
Mick
Great watch and excellent execution but looks wrong to my eyes.
So much better, congrats on taking the plunge
bit better, well done for taking a chisel to it
Have considered having the cyclops removed on my Tudor Chrono as well, but I can't bring myself to mess with what I hope will be a future classic.
Well done for doing what YOU want to do.
Personally I prefer it with the cyclops, it's part of the design in my opinion.
looks alot cleaner without it and brings the focus more onto the dial, kudos for having the bravery to knock the thing off
Certainley makes it look different, would that be a big job to remove it ?
Cheers
Wayne
Look awful without the Cyclops. Totally ruins the watch for me. If the designer had intended it to be used without a Cyclops he or she would have treated the date window differently. But it's your watch so totally up to you.
:-)
Cheers
Tim
Agreed .... funny though, as while I really like this without the cyclops I love the cyclops on my SubC .....
Much better looking. Bye bye pesky superfluous cyclops!
I'm going to add my vote to the "better without" camp. Very nicely done.
... but in this case removing it unbalances the design of the dial. Sorry!
Does look better without the cyclops, but in my opinion this watch is the best possible justification for why the Daytona is just perfect without a date. Sorry...
... but in this case removing it unbalances the design of the dial. Sorry!
Tough one as both have their merits and I've been looking at the pics for a few minutes and decided I like both, but if pushed would say without the cyclops. Either way the only thing that really matters is that you're happy with it.
How was it removed out of interest? Imagine a chisel not the best tool :D
Completely divided opinion on here as expected. Well done for doing it to suit YOU though. My personal opinion is that I prefer any and all watches without a cyclops. I don't like the way they sit proud of the crystal, or the way they magnify the hands as they pass behind it.
At least a hundred times better.
"Strongly worded opinion stated as fact"
P.S. I agree with those who say well done on having the watch crystal that appeals to you - all that matters (until you flip it!)...
word for word, this.
good for the OP to not care about originality and resale. But instead to make his watch how he wants it. (To be fair, it's quite doable to reattach a replacement)
Interesting feedback folks, many thanks. Most things divide opinion and definitely expected this to be the case. To answer a few comments / questions:
- The cyclops was removed by Cannop and I am not 100% sure what method he used but assume it is was the heat method using a soldering iron or something similar. I'll PM him and ask him to elaborate.
- In terms of resale, replacement crystals are not difficult to find for this watch and all in it would cost about £50-£60 to do so if it does go up for sale the buyer has the option or it can be replaced beforehand, it's no biggie. It was definitely a consideration before doing the work. There is nothing special about the crystal in terms of it being signed anywhere, unlike my Datejust 116200 which has the holographic Rolex crown at 6 o'clock.
- That said, I am probably going to do the Rolex as well. It was a wedding present to me from the in-laws so will never ever be sold and I'd rather wear it the way I like it rather than conform to what has been referred to as 'design'. I've never thought as cyclops as design as the date windows underneath the same size on those on other watches without them. My 2264 for example has a date window the same size as the Tudor and doesn't need a cyclops so I just see them as a bit unnecessary unless you've got bad eye sight.
- number2, I do love that picture of the Sub without cyclops. Very nice sir!
I really like the fact that you have done this regardless of what people think and entirely because YOU like it. That is the way it should be!
Would be interested to see the Rolex if you have that done.
I must admit i do prefer the look of that watch without the cyclops, ive been thinking maybe my DJ could do without.
Good that we're all different, to me the wart always looks like an afterthought
Last edited by number2; 3rd December 2014 at 14:45.
So was it the "Cannop overhand angle grinder gambit",or the blow torch play?
I think we should be told
ps not sure I'd have bothered , I like those as they are.
In answer to the questions about removal, it's just heat and a razor blade that gets it to move, but I did remove the crystal before I did it
The crystal is held in place with a rigid nylon gasket which clamps a groove in the underside of the crystal, this in turn is compressed by the bezel to lock it all in place. The problem with using heat in close proximity to a nylon gasket is all too obvious.
For the heat I placed the crystal onto my warming plate to get the temperature up and then held a soldering iron on the top of cyclops until the adhesive was soft enough it to be removed with a razor blade.
Last edited by Thewatchbloke; 3rd December 2014 at 16:57. Reason: typo!
Stupid question alert.
Is the cyclops damaged by this and is there scope to easily reattach should you have a case of solder's remorse?
I prefer it without as cyclops are the work of the myopic devil, but the date wheel needs changing in my opinion - a nice fat font would look better.
Now that's an interesting point on the date wheel. Hmmmm, I think I may start looking at that
Yes, the font is a bit skinny.
Looks great without in my opinion!
Mind reader.
In fact a black with silver fat face type is what I had in mind.
Posting Permissions
