Seadweller Cyclops Question

[High-Gear]

I love my new SD, and really like the clean look without the cyclops, but I have a question. I have read the reason their is no cyclops is because of the very thick crystal would cause the magnification to be off. I just wonder why a cyclops with the proper magnification was not made?

A lady at the AD said it would pop off at depth, but I don't understand why, unless the pressure distorts the crystal somehow?

Whats the real reason?

[Arturo]

I heard that it had something to do with the pressure needed to go as deep as the SD does and that if such had a Cyclops, the watch would break.

[padi56]

Yes its simply down to the pressure,the cyclops is just stuck on so a tiny air space.

[Blue Bull]

Yes,my Dweller has gone down to a depth of about 2 feet and has come away with flying colours !!

I have the Blue TT Sub with the cyclops and the Dweller without the cyclops.I like both.

[Alex Stylianou]

good point

[puffnmo]

Quite apart from the logistical reasons for not having the cyclops, I just love the look of the Seadweller's date window. In fact I want to get one just because of that. It's elegant and different from other Rollie's. JMO. Larry.

[Blue Bull]

Originally Posted by puffnmo

Quite apart from the logistical reasons for not having the cyclops, I just love the look of the Seadweller's date window. In fact I want to get one just because of that. It's elegant and different from other Rollie's. JMO. Larry.

One reason I went for the Dweller ,is that it does have the date,but not the cyclops.I need the date,but also wanted a clean dialed Rolex,since I already have the Blue TT Sub,with a cyclops.I also wanted a ss sport Rolex,so the Sub/No date was also an alternative,but no date.I also like the size and height of the Dweller.
Believe me, the Dweller grows on you like you cannot believe .. Collection,complete.

Cyclops ? With or without ? No answer on that because I like a Rolex, with the cyclops AND without.

[IQ Publishing]

Originally Posted by High-Gear

I love my new SD, and really like the clean look without the cyclops, but I have a question. I have read the reason their is no cyclops is because of the very thick crystal would cause the magnification to be off. I just wonder why a cyclops with the proper magnification was not made?

A lady at the AD said it would pop off at depth, but I don't understand why, unless the pressure distorts the crystal somehow?

Whats the real reason?

It has nothing to do with the pressure... the crystal on the Sea-Dweller is thicker than that of the Submariner. Thus, the cyclops would be farther away from the date aperature, albeit only a couple mm's, resulting in improper magnification. The proper size cyclops would be MUCH bigger and would look out of balance on the crystal.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by IQ Publishing

It has nothing to do with the pressure... the crystal on the Sea-Dweller is thicker than that of the Submariner. Thus, the cyclops would be farther away from the date aperature, albeit only a couple mm's, resulting in improper magnification. The proper size cyclops would be MUCH bigger and would look out of balance on the crystal.

Spot-on, John. Thanks!!

[mansion]

Originally Posted by IQ Publishing

It has nothing to do with the pressure... the crystal on the Sea-Dweller is thicker than that of the Submariner. Thus, the cyclops would be farther away from the date aperature, albeit only a couple mm's, resulting in improper magnification. The proper size cyclops would be MUCH bigger and would look out of balance on the crystal.

Trust the Swiss - I'm sure they could manufacture a cyclops with the right dimensions and curvature, etc., to cope with the increased distance.

Maybe the pressure exerted on the glue has something to do with it?

(Yes, I quite liked the sober look without the cyclops, but in the end the increased height made me go for the GMT.)

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by mansion

Trust the Swiss - I'm sure they could manufacture a cyclops with the right dimensions and curvature, etc., to cope with the increased distance.

Maybe the pressure exerted on the glue has something to do with it?

(Yes, I quite liked the sober look without the cyclops, but in the end the increased height made me go for the GMT.)

The increased height you keep talking about is the extra thickness of the SD case....nothing to do with the crystal. The SD is a whopping 2.2 mm thicker (in height) than the GMT-II.

Here, take a look at this chart and you can see the difference in thickness between the SD and your GMT-II.

[padi56]

Now there is not a problem with the cyclops as long as the diver remained in high pressure environments. But when divers started to go deeper and breathing gases with helium.And the chamber was decompressed, it was not possible for the helium to escape from the watch as rapidly as the chamber was decompressing . The air pressure now in the watch would blow the crystal or the cyclops straight out of the case hence the HRV.But because the cyclops is just glued to crystal,and because the helium molecules can get under the cyclops it would just blow off when the chamber was decompressed.Submariners are fine for atmospheric" dives,but for saturation dives SD must be used without cyclops.