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

[stainlesssteelsteve]

I just got the new Submariner Date 41 mm. It'd be perfect if it didn't have the cyclops.

Is it possible to get the non cyclops crystal from the Submariner No-Date 41mm and have it replaced on the Date? There are lots of Submariner Dates without the cyclops from the 1970s - it would be a similar effect. Has anyone seen this done?

[Zoomerang]

People would do that regularly with the 11 series, not sure why the 12 series would be any different (i.e., 126610 and 124010 having different crystal sizes)

[2001jesper]

Couldnt you get your local independnet to remove it? Its glued as i recall. Warranty is probably out the window though

[referencetwenty8]

Holy smokes I never thought of this. Can someone please confirm??

[gr33n]

[Ensign]

Years ago I recall guys removing the cyclops. This was before Rolex prices went nuts and guys were moding watches. There might be some really old threads about it. You just have to get the right solvent to release the glue.

[henrylee]

I believe the cyclops can be removed but remember seeing a photo where you could still see the outline of where the cyclops was, I could be wrong though

[joli160]

The cyclops makes it a Rolex, I like them

[1William]

I believe the answer is yes on the cyclops removal or the replacement of the crystal. Talk to a independent watch maker and see what they say. I would be tempted to by an OEM crystal from a ND and have it switched out and keep the OEM. Down the road you could include it in a package with a sale or trade or just switch it back should you desire. Great watch.

[jlovda]

Originally Posted by 1William

I believe the answer is yes on the cyclops removal or the replacement of the crystal. Talk to a independent watch maker and see what they say. I would be tempted to by an OEM crystal from a ND and have it switched out and keep the OEM. Down the road you could include it in a package with a sale or trade or just switch it back should you desire. Great watch.

I like this idea.

Also, I am not an expert on different vintages but I heard stories that the AR coating on the crystal is different under the cyclops and the crystal would look strange if the cyclops was removed.

[Crazy Lugs]

Originally Posted by jlovda

I like this idea.

Also, I am not an expert on different vintages but I heard stories that the AR coating on the crystal is different under the cyclops and the crystal would look strange if the cyclops was removed.

This is correct, although I am unsure if this has changed on the 126610.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by gr33n

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[mgsooner]

Would doing this void the warranty as you'd have a non-Rolex entity opening the case?

[m j b]

I recently bought a Steinhart Coke GMT, and because I don't like the wart, I removed it myself. I was a little hesitant, afraid that I would damage the watch, but I did it, didn't ruin the crystal, the case or anything...

Before and after pics below.

I used a heat gun, a sharp utility knife and a lot of "Tarminator" which is the same as any of your "goo gone" type products to remove the residual glue.

[Choo Yao Chuen]

Why not get the sub no date?

[Big Tex Rolex]

Originally Posted by m j b

I recently bought a Steinhart Coke GMT, and because I don't like the wart, I removed it myself. I was a little hesitant, afraid that I would damage the watch, but I did it, didn't ruin the crystal, the case or anything...

Before and after pics below.

I used a heat gun, a sharp utility knife and a lot of "Tarminator" which is the same as any of your "goo gone" type products to remove the residual glue.

1. I did not know the “Cyclops” was a glue on piece … I guess I just assumed the crystal was molded with the magnifying part.

2. I like your watch better without the Cyclops … I think it looks good.

My Black Submariners have no date, and I prefer that look.

As you know, for reference / comparison, some Sea-Dwellers have the magnifying lens, and some do not.

[6XYBE63ST]

if mine did not have the cyclops, i would not be able to read it.

[Maxy]

Originally Posted by m j b

I recently bought a Steinhart Coke GMT, and because I don't like the wart, I removed it myself. I was a little hesitant, afraid that I would damage the watch, but I did it, didn't ruin the crystal, the case or anything...

Before and after pics below.

I used a heat gun, a sharp utility knife and a lot of "Tarminator" which is the same as any of your "goo gone" type products to remove the residual glue.

Good job. I would do that for any watch which is not a Rolex.

[Maxy]

Originally Posted by Choo Yao Chuen

Why not get the sub no date?

Coz it has no date!

[zengineer]

Originally Posted by Maxy

Coz it has no date!

