What to do, what to do.

[GreatGreen]

Hey guys, I'm on the way to buying a Rolex, but I'm torn between what to buy. As far as the look goes, I'm a meat and potatoes kind of guy. I'm basically going for the black-and-steel look of the Submariner / Sea Dweller / GMT II.

The problem is that there are different things about each of those three watches I like. I like the ultra solid feel of the Sea Dweller, I really like the 24 hour hand on the GMT II, but I'm on the fence about the magnified date of the GMT and Submariner.

I basically have two questions about Rolex watches that maybe you guys can help me out with in order to ease the decision.

1. Would Rolex, upon request, build a GMT II without the magnified date crystal? If so, around how long would it take to go from placing the order to wearing the watch?

2. What's the general opinion on the magnified date crystal? I'm really undecided as to whether I'd like this feature or not. From a purely aesthetic point of view, I feel like the crystal really adds to the look of the watch and gives it a little something extra. However, from a purely practical standpoint, I've looked through the crystal and find that a lot of the times it's just plain hard to read the date because of glare / light distortion / whatever. Do a lot of people find the magnified crystal annoying at first, but then get used to it and even prefer it?


Basically, this entire post comes down to one question: what do you think about the magnified date feature?


Thanks so much guys!

[TARDIS]

It's OK, but I prefer the SD

[Lisa]

You might try using the forum "search" feature for cyclops. I recall some discussion on this - people seem to really like, or really dislike the cyclops.

This is just my guess (I'm new and not very knowledgeable) but I doubt Rolex would put together a watch with the date feature sans cyclops. Some of the guys here will set me straight, I bet.

Welcome to the forum - it's a great place to learn and have fun.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Welcome to TRF!

Well, if you don't like the cyclops, you can actually have it taken off since it is only glued on. But remember that there is always a risk by having it done (have it done by RSC or a Rolex-trained watch maker ONLY, btw!).

Having said that, removing the cyclops on a Rolex that has the cyclops as standard would destroy the appearance (and also re-sale worth) of the watch.

So if you want a watch with a black face and a date feauture and you don't care for the cyclops, I suggest you go for the SD.

Now, about opinions on the cyclops:

It seems to divide TRF in two halfs here: Some like it, some don't.

I for my part believe that the cyclops is an ICON of Rolex, and would consider my Rolex "amputated" if I had the cyclops removed.

And YES, currently I have an SS Daytona as my only watch and that one has no cyclops since it has no date function. But I am going for the SS GMT IIc as my next watch, and I am looking forward to having a date feature AND the cyclops again.

[mike]

At one time a crystal without a cyclops was an option on certain references, but not anymore.

From the sounds of it perhaps the new GMT IIc is a consideration. The cyclops is anti-reflective and it's extra heft is in line with the SD.

[Spark]

Hi,
I hope I can go some way to helping you with your questions.

I like you am not a big fan of the Rolex magnified date/cyclops lens, I think it takes something away from the clean lines of the watches (especially the Date/Date-Just as they are quite small watches anyway), but don't not buy a particular model because of it as you do actually get used to it quite quickly and wonder what you was worried about in the first place.

I have heard some funny things in the past about Rolex U.S.A., but it should not be a problem getting them to do you a GMT without the cyclops as it is only glued on to the crystal anyway.
I once ordered a Date-Just here in the UK without the cyclops, so I know they will do it here.
Hopefully Rolex U.S.A. will too.

As for which model to choose only you should decide that, but unless you are a saturation diver I would think the GMT without cyclops would be a great choice and the GMT hand very useful.
Cheers,

Mark.

[GreatGreen]

Originally Posted by mike

At one time a crystal without a cyclops was an option on certain references, but not anymore.

From the sounds of it perhaps the new GMT IIc is a consideration. The cyclops is anti-reflective and it's extra heft is in line with the SD.

The new cyclops is anti-reflective, you say? That's my biggest complaint about the cyclops. I tried on a few watches with the cyclops (but not the new GMT IIc), and it actually seemed counter productive because despite the date actually appearing larger, it was masked my a layer of glare. The crystal itself is beautiful, but it seems pointless if you can't actually use it.

Does the crystal on the GMT IIc actually reduce glare? If so, that just might be what I'm looking for.

By the way, that second picture is incredible. Thanks for posting it.

[mike]

Originally Posted by GreatGreen

The new cyclops is anti-reflective, you say? That's my biggest complaint about the cyclops. I tried on a few watches with the cyclops (but no the new GMT IIc), and it actually seemed counter productive because despite the date actually appearing larger, it was masked my a layer of glare. The crystal itself is beautiful, but it seems pointless if you can't actually use it.

Does the crystal on the GMT IIc actually reduce glare? If so, that just might be what I'm looking for.

By the way, that second picture is incredible. Thanks for posting it.

The date lens is anti-reflective only. As yet Rolex has not put an anti-reflective coating on the complete crystal. The difference is very noticeable.

Good luck.

[mike]

Here's a couple more shots as a reference,

[GreatGreen]

Originally Posted by mike

The date lens is anti-reflective only. As yet Rolex has not put an anti-reflective coating on the complete crystal. The difference is very noticeable.

