ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

JohnFM · 19 March 2013, 12:41 PM

Thanks to Patrick Aziz (with generous input from George Ab, Tony Geha, and David SW), I own a 16610 Submariner and 16600 Sea Dweller -- both great watches and all reputable sellers!

I prefer the trimmer profile and larger face of the Submariner but love the clean, flat, no-cyclops dial of the Sea Dweller. So ... I was thinking of having the cyclops removed from the 16610.

I spoke with a couple of watchmakers today in northern California and am thoroughly confused! Other than the fact that most of all of them told me not to do it, prices ranged from $100 to $250. One said he'd add a little chemical (acetone?) next to the cyclops to dissolve a small portion of the glue, then chip the crystal off, and then clean and re-install the crystal. Another said it's best to remove the crystal, heat it with a torch, melt the glue, remove the cyclops, and clean and re-install the crystal. Another said it's best to simply remove the old crystal and put a new one on, sans cyclops, but that the crystal would have to be after-market sapphire since all of the Rolex crystals that would fit the 16610 include a cyclops.

Suggestions and input are appreciated.
Thanks.
John

NKflyer · 19 March 2013, 12:45 PM

I haven't actually tried, but I remember reading somewhere that you can cautiously apply small quantities of acetone and then remove the cyclops with a razor blade while the crystal is still on the watch. If you are able, might be safer to pop the bezel first to avoid getting acetone on it.

Speed · 19 March 2013, 01:23 PM

Why don't you buy a replacement crystal...and keep the original, original in case you sell someday?

rolex75216 · 20 March 2013, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speed

why don't you buy a replacement crystal...and keep the original, original in case you sell someday?

+1

mruhland31 · 19 March 2013, 01:52 PM

I agree with Speed...In my opinion the best way to go would be to but a new crystal and not deal with removing the cyclops at all

Thebiglagu · 5 July 2013, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mruhland31

i agree with speed...in my opinion the best way to go would be to but a new crystal and not deal with removing the cyclops at all

+1

Marrk · 5 July 2013, 11:14 AM

I like it cyclop-less, too. Don't know of I'm ready to do it to my 16710 . . . .

Damn you, Rolex, for thinking that a drop of water on a watch crystal was an "inspiration."

jmsrolls · 5 July 2013, 11:54 AM

When I decided to do a "Cyclopsectomy" on my 16570 EXPII, I took a Rolex "service crystal", soaked it in acetone for a few days, and the "bubble" slipped off easy.

My watchmaker then swapped crystals resulting in this:

BoomerSooner · 19 March 2013, 01:55 PM

SPEED' S advice all the way!

Marrk · 19 March 2013, 02:08 PM

Fr. John did this mod to his Explorer II. You could check with him.

LA_LEC · 19 March 2013, 02:12 PM

Speed suggestion is the most sound!

JohnFM · 20 March 2013, 03:03 AM

I agree that a replacement crystal is the way to go.

Should I care if it's a Rolex crystal, as opposed to aftermarket? Does Rolex even make a 40mm crystal without cyclops?

John

rmfnla · 20 March 2013, 03:43 AM

Remember, removing the cyclops will leave a spot without the anti-reflective coating...

Jdd155 · 20 March 2013, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speed

Why don't you buy a replacement crystal...and keep the original, original in case you sell someday?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmfnla

Remember, removing the cyclops will leave a spot without the anti-reflective coating...

Agree with above.

roger0770 · 20 March 2013, 12:08 PM

the no date sub 14060 has the same dial diameter as the 16610. stop by the sf rolex service center, and the folks will be able to help you. gio and his crew are awesome!

STEELINOX · 20 March 2013, 12:20 PM

JohnFM · 20 March 2013, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roger0770

the no date sub 14060 has the same dial diameter as the 16610. stop by the sf rolex service center, and the folks will be able to help you. gio and his crew are awesome!

I called there today and was told that Giovanni wasn't comfortable putting a non-cyclops crystal on this since it's not authorized by Rolex. Still, I may go in and try in person ;-) Giovanni is a wonderful guy.

ratty · 22 March 2013, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roger0770

the no date sub 14060 has the same dial diameter as the 16610.

Is this correct?

