Why the Cyclops??

[gtnator]

I really like the new Sea Dweller and will most likely buy it because its a nice looking and very interesting watch to me.

But I do wonder why they added a cyclops? The lack of cyclops was the most visual difference and signature of the Sea Dweller as compared to a Sub with date. Yes of course there are other visual differences, but the lack of cyclops was the one thing that stood out immediately.

Also wasn't the original reason Rolex gave for not having a cyclops on the Sea Dweller due to the cyclops affecting the integrity of the crystal when going down to extreme depths?

[jagwap]

The cyclops is an identifing visual feature on a Rolex from afar.

A pity it is an unattractive one.

[Smarties]

For those who like cyclops, can always buy a Sub. IMO making the new SD larger than 42mm and cyclops limit the option for those who don't wear big watch and prefer without cyclops.

I have DSSD too but find it a bit big and most importantly too thick to wear on daily basis due to cuff clearance. I like dive watch and Was planning to get one since last year but waited for debute for 50th Ann. Ed. ......SD is 3mm thinner than DS but adding a cyclops make it less easy to clear the cuff....

[Old Expat Beast]

Ageing demographic maybe?

[G'ed]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Ageing demographic maybe?

You meant Rolex targeting retired pro divers and not the millennials??

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by G'ed

You meant Rolex targeting retired pro divers and not the millennials??

No, I mean maybe the increasing average age of the typical SD buyer may mean they need a cyclops to see the date.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Ageing demographic maybe?

I believe Rolex realizes who their market is. It isn't young scuba divers that's for certain.

[diverdoug]

Originally Posted by gtnator

Also wasn't the original reason Rolex gave for not having a cyclops on the Sea Dweller due to the cyclops affecting the integrity of the crystal when going down to extreme depths?

The Cyclops does not change the stressing on the crystal, it is a separate piece. On a side note, as a former commercial saturation diver, a "lowly" Submariner is more than up to the task of taking on any dive you might do with respect to depth rating (although without a HE valve, the crystal can become dislodged fduring decompression after a sat dive). I like the idea of a cyclops, and have thought about adding one to my DSSDso that I can read the date

[vladamir15]

It's something that most rolex owners like and it makes the watch easily identifiable as a rolex. When the normal non-WIS drops thousands on a rolex they want it to look like one.

[Chewbacca]

i have never, ever heard of anyone complain about the lack of the cyclops being a deterrent due to magnification being required to see the date on a SD; i have heard of people complain about there being no cyclops which makes it seem inferior to a sub and not worth the money.

rolex just put 2 and 2 together and i can't blame them purely on a business case.

as a fan of the heritage however, they can pound sand.

this should have been a DSSD reduced w/ cyclops or a whole new model and let the SD phase out naturally.

[Xerxes77]

[RRGHOST1]

The original Sea Dweller had a domed crystal and of course didn't have a Cyclops, as it wouldn't sit properly as it wasn't flat, if I remember rightly.

[diverdoug]

Originally Posted by RRGHOST1

The original Sea Dweller had a domed crystal and of course didn't have a Cyclops, as it wouldn't sit properly as it wasn't flat, if I remember rightly.

Easy enough to manufacture a cyclops with a negatively radiused back that would sit nicely on a convex surface, and it looks like that is what they did

[topgear]

A lot of Rolex fans like the cyclops. I am one of them.

[rollee1]

Do you know the cyclops is a stick on item?
Soon enough on YouTube there will be tutorial on removing cyclops. Problem solved.

[nafkha]

Cyclop is the symbol of Rolex. For Rolex, Cyclop is the norm. If they didn't put cyclops on SD, it was purely technical. If now they can put Cyclops on them, it's just a new proof of their advanced technical abilities. I mean if they can have cyclops resisting such a high pressure, it is totally normal to "show off" their savoir-faire.

[diverdoug]

Originally Posted by nafkha

Cyclop is the symbol of Rolex. For Rolex, Cyclop is the norm. If they didn't put cyclops on SD, it was purely technical. If now they can put Cyclops on them, it's just a new proof of their advanced technical abilities. I mean if they can have cyclops resisting such a high pressure, it is totally normal to "show off" their savoir-faire.

The cyclops just sticks on the crystal, no "increased technical abilities " . IT IS JUST A STICKER, you can take them off if you really wanted to,

[nafkha]

Originally Posted by diverdoug

The cyclops just sticks on the crystal, no "increased technical abilities " . IT IS JUST A STICKER, you can take them off if you really wanted to,

I know. The increased technical ability I'm mentioning is making sure they will remain even with high pressure. The problem was that they couldn't put cyclops on SD because it wouldn't resist pressure.

[diverdoug]

Originally Posted by nafkha

I know. The increased technical ability I'm mentioning is making sure they will remain even with high pressure. The problem was that they couldn't put cyclops on SD because it wouldn't resist pressure.

What is your source for this information? It sounds dubious to me.

[nafkha]

Originally Posted by diverdoug

What is your source for this information? It sounds dubious to me.

I am an AD (my father is actually). That is what we've been told by Rolex people themselves during training sessions.

[SeaDweller50]

Originally Posted by diverdoug

What is your source for this information? It sounds dubious to me.

I believe it was plexiglass back then that gave them issues with the cyclops.

[behardt]

Originally Posted by diverdoug

The cyclops just sticks on the crystal, no "increased technical abilities " . IT IS JUST A STICKER, you can take them off if you really wanted to,

It was a stick-on in the past. Rumor has it they may have actually "carved" this one as part of the crystal to solve the old issues. Might be interesting for the first guy that tries to knock it off with a chisel. I'm betting they just stuck it on knowing that 1 in 100,000 people may actually take this to a substantial depth...

[josephvman]

The reason earlier generation of the SD didn't have the cyclops was because it compromised the integrity of the crystal at the depths the watch was rated for. Obviously they've engineered a solution to this issue, whether it be a different way to attach it to the crystal, or perhaps it's formed as a single piece of sapphire. In any case, I've never liked the look of the cyclops and it's one of the reasons I own a 5-digit SD and non of my Subs have dates.

Originally Posted by diverdoug

The cyclops just sticks on the crystal, no "increased technical abilities " . IT IS JUST A STICKER, you can take them off if you really wanted to,

[marcopome]

The Cyclope on that watch is a kick in the balls


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk Pro

[gtnator]

If we agree that the cyclops is the or a "symbol of Rolex", then they are just trying to bring the SD into the fold with the rest.

Either way it will be interesting to see where the SD, DSSD, and Sub go over the next decade. I'm excited about the future of all three of these Rolexes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RichM]

Can't wait for the low magnification issues to start.

[AK797]

I've seen quite a bit of snobbery on this issue, the idea that now it has a Cyclops it looks just like another Sub to most people at a glance.

[zjd168]

agreed, cyclop doesn't make sense to SD

[WAK4]

Be curious to see if anyone on this board or another site speaks with Rolex while at Basel and asks this question. Seems all we have is speculation.

[subx]

I too was told by my AD that the cyclops was ADDED to the flat sapphire crystal.

I welcome it, it's about time that we can have the dweller with the cyclops to be able to read that date underwater, that mini date aperture always looked like -and was technically- a compromise , no reason to keep it going for 'lineage or historical' reasons :)