why the cyclops?

[Cambo]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

The cyclops is a hideous boil. I suspect ‘ol Hansi was nearsighted, which is why he came up with it.

Wow.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by eonflux

As I age, I like the functionality of the cyclops, but it's such a crude solution.
Agree it would be better to make the date larger.
Could enlarge the date wheel, which would allow larger numbers, and move the date window closer to the edge.

Yeah, the cyclops work on my Sub and GMT, but I don't like having them on the crystals.

I actually hate the small and poorly positioned date window on my DSSD.
It's obviously not the right implementation for that watch.
The 3135 calendar wheel and date window position is designed for a cyclops. Rolex should have made a movement specific for the DSSD dial and lack of cyclops.

Agree completely. I love the dial on the DSSD but the inset date window on that watch and on the SD4K drive me nuts! Clearly the position was designed to accommodate a cyclops lens. The fact that Rolex didn't design a calendar wheel with the date in the correct position on the far right of the dial just shows laziness or cost cutting on their part. They simply did not want to spend the money to design a different movement for those watches.

[GMT Aviator]

As already stated, as I’ve grown older, I’ve come to appreciate the cyclops more and more. When I wear one of my non cyclops date watches, I simply can’t read the number anymore.
I’ve even contemplated adding a a cyclops to one of my non Rolex watches just to read the date on it.

[eonflux]

Originally Posted by samson66

Agree completely. I love the dial on the DSSD but the inset date window on that watch and on the SD4K drive me nuts! Clearly the position was designed to accommodate a cyclops lens. The fact that Rolex didn't design a calendar wheel with the date in the correct position on the far right of the dial just shows laziness or cost cutting on their part. They simply did not want to spend the money to design a different movement for those watches.

Originally Posted by springbar

The date is already as big as it can be with a single date wheel.


Going bigger requires multiple wheels, with the attendant complexity and bulk.

Rolex was putting cyclopses on comparatively thin and rugged Datejusts in the 1950s.

Economically, made sense just to use the 3135 movement Rolex already had, and the same dial, and put that all in a case that can withstand the pressure down at 12,800 ft. The DSSD would be expected to sell at far fewer numbers than the Sub and all the Datejusts that use the 3135, so a new movement would not likely be cost-effective.

I think if Rolex wanted to, they could have reduced the space between the calendar wheel and the edge of the 3135, like on this movement. Even just a small increase in radius would have allowed a larger circumference and hence more space for larger numbers.

[kizerman]

I'm 49. Seven years ago I could read the serial number off the lug of an Omega in natural lighting with my naked eye. Anyone with an Omega Seamaster can tell you how small that font is.

Today I cannot read the date on my Rolexes without the cyclops and, to be honest, sometimes I need the cyclops and my reading glasses to see it.

Getting old sucks and I am thankful for the cyclops. Most who despise it will appreciate it one day soon.

[junamuan]

I agree. I can live without it.
Cyclop is my least favorite amongst Rolex with date.

[CaptT]

Double Double Toil and “Bubble”

Mention cyclops
The famed bubble
Stirs the pot and
Causes trouble

What’s the date
I can relate
Water droplet
That you hate

Ugly boil or
Useful magnifier
Crystal soil or
Rolex identifier

Aging eyes
Hard to see
Cindy’s mole?
Hmmmm maybe

Larger numbers
New date wheel
Too much of
An ordeal

Tell us then
What’s all the fuss
Different opinions
For each of us


————————————

* a meager attempt at summarizing this thread

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by 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.

Because Hans Wildsorf’s wife could not read the date on her lady DateJust (or LadyDate, I forgot which) when it was initially released.

Subsequently came the fix; a magnifying lens affixed to the crystal.

I can’t recall my source (for fear of spreading urban myths) but could locate it if pushed.

~ Sheldon

[thefollandgnat]

Originally Posted by CaptTed

Double Double Toil and “Bubble”

Bravo, Capt! Nicely minimalist.

[28mm]

It's also a matter of how many you have and how you use your watches. I have a few with date and some without, It's nice to not have to set the date and just set time and you're good to go.

Until I owned a Sub with no date did I realize how amazing and more purposeful it felt. Pictures somehow didn't portray that the same way.

Both are great of course.

[chong2k]

When I was a kid I thought only grandparents own a Rolex which I recognized with the cyclops.

As a grown up I really liked the cyclops magnification, especially with the new ones with antireflective coating.

Now I‘m 47 and have a hard time reading the date of my Deepsea without reading glasses.

So, I guess I was right as a kid ;)

[Daveh777]

Once you hit 50 years of age you’ll truly appreciate the cyclops.