Rolex have told me in the past that they do not do an equivalent sapphire of the same diameter without a cyclops for the 16610. If the no date is the same diameter as the date, they have given me wrong info.

33JS · 20 March 2013, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmfnla

Remember, removing the cyclops will leave a spot without the anti-reflective coating...

The amount of mis-information on this forum is truly staggering.

Rolex-10 · 20 March 2013, 05:46 PM

Speed's advice is good.

Jolu · 20 March 2013, 10:01 PM

Bring out your tools and get to work. :)

rmfnla · 27 March 2013, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 33JS

The amount of mis-information on this forum is truly staggering.

Perhaps I should have said: "I have read on TRF that removing the cyclops will leave a spot without the anti-reflective coating..."

JohnFM · 27 March 2013, 04:40 AM

Well I did it. Here is the 16610 with a Daytona crystal. I kept the old Sub crystal with cyclops should I ever sell the watch.

I was planning to buy a 14060M because I like the cyclops-free dial of the Sea Dweller and the trimmer Sub case but I think I'm set -- for the moment ;-)

John

Jannal · 5 July 2013, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmfnla

Remember, removing the cyclops will leave a spot without the anti-reflective coating...

The Sub 16610 (discontinued model) do not have anti-reflective underneath the cyclops, whereas the 116610LN / LV (newer model) do.

STEELINOX · 20 March 2013, 12:26 PM

subtona · 20 March 2013, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

looks great!

jamesbondOO7 · 20 March 2013, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

My god! Are you eating the dog's food? I cannot even look at the picture. It's breakfast time here.

cop414 · 20 March 2013, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

That watch looks amazing without the cyclops, wow.
Looks just like a no date sub... but with a date!
If Rolex would offer this as an option I might have purchased this instead of my 14060M.

STEELINOX · 21 March 2013, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjclark32

Nice, this would be the way to go if it were me.
Then in the future if you want the cyclops back Rolex would have no problem charging you to put a new one in.

none at all, just save the cyclops and they will glue it back on...

Quote:

Originally Posted by NKflyer

Yeah, I really don't see what the big fuss is about saving the original crystal. It's not like an original rare T39 or something. Authentic replacement crystals with cyclops are widely available should the OP decide to return to original. A skilled watchmaker could also glue a cyclops back on.

Right, but anyone with a tube of "uv glue" and uv light, and a good eye can position and glue it back on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim300186

Did you get t red second hand fitted on that as well? Looks awesome

Yes, that is a red second hand from a YACHTMASTER...

Quote:

Originally Posted by cop414

That watch looks amazing without the cyclops, wow.
Looks just like a no date sub... but with a date!
If Rolex would offer this as an option I might have purchased this instead of my 14060M.

why, thank you

samsmart · 5 July 2013, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

That looks Great. I was going to do this on my 16710. I bought an aftermarket Crystal for it with no date, but ended up selling the watch before installing the crystal.

Where did you get the Red Second Hand? I would like to do that mod to my Sea Dweller!

19 March 2013, 12:41 PM	#1
JohnFM "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: northern CA USA Watch: 114270 Explorer Posts: 479	Removing the Cyclops? Thanks to Patrick Aziz (with generous input from George Ab, Tony Geha, and David SW), I own a 16610 Submariner and 16600 Sea Dweller -- both great watches and all reputable sellers! I prefer the trimmer profile and larger face of the Submariner but love the clean, flat, no-cyclops dial of the Sea Dweller. So ... I was thinking of having the cyclops removed from the 16610. I spoke with a couple of watchmakers today in northern California and am thoroughly confused! Other than the fact that most of all of them told me not to do it, prices ranged from $100 to $250. One said he'd add a little chemical (acetone?) next to the cyclops to dissolve a small portion of the glue, then chip the crystal off, and then clean and re-install the crystal. Another said it's best to remove the crystal, heat it with a torch, melt the glue, remove the cyclops, and clean and re-install the crystal. Another said it's best to simply remove the old crystal and put a new one on, sans cyclops, but that the crystal would have to be after-market sapphire since all of the Rolex crystals that would fit the 16610 include a cyclops. Suggestions and input are appreciated. Thanks. John

19 March 2013, 02:12 PM	#11
LA_LEC "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Los Angeles Watch: Explorer Posts: 1,793	Speed suggestion is the most sound! __________________ 16610 ♛ 16610LV ♛ 214270 MK2 "Life is far too short not to wear a Rolex!"