Good luck.

Oh, okay cool. I didn't notice any glare with the regular face of the watch, just the magnified part.

[Baptistman]

I was going to have the sub, that was until I tried on the SD side by side. SD one my heart. No regrets

[davidwatts]

Originally Posted by GreatGreen

Basically, this entire post comes down to one question: what do you think about the magnified date feature?

I had the same dilemma with the cyclops.
My concerns were
1) I didn't need it: I could see the date perfectly well (indeed, better) without magnification.
2) It looked a prime candidate for scuffs/scratches.

I decided in the end it was ok as it's an integral character part of a Rolex.

I actually really like it now. It looks good on the Submariner - not that I'm trying to influence you

Maybe with a name like "GreatGreen" you should also look at the LV Sub...

[GreatGreen]

You know, I also like the SD. Comparing the look of the SD and Sub, there's just something about the clean look of a Rolex without the date lens.

Then again, I think the GMT hand would be great to have as well.


Guys with GMT watches, how much do you like the GMT hand? Does it really add utility to your watch, or does the added clutter to the face outweigh the benefit of it? To people who've compared colors: does the new green color of the GMT hand reduce the "in your face" quality that the red hand has? And while we're on the subject, has the GMT II model simply switched from the red to green GMT hand color, or is the green-handed version a separate limited edition or something?

[mike]

GG,

You'll get answers all over the place on this. The nice thing is everybodies right and nobodies wrong.

Many people lament the passing od the RED 24 hr. hand, while some like the GREEN. It's all personal preference. Heck a GMT was my first Rolex in 1968. LOL!
Some guys feel the passing of the MASTER II was the loss of a classic. I can't tell you what an awfull day it was when Rolex moved from the wonderfull matt dials and acryllic crystals to glass and sapphire!

Many will say the GMT is the more versatile of the two as it gives you a second timezone option and the movable bezel can be used as a timing device (albiet a bit more crude than the Sub or SD.

In my experience any of them are wonderfully accurate and as rugged as one can expect from a watch.

No, it is not possible to name the color of your 24 hr. hand--Green is the new color. To have a RED hand one must go to the older varients.

If limited to one watch, mine will be a GMT. A wonderfull watch with so much history.



Of course there is that clean SD look!

[CPTL]

The cyclops is just one of those unique features that makes it a Rolex. Other makers use their version, but the little glass bubble is a definitive feature of modern Rolex date models. I love the cyclops.

To clarify, the GMT-IIC version has anti-reflective coating on the underside of the cyclops. Looking through the GMT-IIC cyclops there will be no glare--a vast improvement, IMO. Still, I'm not a fan of the other new cosmetic features on the GMT-IIC, particularly the polished center links on the clasp and the wider lugs.

If you don't like the cyclops, you can have it removed--but it's very unlikely that Rolex would do it for you. Any watchmaker should be able to do it. Were you to sell the watch, you would take a significant hit w/o the cyclops, so you'd have to get the crystal replaced or have a new one attached (if that's even possible).

If you like the heft of the SD and the functions of the GMT, I would recommend you consider the new GMT-IIC. It seems that has the combination of features you want. And, it's a fantastic watch, with subtle changes addressing common complaints about Rolex sports models.

1. Wider case lugs. Makes the whole case appear larger, in line with the new trend towards giant dinner-plates hanging off of your wrist.
2. Maxi-dial. The hour hand and hour markers are larger, with more superluminova, making them more visible in the dark. Common complaint that the lume on Rolex is inferior to Omega and other high-end sports models.
3. More solid clasp and bracelet. Many have complained that the old oyster bracelet is too flimsy feeling for a $5k watch. Though the old oyster bracelet is tough as nails, the GMT-IIC has a heavier bracelet and clasp (the clasp upgrade is a good one, IMO).
4. Bezel. the new bezel is smoother, using ball bearings. Also, the ceramic material looks more solid and is scratch resistant. (I think the ceramic is a good idea for durability and scratch resistance, but it's too shiny and "blingy" IMO.)

It has other changes as well, like the new parachrom spring. Not really sure what this thing does, but it's blue, and apparently people are noting astonishing accuracy and consistency with the movement.

Overall, if you like the look of the new GMT-IIC, it seems like that's the one for you. And I suspect you'll grow to love the cyclops.

[marshallr47]

The purpose of the parachrom spring is less susceptible to magnetic fields interfering with the accuracy of the watch..

[GreatGreen]

Well, the good news is that I've figured out the perfect Rolex watch for me. The bad news is that Rolex doesn't make it.

If Rolex made a GMT IIc with a black 24 hour hand instead of a green one, I would be in watch heaven. I guess I just really don't like the bright red or green colors of the 24 hour hands. It's the first thing I see when I look at the GMT, and it's distracting and really takes over the look of the watch to me. I prefer the look of the Sea Dweller / Submariner, but the functionality of that 24 hand seems like an extremely handy, defining feature of a watch I'd like to wear.

Hmm...

See, I redid the color on the GMT IIc to show what it might look like with a black / gray 24 hour hand and logo.



Yep, that's my watch. Too bad they don't make it, lol.