Curious about your vision and the cyclops

[JohnFM]

In an effort to build my reputation for off-the-wall posts ... ;-)

I'm near-sighted, which means I can't see distances clearly without glasses or contact lenses (actual correction is -4.0 diopters in both eyes). Without glasses, I can see close-up very clearly and easily since my natural point of focus is about 14 inches from my face. With glasses or contacts, I see like a "normal, old guy" which means I can see distances clearly but not close-up. Bottom line: the cyclops offers no benefit to me when I'm not wearing distance-correction glasses, but is helpful when I have glasses on.

I have three questions for you:

Do you need to wear glasses to see close-up clearly?
Do you find the cyclops helpful?
Do you like or dislike the cyclops regardless of your vision?

I ask because I'm curious to know if the cyclops is appreciated primarily by people who need reading glasses but not by those who don't.

Thanks!
John

[mjclark32]

I have 20/20
No
Hated it at first, but it's grown on me

[AmbSteve]

- Luckily I can still see fine without glasses...even though the vision has gotten worse over the years. Perhaps one day I might.
- The cyclops is absolutely helpful. Makes the date jump right out as it is supposed to. It's incredibly small without it, but that's the whole purpose.
- Yep, love it

[ecsub44]

No.
No.
Dislike...well, actually "disprefer".

[77T]

Not a fan of the cyclops.

[Dr. Robert]

I am a big fan of the cyclops, it's Rolex/Tudor hallmark.

[train-time]

IMO, the date feature and cyclops have long since outserved their usefulness on a watch; particularily in this world of smart phones, iPads and laptops. I find the cyclops distracting and will take the new Submariner over the Submariner-Date anyday.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

I am a big fan of the cyclops, it's Rolex/Tudor hallmark.

This, by far!
Aside from any functionality discussion, it's like having a little "jewel" on your crystal...it is, after all, a "sapphire"!!

[Fiery]

1) I wear glasses, although for closeup I don't need glasses, but only to clearly see distance objects.

2) I actually do. I can see the dial and the date easily with or without glasses, but I like the fact that the cyclops makes reading the date much easier.

3) At first I thought I would hate the crystal with the cyclops, but design-wise I've warmed up for it. It's quite convenient, so if I had to choose, I'd put a cyclops on all my watches.

My only problem with cyclops is that IMHO it doesn't fit well with concentric arabic dials. The angle of the concentric arabic hour markers on those dials are 90 degrees rotated when comparing them to the date. If there was no cyclops to magnify the date, the rotation "issue" wouldn't be so apparent. But of course this is just a personal preference.

[ROGERWILCO357]

Love the cyclops and noticed it was getting harder to see the date on watches without the cyclops but with no problem guess I'm getting older ..but regardless it was something I have always liked about Rolex even before in my youth.

[Annan]

Yes
Yes
Yes

I love the cyclops regardless of my need for vision help because IMO it's iconic for Rolex.

[Adam K.]

I'm neutral about the cyclops, but agree its a "Rolex feature" so don't prefer to remove it from a watch so equipped.

In general, I do think it makes the date easier to read and honestly--I enjoy some of the visual effects its 2.5X magnification creates when the polished gold hands pass underneath it, and also like how it shows off the details of the date serifs.

(An example of a cyclops visual effect: On the Explorer II 42mm, the cyclops magnifies the second hand lume ball when it passes below so that it appears momentarily the same size as the round hour markers)

[yakmeister]

Yes x3

[roadcarver]

I'm not really a fan of the cyclops. I wear glasses, I'm near sighted, I love my DateJust and I have forgiven it having a cyclops

[Jannal]

Originally Posted by 77T

Not a fan of the cyclops.

Me too.

[Jwitt]

Originally Posted by Annan

Yes
Yes
Yes

I love the cyclops regardless of my need for vision help because IMO it's iconic for Rolex.

Me too!!

[DJJon]

I love the cyclops for its place in horological heritage, representing what was, at one time, a major innovation.

For those who own watches with and without it, there is no doubt that when wearing a non-cyclops watch it takes a lot more effort to see the date. If you own watch with a 1.5X cyclops, as opposed to the Rolex 2.5X, the difference in magnification is very noticeable and makes you value the Rolex attention to detail.

So the cyclops just helps the eyeballs see it more clearly. It also differentiates a Sub from a Seiko Diver at 30 feet. And it gives Invicta something to copy so they can't be seen from 30 feet away and told from a Rolex, and this drives some sales their way. In essence, it is horological separation.

In reality, if someone asks "what day is it " do really say "I'm not sure, let me pull my iPhone out of my pocket, turn it on, enter my passcode, and then I can tell you for sure" ? No, you checked hours ago, haven't been to sleep yet, so your brain tells you "it's the 18th." You don't even have to glance at your Rolex either.

[withthesword]

myopic
yes
love. it's classic rolex.

[Bangel]

1. No glasses.

2. Yes. Although I don't need it, the cyclops does make seeing the date easier.

3. I've grown to like the cyclops. At first I thought it upset the appearance of the crystal. Now I think of it as an additional "feature" that makes the watch interesting. I'm not sure if a cyclops would appeal to me on a non Rolex watch though.

[ChrashM]

Picked up an Explorer II 42 to go along with my dateless Milgauss GV and Daytona SS, I love the large face and cyclops. My vision is going down the tubes and it is nice to be able to read it without lifting my glasses or holding it farther away. Sucks getting old.

[MYK]

No.
No.
I used to hate the cyclops, don't mind it as much anymore. However, I feel it's much easier to read the date without it, you can read it at any angle. With the cyclops, I need to actually look at the watch and have it facing me (if that makes any sense). Like now while I'm typing this, I would be able to quickly glance and figure out the date if it wasn't for the cyclops.

[Sbuckaroo]

I do need glasses to see up close.
It is a bit hard for me to see the date without it.
I do like the cyclop since it is a standard feature in Rolex watches.

[Tudor66]

I wear glasses for reading, driving, though my vision is not that bad at all.

I much prefer the cyclops, and yes, the magnification helps....

[cajunron]

Cyclops. It's what makes a Rolex a Rolex.

[drockadam]

1. I do wear glasses, but not for close up. I wear my glasses at night, when driving and at random days. I don't wear them all the time.

2. The cyclops is such a trademark of Rolex, I love cyclops!

3. Nope, I'll always love the cyclops!

[Outrlimit]

I wear glasses for near-sighted vision correction. For me older models were a little harder to read due to all the reflection on the cyclops. Newer models with anti-reflective coating are much easier to read.

The cyclops is an iconic feature. I like it.

[JohnFM]

Outrlimit,

Do you (or does anyone else) know when Rolex began to AR coat the cyclops? Is it an inside coating only?

John

[Watch Professor]

Yes
Yes
Like

[GradyPhilpott]

I can hardly make out the time without my glasses--not even the date.

With my glasses I can see my watch clearly and the date does not need magnification.

However, I do like the cyclops, even if it is pretty useless to me for all practical purposes.

[mvmbles]

I don't need to wear glasses.
I don't find the cyclops particularly helpful in aiding me view the date.
I DO love the cyclops because as others have said, it's an iconic Rolex feature. I can wear other watch brands with dates (without date magnification) , but for some reason the Rolex models with a date complication and no cyclops always look funny to me. If I ever were to buy an old Sea Dweller, I would probably have a cyclops added onto the crystal.