20 March 2013, 03:43 AM	#13
rmfnla "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Real Name: Richard Location: Los Angeles, CA Watch: TT DJ Posts: 4,456	Remember, removing the cyclops will leave a spot without the anti-reflective coating... __________________ Today, I believe my jurisdiction ends here... Lug Hole Lover®

20 March 2013, 12:20 PM	#16
STEELINOX 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Sink-O! Location: a praire in AZ Watch: ROLEX-less atm... Posts: 14,021	__________________ *Positive Waves Baby* Lug Hole Loyalist / Chamfer Line Inspector INFORTHE WIN SUB-MAH-REEEN-ER ~ !

20 March 2013, 10:01 PM	#21
Jolu "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Real Name: Jo Location: Norway Watch: Explorer I/II Posts: 660	Bring out your tools and get to work. :) __________________ “I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks” - Daniel Boone -

19 March 2013, 12:45 PM	#2
NKflyer 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Real Name: Richard Location: Colorado Posts: 2,858	I haven't actually tried, but I remember reading somewhere that you can cautiously apply small quantities of acetone and then remove the cyclops with a razor blade while the crystal is still on the watch. If you are able, might be safer to pop the bezel first to avoid getting acetone on it.

19 March 2013, 01:23 PM	#3
Speed "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: USA Posts: 19,706	Why don't you buy a replacement crystal...and keep the original, original in case you sell someday?

19 March 2013, 01:52 PM	#5
mruhland31 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Santa Clarita CA Posts: 1,028	I agree with Speed...In my opinion the best way to go would be to but a new crystal and not deal with removing the cyclops at all

5 July 2013, 11:14 AM	#7
Marrk "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Real Name: Mark Location: Los Angeles Watch: 5513 Posts: 2,192	I like it cyclop-less, too. Don't know of I'm ready to do it to my 16710 . . . . Damn you, Rolex, for thinking that a drop of water on a watch crystal was an "inspiration."

5 July 2013, 11:54 AM	#8
jmsrolls Banned Join Date: May 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,185	When I decided to do a "Cyclopsectomy" on my 16570 EXPII, I took a Rolex "service crystal", soaked it in acetone for a few days, and the "bubble" slipped off easy. My watchmaker then swapped crystals resulting in this:

19 March 2013, 01:55 PM	#9
BoomerSooner "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: USA Watch: Explorer Posts: 794	SPEED' S advice all the way!

19 March 2013, 02:08 PM	#10
Marrk "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Real Name: Mark Location: Los Angeles Watch: 5513 Posts: 2,192	Fr. John did this mod to his Explorer II. You could check with him.

20 March 2013, 03:03 AM	#12
JohnFM "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: northern CA USA Watch: 114270 Explorer Posts: 479	I agree that a replacement crystal is the way to go. Should I care if it's a Rolex crystal, as opposed to aftermarket? Does Rolex even make a 40mm crystal without cyclops? John

20 March 2013, 12:08 PM	#15
roger0770 Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: On Earth Watch: A Few Posts: 1,510	the no date sub 14060 has the same dial diameter as the 16610. stop by the sf rolex service center, and the folks will be able to help you. gio and his crew are awesome!

20 March 2013, 05:46 PM	#20
Rolex-10 Banned Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: UK Posts: 288	Speed's advice is good.

27 March 2013, 04:40 AM	#23
JohnFM "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: northern CA USA Watch: 114270 Explorer Posts: 479	Well I did it. Here is the 16610 with a Daytona crystal. I kept the old Sub crystal with cyclops should I ever sell the watch. I was planning to buy a 14060M because I like the cyclops-free dial of the Sea Dweller and the trimmer Sub case but I think I'm set -- for the moment ;-) John Attached Images

20 March 2013, 12:26 PM	#25
STEELINOX 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Sink-O! Location: a praire in AZ Watch: ROLEX-less atm... Posts: 14,021	__________________ *Positive Waves Baby* Lug Hole Loyalist / Chamfer Line Inspector INFORTHE WIN SUB-MAH-REEEN-ER ~ !

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)