Is the cyclops on the Sub Date the same size as the DJ?

[burnthesehills]

Might sound like a silly question. I tried on a DJ41 recently at an AD. The cyclops seemed smaller than I had expected (as did the entire watch). I have never seen a Submariner Date in the flesh. Wondering if the cyclops is the same size on the DJ41 and a Submariner Date.

[steadywaters]

don't got an answer here but wondering why you'd wanna know. thinking there's a difference in magnification and/or viewability?

[burnthesehills]

Originally Posted by steadywaters

don't got an answer here but wondering why you'd wanna know. thinking there's a difference in magnification and/or viewability?

Yes and overall aesthetics.

[burnthesehills]

Bumping for the weekend crew to see if anyone has an answer to this. I’m sure someone here owns both.

[ronricks]

The DJ41 seemed smaller because it isn’t 41mm it is 39.xx mm. Not sure about the cyclops.

[georgekart]

OK here's my thought process, bear with me. Sub is a dive watch right, it withstands higher pressures. Hence thickness of the crystal is different. Additionally the watch case itself is stronger to withstand the pressure which makes all parts of it thicker, including rehaut. Now if that's the case, the dial is further away from the top of the crystal and then so it the date wheel. If it is the case, then it'd make sense that if Rolex was going for a consistent 2.5x magnification, which means that the size of the date wheel projected on the top of the cyclops should have 2.5x the size of actual date wheel. The cyclops would have to be more curved to have higher focal length, which would make it wider, or it'd have to be larger with same focal length. So if cyclops sizes are indeed different here's what would happen from POV of physics. That being said I am not well versed in physics relating to optics, but that's what I think it would be.

With that being said, I have a GMT, I have tried on Subs, DD40s, DJ41s and I don't feel like any of them have different sized cyclops. Maybe I didn't pay attention, but didn't feel like it to me.

[burnthesehills]

Originally Posted by georgekart

OK here's my thought process, bear with me. Sub is a dive watch right, it withstands higher pressures. Hence thickness of the crystal is different. Additionally the watch case itself is stronger to withstand the pressure which makes all parts of it thicker, including rehaut. Now if that's the case, the dial is further away from the top of the crystal and then so it the date wheel. If it is the case, then it'd make sense that if Rolex was going for a consistent 2.5x magnification, which means that the size of the date wheel projected on the top of the cyclops should have 2.5x the size of actual date wheel. The cyclops would have to be more curved to have higher focal length, which would make it wider, or it'd have to be larger with same focal length. So if cyclops sizes are indeed different here's what would happen from POV of physics. That being said I am not well versed in physics relating to optics, but that's what I think it would be.

With that being said, I have a GMT, I have tried on Subs, DD40s, DJ41s and I don't feel like any of them have different sized cyclops. Maybe I didn't pay attention, but didn't feel like it to me.

Interesting. I am not sure if the crystal on a Sub is thicker than a DJ. I doubt it is.

[DD9506]

Having looked at a lot of DJs recently and as I own a Sub C, they look identical as does the magnification so I suspect they are the same.

[burnthesehills]

Originally Posted by DD9506

Having looked at a lot of DJs recently and as I own a Sub C, they look identical as does the magnification so I suspect they are the same.

Great, thank you!