Cyclops! Really ?

[subtona]

Hard to see rolex date w/o a cyclops for me.

As a reference, Patek uses a larger font and seems to make all the difference in visibility for older eyes.

I prefer no cyclops.

[J!m]

I like it. It's a neat feature.

But, I like the way it is done on my Tag Heuer better- that is a chronograph module on top of a Quartz "engine" (like Omega does with the Eta 2892-A2 for the Speedy auto) but the neat thing with the Tag is the "cyclops" is in the dial, under the crystal. So, you get a cheap, robust crystal and the date mag feature.

Obviously this only works when the date wheel is far enough below the dial, as it is with a module arrangement ike this.

Anyway, here's a picture (although not easy to see at that angle):

[grrr]

Originally Posted by Thevenin

Cyclops is to love

Wow!!!! Love this pic

[robrtx]

With my eyesight, I wish they made a Cyclops to cover the entire dial......

[J!m]

Originally Posted by robrtx

With my eyesight, I wish they made a Cyclops to cover the entire dial......

Sort of like those magnifiers you stock on your van back window... Stick it on your tv to make it a big screen!

[mike]

Originally Posted by Haggx

,I'm sure you are going to respond with negative remarks with regard to my opinions and knowledge , go for it my friends it is of little consequence to me,I wish you all well

What a great attitude. You come here, ask a question, Then thumb your nose at everyone. More and more your's represents the attitude some have on this forum and it is going to stop.

[westsiderkg]

Ok on all models....less desirable on some smaller ones....on DSSD would look horrible IMHO....own one and that's what I loved about the DSSD, the omitted the Cyclops...and the glidelock clasp too to easy adjustments.

[eonflux]

On the SDC and DSSD, the date window size and placement, and font, look the same to me as on the SubC. But w/out the cyclops, they date looks a bit too small on the SDC and DSSD, and a bit awkwardly positioned on the dial compared with the SubC. But it probably wasn't cost effective to make a new dial and new date wheel (and perhaps new movement to match) to optimally fit a non cyclops dial with the same overall dimensions.

A cyclops would probably be difficult to make work well with the very thick and domed DSSD crystal, but could probably have been developed for the SDC, though would obviously would be different than that used for the SubC given the different thicknesses of the crystal and distances between the outer surface of the crystal and the date windows.

[eonflux]

Another responded highlighted the benefits of having the magnifying glass under the crystal, and I like that solution as well with respect to having a cleaner crystal and slightly wider viewing angles of the date.

[phils]

Over 40 years old = love the cyclops.

The reason the SD has never had the cyclops is because in a saturation atmosphere the hydrogen atoms (being so small) get under it and pops it off.

[J!m]

I suppose you meant helium atoms and I know that was responsible for entire crystals to pop off "watch exploding" but I had never heard of the cyclops popping off the crystal top. I always assumed they were cast in when the acrylic crystal was made in the first place.

The sapphire cyclops is glued to the crystal but I've never heard of those popping off the crystal either, other than via impact.

[SrFADE]

Originally Posted by eonflux

On the SDC and DSSD, the date window size and placement, and font, look the same to me as on the SubC. But w/out the cyclops, they date looks a bit too small on the SDC and DSSD, and a bit awkwardly positioned on the dial compared with the SubC. But it probably wasn't cost effective to make a new dial and new date wheel (and perhaps new movement to match) to optimally fit a non cyclops dial with the same overall dimensions.

A cyclops would probably be difficult to make work well with the very thick and domed DSSD crystal, but could probably have been developed for the SDC, though would obviously would be different than that used for the SubC given the different thicknesses of the crystal and distances between the outer surface of the crystal and the date windows.

So the photo of all three at an oblique angle displays the only (for me) downside of the "cyclops." Both of the non-magnified displays are fully readable at that angle where the magnified version needs much closer to a right angle orientation to be legible. I have the magnifier on all of my Rolex models so don't count me as a hater, but it does have its limitations. Great side by side comparison photo you provided.

[withthesword]

what's not to love?



and if you don't like it, there's always one of these :)

[SrFADE]

Originally Posted by mike

What a great attitude. You come here, ask a question, Then thumb your nose at everyone. More and more your's represents the attitude some have on this forum and it is going to stop.

Well said.

[Thegr8one]

This thread is from 2013. Doesn't negate the negativity, just saying.....

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Thevenin

Cyclops is to love

awesome shot

[SrFADE]

Originally Posted by Thegr8one

This thread is from 2013. Doesn't negate the negativity, just saying.....

Still applies though, doesn't it. I don't have many posts but still cringe a little bit when I see the someone's first post be a "what is the best price for..." or "what is this watch worth." etc. I must admit that I missed the date of the negative post and just got caught up in the moment with the moderator's very satisfying rejoinder.

[Thevenin]

Originally Posted by grrr

Wow!!!! Love this pic

Originally Posted by brandrea

awesome shot

Thanks

[redsubby]

I believe they didn't put cyclops on DSSD or SD because of depth rating purposes.