Rolex 126600 with cyclops removed.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by GreatScott

It looks off because despite adding 3mm in size they did not change the dial or date window size. They Cyclops adds the needed width.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

You sure about this? I believe the dial is larger than the old one, and also larger than the DSSD dial?

The date window is in-set because of the cyclops. The fault of the older non-cyclops model was that they also had the inset date window instead of putting it where it belongs to the right

[Mr Kram]

cyclops on the sd43 is a deal breaker for me.

[Andrew NYC]

It seems from the pictures and discussion that the movement did not increase in size (please correct me if I'm wrong) but the dial did and that is what causes the date window to move further in towards the center more than other models due to the larger dial and unchanged movement size.

Without the cyclops I personally think it looks "off". Very similar phenomenon to the AP Royal Oak 15400. When AP evolved the 15300 (at 39mm) to the 15400 (41mm) they had to increase the dial size, to fit the new larger case, but used the existing movement. This too resulted in a different dial proportion and caused the date window to move inward.

They cyclops seems to mask this issue somewhat so it's less noticeable (at least to me).

Seems by the comments that there is little consensus on the issue but pleased to hear people's observations and opinions.

[Duke1]

Originally Posted by VicLeChic

The first photo looks legit. The photoshop however shows a date window further to the right than it is in reality.

The movement and dial were not designed to be without a cyclops which is the reason why the date window is so far off the chapter ring. Removing the cyclops makes it look worse IMHO. Had it been designed without a cyclops from the onset, with a date window further to the right and an enlarged movement and date disc, then perhaps it would have looked nice. That's not going to happen. Every Rolex watch with date has a cyclops except the previous Sea-Dwellers and the previous and current Deepsea.

So basically the Cyclops is here to stay. I got used to it and I'll never mod my SD43 nor YM because they look worse judging from pictures of those who did it.

I believe the SD43 dial is the same size as the Deep Sea, the deep see has the ring lock system taking up more space otherwise the dial wouldn't reach the edges of the 44mm case, they never made a bigger movement and the SD43 And deep sea have the same movement. What I read anyway. I hated the cyclops at first but the black and red on the 43 one me over and now I feel like if it has a date and its a Rolex it should have a cyclops, kinda. I'd take it either way.

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by Muxi

If i could order it without one or if it could be seamlessly removed i would

then they would require two different kind of dials, one with a bigger date window further to the right.

[garyk]

Cyclops good.....

[Marast-66]

Originally Posted by smym18

I wish the Submariner and Yacht-Master didn't have the cyclops.

That‘s the reason why I sold 16610 Lv and bought 114060 :)))))))


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Robertus2]

I wonder how an EXPLORER I. (one :) ) would look with a date window at 3, without the cyclops... maybe with a similar-to-the-other-markers narrow white gold frame and Luminova-treated date disc... possibly never will be made as such, just an interesting fantasy. Even a similar DJ would be interesting.

[alphadweller]

The inset date placement is designed with the cyclops in mind. Looks off without. No cyclops with a correctly placed date window would work.

[Rolex.c6]

Sea-Dweller should be without cyclops.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by RXAPPP

Are you certain The 40mm SD4k ceramic ( the last real SD IMO ) doesn’t have a cyclops....

The sea dweller is dead.

Indeed. All the people saying "I bought it because it looks like the Sub now" or "The Cyclops won me over to the SD" are proof that Rolex made this watch as a middle-finger to SD fans.

They wanted to copy the Omega strategy of having two sizes of the same watch, but didn't want to look like they were copying Omega, and that's how we got this.

Originally Posted by SamP

With or without both look good.
It is a bit weird that some think the SD50 should not have a cyclops, to match the original.
The original 1665 was sans cyclops because the technology to adhere the cyclops was not sufficient to do a good job.
Anyway the 1665 had:
* Bi-directional bezel
* Hollow end links
* Plastic crystal
* Tritium lume
* Lug holes
* 1575 Movement
* Non surrounded lume
* Aluminium bezel
* Hollow links
These 9 items have been superseded. No longer bi-directional, has SEL, has Sapphire crystal, has Chromalight lume, sans lug holes, movement is modernised,the lume is contained in surrounds, the bezel is now Cerachrom and the links are now solid.
So much change. So naturally the cyclops is present, just like all the other improvements.
Perhaps if the SD50 had a plastic crystal, then it should be sans cyclops.
Regards

I would prefer all of those 'superseded' elements to return.

[Gebbeth]

I am a fan of the cyclops on Rolexes. It's a signature of the brand as some have said.

Simillarly, I don't understand the intense negativity I have heard about the SD having a cyclops. It's weird.

[whatsthetime?]

I personally don't care for the cyclops, at all, plus it draws too much attention because everyone know it's a Rolex, which I also don't care for. And too me, the signature of the brand is the crown, which is subtle, not the cyclops.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by Gebbeth

I am a fan of the cyclops on Rolexes. It's a signature of the brand as some have said.

Simillarly, I don't understand the intense negativity I have heard about the SD having a cyclops. It's weird.

Were you a Sea-Dweller fan? I'm assuming not.

[Gebbeth]

Originally Posted by Scholar

Were you a Sea-Dweller fan? I'm assuming not.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

[Bxtek]

I love the cyclops. Makes the date easier to read, plus it's a signature look of Rolex. Removed on this SD looks good, since we are used to seeing the DSSD without one. I think it would look weird if you removed it from your DJ, DD or another model.

[B2 Stealth]

Love the cyclops on my new SD43! These old pilot eyes appreciate the magnification.

[Essray]

Not a fan of the cyclops. Yeah you get used to it, but I don’t need it to see the date. I love the no date balance, but like to have the date.

Wondering if the AD would remove it or if someone offers a cyclops-less crystal

[Mr. Superlative]

A cyclops does not belong on a Sea Dweller. Although it doesn’t look bad, an absence of cyclops makes the watch appear more symmetrical and refined, IMO.

[Rolex1982]

In the beginning of my Rolex journey I found the cyclops weird. After owning multiple cyclopses it grew on me. Now i find it weird not to have one :)

[WatchTimes]

Here is my Exp II without a cyclops.
Its been this way for about 13 years.
Im finally sending it to Rolex for a service and gonna get a new crystal on it.
Now that I am 50 I think I am starting to appreciate the cyclops more LOL

[Reddington]

I'm a fan of the cyclops.

[padi56]

Edit.

[padi56]

One of the main reasons I bought my working tool watch 16600 SD was because it did not have a Cyclops never a fan of the cyclops.

[worldofoyster]

i wouldn't touch it, looks weird without it

[Essray]

I’m wondering if the SD4K crystal fits the SD43?

[RustyW]

I am not a fan...obviously

[WatchTimes]

I used to dislike the cyclops. It is the reason I got a 16600 instead of the sub.
When I got my 16570 I had a Daytona crystal installed (same size).
Here is a pic of it.
I actually am sending it to Rolex as I know they will change the crystal and now at 50 I think I appreciate the cyclops more LOL!

[alphadweller]

The SD43 is not meant to be without the Cyclops, looks kind of odd if you remove it, IMHO. It was born with it, as opposed to previous Sea-Dwellers. The SD43 is the Super Sub. I wouldn't want it any other way.

[worldofoyster]

it looks better with a cyclop