[zion_rasta]

From the observers perspective, you can ID a Rolex:
60% bracelet
35% cyclops
5 % dial

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Seddyspaghetti

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

I agree. A Rolex without the cyclops would look strange to the point where it would be ugly. I’m talking Rolex models with a date of course...Rolex models without a date are gorgeous too.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dazooom]

You're obviously younger than 45. Once you become presbyopic, you'll appreciate it.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by dazooom

You're obviously younger than 45. Once you become presbyopic, you'll appreciate it.

Amen Amen AMEN

Once I passed 50 my eyes are rapidly turning to sh!t. I wonder if cell phones are accelerating this process. I struggle to read the date on some of my non-cyclops watches now.

Sent from my Galaxy S20 using Tapatalk

[Maxy]

After reading all comments..I gather that Cycops is needed for old men to see the date. So, Is Rolex targeting only old men as Rolex audience? Also, if you are old (& retired) why do you even need the date, lol ?

[Fred48]

Originally Posted by Maxy

After reading all comments..I gather that Cycops is needed for old men to see the date. So, Is Rolex targeting only old men as Rolex audience? Also, if you are old (& retired) why do you even need the date, lol ?

+1; after retirement, why a date, when you probably can't remember the day?!

[CaptT]

Originally Posted by thefollandgnat

Bravo, Capt! Nicely minimalist.

Thanks, and cheers.

[DJ2020]

I understand the purpose for the Rolex wart, I wear glasses anyway and can see the date on a non cyclops crystal just fine. Otherwise it's kills the symmetry for me. Collects dust and debre around it constantly. It's a annoyance at best for me. Yes it's a recognized Rolex icon, but if I need people to know I'm wearing a Rolex, I would rather have a clean crystal with some AR on it and just wear a tee shirt that says " look at me" "I'm wearing a Rolex!".

[KonradvonMarburg]

Originally Posted by DJ2020

I understand the purpose for the Rolex wart, I wear glasses anyway and can see the date on a non cyclops crystal just fine. Otherwise it's kills the symmetry for me. Collects dust and debre around it constantly. It's a annoyance at best for me. Yes it's a recognized Rolex icon, but if I need people to know I'm wearing a Rolex, I would rather have a clean crystal with some AR on it and just wear a tee shirt that says " look at me" "I'm wearing a Rolex!".

After reading your post I believe the solution is that you don't buy any Rolex that has a cyclops.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by kizerman

I'm 49. Seven years ago I could read the serial number off the lug of an Omega in natural lighting with my naked eye. Anyone with an Omega Seamaster can tell you how small that font is.

Today I cannot read the date on my Rolexes without the cyclops and, to be honest, sometimes I need the cyclops and my reading glasses to see it.

Getting old sucks and I am thankful for the cyclops. Most who despise it will appreciate it one day soon.

Agree totally, generally speaking, it isn't 20 year olds buying Rolex watches.

[Highlatitude]

I can still read the bottom line of an eye chart and I have never previously needed glasses or contacts. Perfect vision my whole life...

However, it does not last. Now in my mid 40s it is becoming harder and harder to focus on close in objects. Each year that passes I find myself holding things further and further away to accommodate my ageing eyes. In bright light there is no problem but in dim light it is noticeable.

This ageing is inevitable and happens to everyone unless they are near sighted. Distant vision is unaffected. The solution is reading glasses but normally you are not wearing them and don’t want to have to get them out just to glance at the date.

So the cyclops turns out to be very useful eventually. In a watch designed to last a lifetime, if you receive your watch at 21 years old you won’t need the cyclops for the first 20 years but will then appreciate it for another 40 or more. If you get the watch at 30 then you only have ten years to wait before it starts to become useful.

[Sandpit]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

Because Hans Wildsorf’s wife could not read the date on her lady DateJust (or LadyDate, I forgot which) when it was initially released.

Subsequently came the fix; a magnifying lens affixed to the crystal.

I can’t recall my source (for fear of spreading urban myths) but could locate it if pushed.

~ Sheldon

See my post on the previous page, it's the Watch Book Rolex by Brunner

[Sandpit]

Originally Posted by Paul7

Agree totally, generally speaking, it isn't 20 year olds buying Rolex watches.

Social media would have us believe otherwise unfortunately - but I agree

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by Sandpit

See my post on the previous page, it's the Watch Book Rolex by Brunner

Thanks! I should have read the whole thread.

-Sheldon

[101031-28]

Originally Posted by joli160

It’s Rolex DNA, should be left alone

This

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by JohnGingerwood

It serves no purpose anymore.

Simply not true.