Today is the 28th...all day, tomorrow the 1st, add one to that each day.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[crew]

Originally Posted by m j b

I recently bought a Steinhart Coke GMT, and because I don't like the wart, I removed it myself. I was a little hesitant, afraid that I would damage the watch, but I did it, didn't ruin the crystal, the case or anything...

Before and after pics below.

I used a heat gun, a sharp utility knife and a lot of "Tarminator" which is the same as any of your "goo gone" type products to remove the residual glue.

That’s a fine looking watch Michael!

[Mendota]

The cyclops is just affixed with UV glue. Yes, you can remove it but with the way they applied the AR coating on the 11 series watches there was a cyclops shaped spot of AR underneath the crystal. The cyclops itself also had a layer of AR underneath it, so the two layers combined created that black hole effect on an otherwise non-AR crystal. There are some pics of what happens if you remove it as well as a copy of the Rolex spec sheet for the AR cyclops crystal here: https://minus4plus6.com/116710.php#cyclops

I have read that the new 12 series subs actually have a full AR crystal now, so "in theory" that would mean that the entire underside surface of the crystal has the AR coating. Then the cyclops itself has a layer of AR underneath it to still create that additional clarity through the cyclops from the double AR. "In theory" removing it should not produce the goofy looking results that happened with the 11 series crystals.

You won't know until you try it! Good luck and report back. Worst case is you then just go try to source a 124060 crystal at your AD and have them swap it in for you.

Back in the day, with the 1680 you could choose which plexi you wanted. You could choose a T19 dome or a super dome, or take the standard top hat plexi. Personally, I think the domes look so much better on the 1680 than the top hat does. Night and day.

[Bizcut1]

Yah - it's one thing to ruin a cheap Steinhart. It's a crappy-looking faux-Rolex "homage" so no real harm done.

Now, I think you should take a $10,000 watch, which is actually worth about $20K, and use a heat gun, a sharp utility knife and a bunch of goo gone on it.

Really, slather all that Goo Gone goodness all over it. The ceramic bezel, perhaps under the crown, you know - work it all in real good.

Then, when you butcher it and it is ruined, you can send us some pictures.

Of course, none of this will actually happen, but the mental picture of the potential mid-project disaster is interesting...

[zengineer]

If I was inclined to do this I would not hesitate to have my local guy source and install a non cyclops crystal and keep the original. I also have a strict no date rule in my collection so it won't ever come up.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[m j b]

Originally Posted by Big Tex Rolex

2. I like your watch better without the Cyclops … I think it looks good.

Thanks Tex! Me too.

Originally Posted by crew

That’s a fine looking watch Michael!

Thanks John.

Originally Posted by Bizcut1

Yah - it's one thing to ruin a cheap Steinhart. It's a crappy-looking faux-Rolex "homage" so no real harm done.

Ouch, kind of harsh! I don't think it's crappy looking at all.

Originally Posted by Bizcut1

Now, I think you should take a $10,000 watch, which is actually worth about $20K, and use a heat gun, a sharp utility knife and a bunch of goo gone on it.

Really, slather all that Goo Gone goodness all over it. The ceramic bezel, perhaps under the crown, you know - work it all in real good.

I thought the same thing as I was doing this - would I take the chance on a Rolex? Maybe not. But I will suggest that slathering all of that awesome orange-smelling goo-gone all over the Rolex really won't hurt it at all. It's pretty tough, you know, made out of space-age ceramics and that special stainless steel and all.

I was more worried about the heat gun than anything else, as the watch got pretty darn hot.

[DBCooper07]

It's only guled on, a 15$ pocket torch off amazon and 4-5 seconds and it pop's right off. But do you really want to do it?

[11b1p]

If I were to do that I’m inclined to agree with those that said to buy a regular no date crystal and have that installed.

[rfiorito]

My experience from several years ago, I also didnt like the cyclops and the AD removed it. But its not as simple as removing the cyclops, due to the UV coating on newer models. You have to swap out the entire crystal. I don't recall what model was compatible, but its definitely an option if you work with the right AD.

[Number3]

Originally Posted by rfiorito

I don't recall what model was compatible, but its definitely an option if you work with the right AD.

The ‘no date’ model?

[brkn]

why would you do this? don't do this.