ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

fredfiga · 26 March 2017, 10:19 AM

Has someone done it before?

Phudu · 26 March 2017, 10:23 AM

Why ruin it.

FTX I · 26 March 2017, 10:25 AM

There's AR coating beneath as far as I know. Not that simple.

albmich · 26 March 2017, 10:25 AM

That's a lot of work because you'd also need to get rid of the AR coating. This is much easier said than done

Rocco21 · 26 March 2017, 10:26 AM

I will be removing it

watchwatcher · 26 March 2017, 10:28 AM

If I were to buy it, it will remain the way it came from the factory.

jazznpool · 26 March 2017, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phudu

Why ruin it.

x2. Makes no sense.

Atleo · 26 March 2017, 10:29 AM

I think you can dremel it off pretty good.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

nyc2la · 26 March 2017, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazznpool

x2. Makes no sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phudu

Why ruin it.

x3

5253Reynolds · 26 March 2017, 10:36 AM

This isn't a precious piece of art or some irreplaceable/un-fixable antiquity, its a mass produced watch. Mod it if you want to.

Gold Crown · 26 March 2017, 10:41 AM

It's off my buy list. I hate that Cyclops. It wrecks the look of the watch. If you ever need to have the dam thing serviced and you put a different crystal on it Rolex will refuse to service it without putting the cyclops crystal back on again. Nope Rolex shot themselves in the foot on this one.

gregmoeck · 26 March 2017, 11:02 AM

I think the entire watch is going to be too "look at me"

c41006 · 26 March 2017, 11:43 AM

If I didn't want the cyclops, I wouldn't buy the watch. Personally I'm not into modifications but if you buy one, you can do what you want I guess.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

viper · 26 March 2017, 12:17 PM

I'm so glad I picked up a SD4K when I did. The new SD looks like a 'Big Sub'!

AdaWit711 · 26 March 2017, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyc2la

x3

X4

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

g-boac · 26 March 2017, 12:54 PM

Off my buy list too - cyclops, and size. And red dial not enough to overcome this either.

Wish they'd have stuck with the classic 40mm, no cyclops. That's what made a Sea-Dweller a Sea-Dweller. Did it sell as much as a Sub? No, but that was never the point. The Sea-Dweller always sold fewer copies than a Sub. Just a more specialized, and slightly pricer watch, but also intended for heavier duty applications.

Investr · 26 March 2017, 12:58 PM

Not buying, but id never mod a watch like that

subtona · 26 March 2017, 12:59 PM

Better off buying DSSD w domed crystal

albmich · 26 March 2017, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by subtona

Better off buying DSSD w domed crystal

x2. Good advice.

sensui · 26 March 2017, 01:51 PM

I'd keep it as is if I bought it....

Shamorai · 26 March 2017, 01:55 PM

Is it really that bad? What's the big problem with a cyclops?

j.mo · 26 March 2017, 02:03 PM

Funny to me the reaction this is gaining, being that it was intended to be there from the start, but the technology was not there.
Had it been the other way around, and the cylops been there from the beginning, and they removed it for the 50th it would garner the same type of response.
I think it's quite funny.
But I'm new here.

VeryDeep · 26 March 2017, 06:03 PM

Nobody of sound mind is going to 'remove' the cyclops. Quite a ridiculous postulation IMHO.

26 March 2017, 10:19 AM	#1
fredfiga "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Brazil Posts: 93	Seriously: who's buying the new SD and will remove the cyclops? Has someone done it before?

26 March 2017, 10:25 AM	#4
albmich "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: WI Watch: SD4k Posts: 1,333	That's a lot of work because you'd also need to get rid of the AR coating. This is much easier said than done __________________ ♛ SD4k 116600 ♛ SD43 126600 Ω PloProf 224.32.55.21.01.001

26 March 2017, 12:17 PM	#14
viper "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Northeast Posts: 943	I'm so glad I picked up a SD4K when I did. The new SD looks like a 'Big Sub'! __________________ 16610LV 16200 116600 116500

26 March 2017, 12:59 PM	#18
subtona "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: gus Location: East Coast Watch: APK & sometimes Y Posts: 26,598	Better off buying DSSD w domed crystal __________________

26 March 2017, 10:23 AM	#2
Phudu "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Ontario Watch: 126600,BLNR Posts: 221	Why ruin it.

26 March 2017, 10:25 AM	#3
FTX I "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Real Name: Flavio Location: N/A Posts: 14,654	There's AR coating beneath as far as I know. Not that simple.

26 March 2017, 10:26 AM	#5
Rocco21 Banned Join Date: Jan 2016 Real Name: Rob Location: Cape Cod Watch: 126660,126600 Posts: 1,324	I will be removing it

26 March 2017, 10:28 AM	#6
watchwatcher "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Larry Location: Kentucky Watch: Yes Posts: 35,044	If I were to buy it, it will remain the way it came from the factory.

26 March 2017, 10:29 AM	#8
Atleo Banned Join Date: Nov 2016 Location: Atlanta Posts: 190	I think you can dremel it off pretty good. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

26 March 2017, 10:36 AM	#10
5253Reynolds Banned Join Date: May 2013 Location: Boston Watch: 116710_ln Posts: 275	This isn't a precious piece of art or some irreplaceable/un-fixable antiquity, its a mass produced watch. Mod it if you want to.

26 March 2017, 10:41 AM	#11
Gold Crown Banned Join Date: May 2009 Real Name: Ross Location: Chicago Area Watch: 6265 18K Daytona Posts: 928	It's off my buy list. I hate that Cyclops. It wrecks the look of the watch. If you ever need to have the dam thing serviced and you put a different crystal on it Rolex will refuse to service it without putting the cyclops crystal back on again. Nope Rolex shot themselves in the foot on this one.

26 March 2017, 11:02 AM	#12
gregmoeck "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Maui Watch: Patek Posts: 2,032	I think the entire watch is going to be too "look at me"

26 March 2017, 11:43 AM	#13
c41006 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Real Name: Joshua Location: Atlanta Watch: Pelagos Posts: 7,933	If I didn't want the cyclops, I wouldn't buy the watch. Personally I'm not into modifications but if you buy one, you can do what you want I guess. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

26 March 2017, 12:54 PM	#16
g-boac 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: N/A Posts: 343	Off my buy list too - cyclops, and size. And red dial not enough to overcome this either. Wish they'd have stuck with the classic 40mm, no cyclops. That's what made a Sea-Dweller a Sea-Dweller. Did it sell as much as a Sub? No, but that was never the point. The Sea-Dweller always sold fewer copies than a Sub. Just a more specialized, and slightly pricer watch, but also intended for heavier duty applications.

26 March 2017, 12:58 PM	#17
Investr Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Real Name: Rick Location: LSU Watch: Constantly changes Posts: 3,815	Not buying, but id never mod a watch like that

26 March 2017, 01:51 PM	#20
sensui 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 12,443	I'd keep it as is if I bought it....

26 March 2017, 01:55 PM	#21
Shamorai "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2016 Location: Sydney Watch: 16523, 116610LV Posts: 762	Is it really that bad? What's the big problem with a cyclops?

26 March 2017, 02:03 PM	#22
j.mo "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: California Posts: 153	Funny to me the reaction this is gaining, being that it was intended to be there from the start, but the technology was not there. Had it been the other way around, and the cylops been there from the beginning, and they removed it for the 50th it would garner the same type of response. I think it's quite funny. But I'm new here.

26 March 2017, 06:03 PM	#23
VeryDeep "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Thailand Watch: Tudor Posts: 61	Nobody of sound mind is going to 'remove' the cyclops. Quite a ridiculous postulation IMHO.

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