Cyclops Lovers Unite!

[F308gt4]

For the longest time, I avoided buying a Rolex Sub because of the cyclops (I really like having the date option).

When I decided to upgrade from my Omega PO, it came down to the Sea-dweller vs Sub. Ultimately, I decided to go with the Sub, since the thickness of the SD was about the same as the PO, and that was one of the things I didn't like about the PO. I thought I would get the Sub and eventually just get the crystal replaced with one that doesn't have a cyclops.

Well, it's been a few days now, and I've fallen in love with the cyclops. I'm just north of 45 years old, and having the cyclops makes it so much easier to see the date on the watch. It's a real neat little feature, and I'm glad I've got it now. I definitely made the right decision in choosing the Sub.

Cyclops is a winner to me!

[sco]

Yup. Welcome to the club! I came around on it as well and now the date seems tiny on every of watch I own....

[rick999]

Not a fan I find it pointless

Love the sub no date but missed the date function so deepsea but that's way to big

[superdog]

i absolutely love No Date watches.

however, also really appreciate the cyclops.

wearing my DJ2 and love every last bit of it.

[AK797]

Love the Cyclops, can be a lot of fun.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by rick999

Not a fan I find it pointless

Love the sub no date but missed the date function so deepsea but that's way to big

Easy, get a SD or SDc. problem solved.

I don't mind either way but prefer the domed crystal of the Deepsea above all else. I have gotten used to the easy sighting of the date w the cyclops though.

[crowncollection]

love the cyclops here

[DCgator]

Originally Posted by F308gt4

For the longest time, I avoided buying a Rolex Sub because of the cyclops (I really like having the date option).

Ultimately, I decided to go with the Sub, since the thickness of the SD was about the same as the PO, and that was one of the things I didn't like about the PO.

Did you mean the DSSD rather than the SD being as thick as the PO?

I do agree with you. I love the cyclops on my SubLV and DJ2. I wish my DSSD had cyclops but due to it being robust and awesome I'm willing to overlook the absence of cyclops. If I owned the old SD or SD-C I would install a cyclops for sure.

[1995akcoop]

finally, a positive said about the cyclops.....to me its one of the most important characteristic of any rolex. its a must for me!!!!

[Ken B]

Originally Posted by F308gt4

When I decided to upgrade from my Omega PO, it came down to the Sea-dweller vs Sub.

LOL, "upgrade". Interesting choice of words.

FWIW, I like a Cyclops on the Rolex too.

[F308gt4]

Originally Posted by DCgator

Did you mean the DSSD rather than the SD being as thick as the PO?

I do agree with you. I love the cyclops on my SubLV and DJ2. I wish my DSSD had cyclops but due to it being robust and awesome I'm willing to overlook the absence of cyclops. If I owned the old SD or SD-C I would install a cyclops for sure.

No, the SD 4000 is about the same thickness as the 8500 PO (both are roughly 15mm). A little too topheavy for me.

[iazrollie]

Not a big fan of the cyclops. Unfortunately, that was the only way my BLNR came.

[guyb]

Tick!

[jjnd08]

Originally Posted by superdog

i absolutely love No Date watches.

however, also really appreciate the cyclops.

wearing my DJ2 and love every last bit of it.

Agree. I really appreciate the models with them, and without them.

[AmbSteve]

It's iconic and I love it. I cry inside when I hear those who think/talk about removing it.

[Jlsd]

I am a big fan of the cyclope as we'll. It is a great and distinctive feature of Rolex watches.

[GradyPhilpott]

I have no opinion of the cyclops one way or the other.

[Mastergreenhand]

Love mine on my SubC date. I had a NDc before and missed the date.

[Bangel]

I also hesitated about getting the Sub Date because I wasn't a fan of the cyclops.

Once I put the watch on my wrist, the issue of the cyclops faded into insignificance and now I quite like it.

[busytimmy]

I dig it. I dig the absence of it. I dig it all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nycturbovr6]

Nothing wrong with the cyclops

[westsideclock]

[mattcantwin]

I liked it better on the EX II than on the Sub-C.

[Chris B]

To some of us its a necessity

[zama]

For me it is part of the watch, my only downside is you can get some finger prints/gunk getting close to the edge, apart form that no issue with me. Part of what makes it a Rolex and yes I have models with and without, so I know not all Rolex come with it.

[kilyung]

I go both ways on the topic.

[Dan Pierce]

I loves me some cyclops.

[bighaole]

I see the attraction of a no-date watch, particularly for one that won't be worn every day (just one less thing to have to re-set). But, if I'm going to have a date on my watch, I want to magnify the bejesus out of it! Nothing worse that a date window you can't read.

[Time Exposure]

Cyclops is so Rolex, how could you not love it?
That said, I really prefer smooth flat crystals, à la Daytona/ Milgauss/ Sub/ Sea Dweller...

[HogwldFLTR]

Depends...

Yes:







Definitely not...





And a near perfect watch with all that the Rolexes have and no Cyclops (and no need for one either).