Seadweller is starting to wear on me....

[nko51]

I started wearing reading glasses about 12 years ago, during those 12 years my prescription has slowly gotten progressively stronger. That being said! I noticed the other day that the date on the seadweller without a cyclops eye is somewhat small. I am aware of the problem why a cyclops cannot be put on a seadweller crystal, but why can't they make the opening and number bigger in lieu of the lack of the cyclops eye?

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Good question!

I guess it is a matter of design. A bitter date aparture wouldn't suit the design of the dial well.

In your case, I would consider flipping the SD and by the new GMT II or the Sub LV instead.

This would ease reading the date and get you better lume, too.

[nko51]

In your case, I would consider flipping the SD and by the new GMT II or the Sub LV instead.

I love the bulk of the seadweller! I wouldn't flip it for that reason! besides I just flipped a GMT 2 months ago.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by nko51

In your case, I would consider flipping the SD and by the new GMT II or the Sub LV instead.

I love the bulk of the seadweller! I wouldn't flip it for that reason! besides I just flipped a GMT 2 months ago.

Ah, sorry, I was not aware of that.

I can understand your predicament

[nko51]

Originally Posted by Spacedweller

Ah, sorry, I was not aware of that.

I can understand your predicament

And to make things worse I have a TT Blue Sub and SS Sub date.

[roadcarver]

Your prescriptions have bi-focals? Does it help?

Originally Posted by nko51

In your case, I would consider flipping the SD and by the new GMT II or the Sub LV instead.

I love the bulk of the seadweller! I wouldn't flip it for that reason! besides I just flipped a GMT 2 months ago.

[Flyjet601]

Originally Posted by nko51

I started wearing reading glasses about 12 years ago, during those 12 years my prescription has slowly gotten progressively stronger. That being said! I noticed the other day that the date on the seadweller without a cyclops eye is somewhat small. I am aware of the problem why a cyclops cannot be put on a seadweller crystal, but why can't they make the opening and number bigger in lieu of the lack of the cyclops eye?

Welcome to the failing eye club!

That is one of the reasons I sold my SD.
I think however the SD didnt come with a cyclops because, any of the watches with a cyclops, when you put them under water, the cyclops does not magnify anymore anyway. And the idea is that the SD(yes I know the Sub too) is meant as a diving watch, you will not be reading the date under water
I think they may have put a cyclops on the Sub to make it appear different.
If they put a bigger date wheel on the SD, they may need a new movement inside, so extra $$ for R&D. Because I believe the SD and the Sub have the same movement inside.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by Flyjet601

Welcome to the failing eye club!

That is one of the reasons I sold my SD.
I think however the SD didnt come with a cyclops because, any of the watches with a cyclops, when you put them under water, the cyclops does not magnify anymore anyway. And the idea is that the SD(yes I know the Sub too) is meant as a diving watch, you will not be reading the date under water
I think they may have put a cyclops on the Sub to make it appear different.
If they put a bigger date wheel on the SD, they may need a new movement inside, so extra $$ for R&D. Because I believe the SD and the Sub have the same movement inside.

The REAL reason why there is no cyclop's lense on the crystal of the Sea-Dweller is that the crystal is much thicker on the Sea-Dweller than that of the Sub Date. The crystal of the SD is 4 mm thick! A cyclop's cannot focus anymore due to that extra thickness.

I quote (from the review of the SD 16600 on www.rolexreferencepage.com):

"Cosmetically, the Sea-Dweller is a near twin to the 16610 Submariner. The differences stem from the Sea-Dweller being designed to be a true deep diving tool. The Sea-Dweller has a remarkable water resistance depth rating of 4000 ft. - that's 4 times the depth rating of the Submariner. To accomplish this feat, Rolex employs a thicker sapphire crystal than is used in their other sport watches. Because of the added crystal thickness, their standard magnification cyclops used over the date window is rendered useless. It is for this reason that the Sea-Dweller does not have a date magnifier, and many prefer the cleaner look this brings to the Sea-Dweller dial."

And from that same web site (http://www.rolexreferencepage.com/se...ference.html):

"Due to the increased thickness of the sapphire crystal on the Sea-Dweller, Rolex is unable to fit a functional date magnification bubble on the watch."

[Flyjet601]

Originally Posted by Spacedweller

The REAL reason why there is no cyclop's lense on the crystal of the Sea-Dweller is that the crystal is much thicker on the Sea-Dweller than that of the Sub Date. The crystal of the SD is 4 mm thick! A cyclop's cannot focus anymore due to that extra thickness.

I quote (from the review of the SD 16600 on www.rolexreferencepage.com):

"Cosmetically, the Sea-Dweller is a near twin to the 16610 Submariner. The differences stem from the Sea-Dweller being designed to be a true deep diving tool. The Sea-Dweller has a remarkable water resistance depth rating of 4000 ft. - that's 4 times the depth rating of the Submariner. To accomplish this feat, Rolex employs a thicker sapphire crystal than is used in their other sport watches. Because of the added crystal thickness, their standard magnification cyclops used over the date window is rendered useless. It is for this reason that the Sea-Dweller does not have a date magnifier, and many prefer the cleaner look this brings to the Sea-Dweller dial."

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Yup! Both the Sub Date and the SD use the Cal. 3135, as does the Datejust

[nko51]

Originally Posted by Spacedweller

Yup! Both the Sub Date and the SD use the Cal. 3135, as does the Datejust

What! I have a DateJust movement in my SD! What next a Presidential bracelet on a Air King!

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Flyjet601

I thought the cockpit pix of the GMT looked a bit fuzzy - now I know why.

[nko51]

Originally Posted by Spacedweller

The REAL reason why there is no cyclop's lense on the crystal of the Sea-Dweller is that the crystal is much thicker on the Sea-Dweller than that of the Sub Date. The crystal of the SD is 4 mm thick! A cyclop's cannot focus anymore due to that extra thickness.

The fact stated above was indicated in the original post.

[nko51]

Originally Posted by Flyjet601

Welcome to the failing eye club!

Isn't a formation of a club a voluntary action rather than involuntary due to failing eyesight!