why the cyclops?

[Fred48]

I'm not a fan of watches with a date complication, as it usually spoils the symmetry of the dial. However, I can understand the need and desire of many for a date.
But, in my opinion, the Rolex cyclops is ugly, especially on a dressier watch like a datejust.
So, I'm asking, why not get rid of the cyclops and just make the date BIGGER!
Seems to work pretty well for A Lange & Sohn!

Comments appreciated.

[Seddyspaghetti]

I like the cyclops. I think rolex with date window and no cyclops looks weird. Cyclops is signature rolex.

[duran]

Date cyclops is no CindyCrawford mole. Cyclops look out off place on a Rolex...

[Oystersteel92]

Originally Posted by Seddyspaghetti

I like the cyclops. I think rolex with date window and no cyclops looks weird. Cyclops is signature rolex.

Agree, it's quintessential Rolex, and as I get older I appreciate it more and more.

[GCFA]

The market proves majority buyers are feeling ok with the Cyclope.

[LDN]

I prefer they cyclop, it looks good to me!

[afmars]

Originally Posted by seddyspaghetti

i like the cyclops. I think rolex with date window and no cyclops looks weird. Cyclops is signature rolex.

+1!

[GradyPhilpott]

Buy an Oyster Perpetual if you think that the cyclops looks ugly.

[sirC]

My eyes appreciate the clops.
I am in denial I need reading glasses.......................

[MTdweller]

I love the cyclops and would always choose it over no date.

[Rori]

It's practical, it is a signature, it's, like someone said, like Cindy Crawford's mole:-) or, to my eyes, it looks like a drop of water on the crystal of my SD43. I can't imagine a Rolex without it.

[Fred48]

Originally Posted by Rori

It's practical, it is a signature, it's, like someone said, like Cindy Crawford's mole:-) or, to my eyes, it looks like a drop of water on the crystal of my SD43. I can't imagine a Rolex without it.

Really? Ever seen an Explorer?

[rnothog]

“Well, that’s just like...your opinion...man.”

I like ‘em. It is part of the Rolex aesthetic, to me.

But then, I like the Air King, too.

[RolexSimon]

Love the James Cameron - perfect date!!

[Rori]

Originally Posted by Fred48

Really? Ever seen an Explorer?

The explorer has one no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andad]

There are plenty of other choices so no need to fret:

[robinmgb]

I think the cyclops is horrible and very 80’s, all models without it look much better, more modern and cleaner in my opinion

[Sandpit]

Cyclops = Rolex. It's one of the tells of the brand from several feet away and something your average Joe even knows screams Rolex. It's part of the heritage of the brand. The story behind it (assuming it's true) is particularly interesting.

Functionally, to my eye it was a little weird to begin with on my Sub Date and was something that took a little getting used to, but now I absolutely love it.

[onefishtaco]

I actually don't mind it at all... it has a purpose. Doesn't seem like a huge deal to remove from some models it if it bothers you that much. Or just get a new crystal without it.

[joli160]

It’s Rolex DNA, should be left alone

[RyanJ]

I dislike it. Probably why I have an Explorer :)

[Sjef1]

Originally Posted by sandpit

cyclops = rolex. It's one of the tells of the brand from several feet away and something your average joe even knows screams rolex. It's part of the heritage of the brand. The story behind it (assuming it's true) is particularly interesting.

Functionally, to my eye it was a little weird to begin with on my sub date and was something that took a little getting used to, but now i absolutely love it.

+1

[kieselguhr]

I’m about 70/30 on the matter. Prefer without cyclops but don’t mind if the watch comes with it.

[HogwldFLTR]

It's a magnifier. I don't mind having a cyclops as it is very much a primary Rolex identifier. I used to not like the Sub Date for that reason but the presence has grown on me. I understand the symmetry issue but side on the side of legibility. As eyes get older the cyclops becomes more valuable (for most at any rate).

[Onikage]

Rolex would have to make a 'big date' movement and they don't currently. So Cyclops it is.

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by robinmgb

very 80’s

Never heard that about the cyclops before.

[OG1982]

I'm not a big fan but admit my Rolex does have one (216570) so can live with it, I'd just prefer if it wasn't there. It does look like a drop of water and somewhat ruins the symmetry of the dial. Other brands seem to add a date wheel which blends into the dial and compliments the overall look and I feel its a little lazy of Rolex not to do the same.

[Harry-57]

I like a date function and the cyclops. If I didn't, and still wanted to own a Rolex, there are plenty of options.

Not all cyclops are created equal. I have a Tag Heuer with a cyclops which essentially doesn't work. The Sly Dweller has a more recessed date wheel which you have to visually align with the cyclops to read clearly. Other Rolex models with a magnified date in my collection are very easy to read.

I have difficulty in easily reading a date without magnification. A bigger date window would not appeal to me. One of the many reasons I like Rolex design.

[Virtued]

Originally Posted by Oystersteel92

Agree, it's quintessential Rolex, and as I get older I appreciate it more and more.

I am totally agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jimmy66]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

It's a magnifier. I don't mind having a cyclops as it is very much a primary Rolex identifier. I used to not like the Sub Date for that reason but the presence has grown on me. I understand the symmetry issue but side on the side of legibility. As eyes get older the cyclops becomes more valuable (for most at any rate).

This is very true. My father 80+ has a five digit Sea-Dweller (that does not have a cyclops) and he cannot see the date. Gonna have to upgrade him soon!