Date window and cyclops.

[Bama]

One of the reasons I went with a Sub over the SD was for the cyclops. It just seemed like such a Rolex trademark to me. I enjoy the date magnification, but every now and then I think it would be a nice change to have a SD and the "cleaner" look. The cyclops is not as major a factor for me as it used to be.

[Destroy]

I LOVE the cyclops. Especially the way it magnifies the date. the rolex number font is awesome.

[ron17402]

I didn't care about the cyclops either; but now that I have one, I really like it.

It's a nice classic Rolex touch. And... it magnifies the date.

[Downing]

Originally Posted by Spacedweller

I would just think that the guy you saw had the cyclops removed from the crystal (it is only glued on).

How would you remove a cyclops without damaging the crystal? Wouldn't it be more likely that the cyclops crystal was simply swapped for a non-cyclops crystal?

I have heard of a cyclops falling off, but that was from an AD that I didn't believe pretty much anything else he had to say so I'm not vouching for the veracity of that story either.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Spacedweller

A simple 'I was w w w wrong' would have been accepted.

For your info Bo from the top of the crystal on your SD to the top of the second hand drive pin is 3.17mm. I can give you the exact thickness through the crystal if you ask me nicely.

Im surprised that you would be bored to receive some accurate information.

[BiG JeEzY]

I really love the cyclops.

It was actually one of the reasons to why I ended up getting my first Rolex. The look of the cyclops really appealed to me ever since.

[Downing]

Originally Posted by directioneng

A simple 'I was w w w wrong' would have been accepted.

For your info Bo from the top of the crystal on your SD to the top of the second hand drive pin is 3.17mm. I can give you the exact thickness through the crystal if you ask me nicely.

Im surprised that you would be bored to receive some accurate information.

Hey, I'll ask nicely.

What's the exact thickness?

And if anyone out there knows how to get a cyclops off a crystal without damaging the crystal, um, I'm asking about that nicely, too.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by Downing

Hey, I'll ask nicely.

What's the exact thickness?

And if anyone out there knows how to get a cyclops off a crystal without damaging the crystal, um, I'm asking about that nicely, too.

Taking off the cyclops of the crystal is a job for the trained watch maker. Don't try this at home!

There is ALWAYS a risk by removing it since the crystal could be damaged, however. This had only happened ONCE to my AD, though.

[Alcan]

Originally Posted by Downing

How would you remove a cyclops without damaging the crystal?

Here ya go. CharlesN over at TimeZone has done it to a couple of his watches, including his platinum DayDate. To me the result looks strange, but to each his own.

http://forums.timezone.com/index.php...=2404144&rid=0





IIRC, he eventually decided he didn't like the look and either had the cyclops re-installed or replaced the crystal.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Downing

Hey, I'll ask nicely.

What's the exact thickness?

And if anyone out there knows how to get a cyclops off a crystal without damaging the crystal, um, I'm asking about that nicely, too.

Hi Downing.

Using my biological microscope to check the distance through my SD crystal the measurement works out at 2.54mm - so I will say that it is 2.5mm. This should be fairly accurate as at 100x magnification each graduation on my fine focus is 1.58 microns. The distance from the underside of the crystal to the dial is 3.17mm (from the underside of the crystal to the top of the second hand pin is 0.635mm).
This gives a total distance of 5.67mm from the top of the crystal to the face of the dial.
I didn't do this to prove anyone wrong I did it for my own information to find out if a cyclops would work on an SD. I have seen references to 3mm and 4mm crystal thicknesses but prefer to check these measurements myself because I can. I will check my Sub, GMT, DD etc and compare these distances and will narrow down some of the reasons given as to why an SD doesn't have a cyclops.


ps. Buy a crystal with no cyclops.

[Downing]

Thank you, Bo, Al and Eddie.

Here's what CharlesN said on TimeZone:

"Sharp Blade on the flat surface.

A very light tap with a very light weight hammer and it pops off."

To which I observe, ""

I think replacing the cyclops crystal with a non-cyclops crystal is a much safer way to go, but I must admit I admire the guy for his skills.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Downing

Thank you, Bo, Al and Eddie.

Here's what CharlesN said on TimeZone:

"Sharp Blade on the flat surface.

A very light tap with a very light weight hammer and it pops off."

To which I observe, ""

I think replacing the cyclops crystal with a non-cyclops crystal is a much safer way to go, but I must admit I admire the guy for his skills.

Its a bit like playing the triangle in an orchestra - not a difficult instrument to play - its all in the timing.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Hi Eddie,

I went to my AD yesterday to finally solve question that the discrepancies in thickness of the SD crystal arroused.

You are pretty much spot on!

My AD had the spare part (# 275, I think the part was called), and he used a digital caliper gauge to measure the thickness of it.

It is exactly 3,05 mm thick.

Mystery solved, and thanks for investigating it yourself, too.