Sea-Dweller Date Window

[Singslinger]

Originally Posted by belligero

Rolex has modified their date display by upscaling it for the 3136, 3156 and 3187 movements.

There's nothing stopping them from making a similar effort for the Sea-Dweller, and it's not like they lack the resources to do it. I realize that the older models used movements unmodified from their Submariner counterparts, but would be nice if the modern version had this extra attention to detail.

But the fundamental issue is that their excellent date system is designed to have the distinctive magnifier fitted; it balances perfectly on every other model.

Apparently, the reason the SD does not have a Cyclops magnifier like the other models is because the sapphire crystal is thicker than usual to withstand going to 4,000 feet (or 12,800 feet for the Deepsea) than the usual 300 ft or 1,000 feet. Putting a Cyclops would distort the date -

Here's the previous thread on the subject:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=42267

[Wingman244]

Originally Posted by Suboc

Could just be that the photo was not taken perfectly straight on. Very hard to say.

It is pretty symmetrical in Photoshop, so it was probably taken straight on...

[belligero]

Originally Posted by Singslinger

Apparently, the reason the SD does not have a Cyclops magnifier like the other models is because the sapphire crystal is thicker than usual to withstand going to 4,000 feet (or 12,800 feet for the Deepsea) than the usual 300 ft or 1,000 feet. Putting a Cyclops would distort the date -

Here's the previous thread on the subject:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=42267

It seems there's almost as many old wives' tales about the Sea-Dweller's no-Cyclops thing as there are water-resistance myths. It certainly has nothing to do with crystal thickness.

There's no technical reason that the Sea-Dweller couldn't have one in place; only Rolex knows the reason it was originally omitted. The most credible explanation I've seen is that they considered the watch to be thick enough already, and that non-divers wouldn't be interested in it anyway. :)

[belligero]

Originally Posted by Wingman244

It's interesting, I pulled the SD4000 off the Rolex site. Copied and overlaid it on top of itself after flipping the image. You can see the date window does not match up with the 9 o'clock marker. The date window is offset closer to the center.

Another very useful photo illustration (the 216570 vs. 116610 comparison was also quite informative); thanks for that!

[MahdiyaDad]

Wait, isn't the Cyclops attached with some kind of adhesive? I got the impression they went without it because going to those depths it wouldn't be able to hack it (the adhesive I mean).

[belligero]

Originally Posted by MahdiyaDad

Wait, isn't the Cyclops attached with some kind of adhesive? I got the impression they went without it because going to those depths it wouldn't be able to hack it (the adhesive I mean).

That's one of the old wives' tales I was referring to.

People say a lot of things...

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Tools

The date window is where it is to show the date on the datewheel of a 3135 movement..

Where else could it be

Exactly.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by belligero

It seems there's almost as many old wives' tales about the Sea-Dweller's no-Cyclops thing as there are water-resistance myths. It certainly has nothing to do with crystal thickness.

There's no technical reason that the Sea-Dweller couldn't have one in place; only Rolex knows the reason it was originally omitted. The most credible explanation I've seen is that they considered the watch to be thick enough already, and that non-divers wouldn't be interested in it anyway. :)

I've also read if a SD is used what's designed for helium could get under the cyclops and pop it off

[Toolguy]

Its perfect ..like the rest of that reference model

[willychu]

Originally Posted by lzz73

On the SD4K, is the date window too far inward?

My thoughts exactly. See what you think about this mock up I did:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=445161

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by belligero

That's one of the old wives' tales I was referring to.

People say a lot of things...

As longs a we're telling tales...

I use my 16600 as a back up timer for diving. With the normal underwater magnification I get through my mask, I can see the date just fine without the Cyclops (as if I need to know the date on a dive). No need to clutter up the dial to magnify something that's already magnified

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

As longs a we're telling tales...

I use my 16600 as a back up timer for diving. With the normal underwater magnification I get through my mask, I can see the date just fine without the Cyclops (as if I need to know the date on a dive). No need to clutter up the dial to magnify something that's already magnified

Again, the point is that the 16600's movement is designed for the cyclops, which is why the date is inset and not balanced without the cyclops. If Rolex cared about the symmetry, they would have made a new movement, or omitted the date window.

[Egelber]

That's why you buy a 14060-114060. Its perfect

[Singslinger]

This is from James Dowling's book "The Best of Time'' and explains why the SD has no Cyclops -

IMG_1042.jpg

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Singslinger

This is from James Dowling's book "The Best of Time'' and explains why the SD has no Cyclops -

Attachment 684179

Considering how inconsistent and small the magnification has been on recent models, maybe Rolex should go ahead and give it a shot on the Sea Dweller.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Suboc

Could just be that the photo was not taken perfectly straight on. Very hard to say.

I agree, the photoshopping of two images is far away from scientific factual data. Way too many inconclusive possibilities with the images, which as stated could in fact be as simple as unknown camera angle.

[Singslinger]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Considering how inconsistent and small the magnification has been on recent models, maybe Rolex should go ahead and give it a shot on the Sea Dweller.

True..or simply do away with the Cyclops on all models!

[Wingman244]

Originally Posted by belligero

Another very useful photo illustration (the 216570 vs. 116610 comparison was also quite informative); thanks for that!

Thank you.

[belligero]

Originally Posted by Singslinger

This is from James Dowling's book "The Best of Time'' and explains why the SD has no Cyclops -

That would be a good explanation if it were correct.

However, it's easily disproven. A standard Cyclops fitted to a Sea-Dweller works just fine:


photo credit: ray k


photo credit: kzm40


photo credit: Spirotechnique

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Again, the point is that the 16600's movement is designed for the cyclops, which is why the date is inset and not balanced without the cyclops. If Rolex cared about the symmetry, they would have made a new movement, or omitted the date window.

It is a Sea Dweller and not a Desk Dweller. The date feature isn't quite as important underwater as it is on your daily office beater IMO.

Rolex made the correct choice on the SD for those of us who don't need a Cyclops cluttering the dial.

[belligero]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

As longs a we're telling tales...

I use my 16600 as a back up timer for diving. With the normal underwater magnification I get through my mask, I can see the date just fine without the Cyclops (as if I need to know the date on a dive). No need to clutter up the dial to magnify something that's already magnified

Indeed, it was originally designed exclusively as a professional divers' watch, and I doubt they thought that many people who didn't spend time in a saturation environment would go for the thicker and heavier version back in 1967.

I'm wearing my 116600 today after a few months off the wrist; though it would be an attentive touch to slightly increase the date wheel diameter, the less-than-optimal positioning isn't much of an issue in real life.

Manufacturing and supply logistics would be more complicated with a larger date wheel, and interchangeability would be lost. Rolex definitely likes standardization; that's undoubtedly a factor in why they decided to use the 3135 movement as-is in the Sea-Dweller and Deepsea models.

[Seaotter]

Originally Posted by luminousmaximus

i like it

+1