Submariner Date 41mm without cyclops (is it possible?)

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by DeVille

THIS is how it should've been from the factory...

I'm not sure I like the gap between the date window and the edge of the dial. Maybe just a question of getting used to. I like the Cyclops, gives it personality, IMHO.

[Tedwood]

As others have said, research and source the original no cyclops date in it’s most modern 40mm ceramic iteration, the 116600

[2thdock]

To me the Cyclops defines Rolex. I love it. Do you though.

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by 2thdock

To me the Cyclops defines Rolex. I love it. Do you though.

Agree. There is also the issue that I need the cyclops, to read the date, with these aging eyes.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Krash]

If I saw a Submariner without the cyclops, I’d assume it’s a fake, and a real bad fake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRell]

Originally Posted by 2thdock

To me the Cyclops defines Rolex. I love it. Do you though.

Me too. A Rolex without a cyclops is like a dickie turtleneck. Or a house with brick only on the front. It isn’t complete.

[belutak]

Originally Posted by Choo Yao Chuen

Why not get the sub no date?

Or a Sea Dweller 4000, 116600 ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Curated]

Originally Posted by belutak

Or a Sea Dweller 4000, 116600 ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only interested in 5 digit watches, I have tried the newer ones, bought some for my wife and they are not for me. So yes a 16600 would give the same look, but bought my Sub 10 years ago unworn as a full set for less than half what a comparable condition 16600 would cost me today. Much easier to just pop off the cyclops as I did. Plus the sub is lighter wears a bit better in my opinion. I personally love the no cyclops look, don't care if others think its fake as I don't wear my watches for others. No plans to ever sell as my son will get my entire collection but it is easy enough to put a new cyclops on or a new crystal.

[VCoupe376ci]

Originally Posted by Choo Yao Chuen

Why not get the sub no date?

OP likely wants the date, just not the bump on the crystal.

[slus]

I'm still a fan of date with no cyclops. 116600 is probably the perfect all around watch but I would certainly not be afraid of taking a cyclops off a Sub or EXPII, I'm not in it for investment or concerned if other people think my watch was fake because it didn't leave the factory that way.

Those posting that the cyclops is a hallmark of Rolex are exactly right though. I got the "is that a Rolex" comments with my Submariner Date with cyclops, yet refreshingly few comments to date on the much more substantial and flashy DeepSea without it.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by slus

I saw a Explorer II with the cyclops removed and it looked so perfect it made me weak in the knees. Also seen photos floating around Instagram of a SD43 sans cyclops, also looked perfect. I'm a big fan of dates without the cyclops, both of mine left the factory that way but I am certainly not against discussing the modifications, much better than another ridiculous investment or shortage thread. Modifications used to be a lot more common before the hype and $$$ took hold.


https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=626915

If Rolex positioned the date window where it should be I wouldn't have an issue with removing the cyclops. But the inset nature of the window just ruins the look without the lens IMO

[H9000]

I am having my Tudor Sub serviced and will replace the crystal with a non-cyclops, generic brand substitute, only because I wear it a lot and don’t want to wreak a real one… again.
I love the look of the naked top hat crystal.