Could Rolex remove the cyclops and just make the date window larger?

[ink3027]

This might be the dumbest question in the world, but why doesn't Rolex make the date window 2.5x larger and remove the cyclops? At this point, it won't happen because the cyclops is such a Rolex icon, but is there something wrong with doing that originally?

[Fabrice M]

Why change a formula that has work so well for so many decades... not to say it would be really ugly.

[AboutTime]

Probably tough to fit 31 big digits onto one date wheel.

[Old Expat Beast]

They could do without the cyclops (Tudor started dropping it around 20 years ago, and other companies manage just fine*) but they're kind of a prisoner to it now. It's an historical hallmark of their date watches.

*not x2.5, but big enough to read.

[ink3027]

Originally Posted by AboutTime

Probably tough to fit 31 big digits onto one date wheel.

That's EXACTLY it, I knew I had to be missing something simple but couldn't figure out what it was. Thank you sir.

[watchwatcher]

Some brands have worked around this by having a "big date" window. With two spaces for two digits.

Not happening with Rolex, though. At least, I don't think so...

[Randy9999]

And while they're at it, why wouldn't they simply use quartz movements? Why wouldn't they replace the brand name with something hipper and more modern sounding to attract millennials — perhaps with a hashtag and all caps letters, something like #DOPETIME? And why not let the watch steer cars using internet protocols?

[lecorsaire]

It could be done the way Breguet does it but they would have to switch the location on the dial since I think it would look bad at the 3 position imo.

https://www.breguet.com/en/timepieces/marine/5817#!4344

[77T]

Originally Posted by ink3027

This might be the dumbest question in the world, but why doesn't Rolex make the date window 2.5x larger and remove the cyclops? At this point, it won't happen because the cyclops is such a Rolex icon, but is there something wrong with doing that originally?

Sure - just make the whole crystal a 2.5 magnification and shrink the dial text and hour plots/numerals.

Voilà big date with no cyclops and same date wheel!

Thank you, thank you very much


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[aquatimerfla]

I like the way AP & Panerai do it with the 'reverse' cyclops.

[Laszlo]

Cyclops also has tremendous brand value as it is one of the most recognized visual features.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by aquatimerfla

I like the way AP & Panerai do it with the 'reverse' cyclops.

Yup, it’s really the best way to have function without the cyclops becoming a design element. I need the cyclops and love it on top or underneith the crystal.






The only other way is to have a big date window the way Breitling does it with separate dials and be cyclops free. I can read this as easy as my watches with a cyclops.



In terms of function:
The Rolex cyclops works the best from off axis viewing. Inverted cyclops under the crystal needs to be viewed more strait on. Big date window has the widest range of viewing angles.
Rolex cyclops is a THE icon.

[Lester206]

Originally Posted by Laszlo

Cyclops also has tremendous brand value as it is one of the most recognized visual features.

Yes, looks great, leave as is.

[SeaDweller50]

SD43 aside, Sea Dweller owners don’t have a problem AFAIK.

[aquatimerfla]

Originally Posted by Ra_88

SD43 aside, Sea Dweller owners don’t have a problem AFAIK.

REAL seadwellers don't have cyclops. SD43 is a bigger submariner.

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by aquatimerfla

I like the way AP & Panerai do it with the 'reverse' cyclops.

Never heard of this until this post.

Thanks for sharing

[DoctorA]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

They could do without the cyclops (Tudor started dropping it around 20 years ago, and other companies manage just fine*) but they're kind of a prisoner to it now. It's an historical hallmark of their date watches.

*not x2.5, but big enough to read.

The DEEPSEA has no cyclops. It’s a 44mm case with a larger date wheel yet it’s not as legible as models with cyclops

[cdnwatchguy]

I would wager that the great unwashed mass of Rolex owners and those who notice watches equate the brand with the cyclops. I can't see the company changing their product to satisfy a handful of enthusiasts. I don;t think it has anything to do wit legibility.

[capote]

They could do it like Moser with a larger date wheel

Originally Posted by aquatimerfla

I like the way AP & Panerai do it with the 'reverse' cyclops.

AP uses it on their moduler chronographs because the datewheel is then on a lower level, no need for it on the regular ROCs since they use proper integrated chronograph movements though.

[Cato]

I love the cyclops - it’s like a little bit of flash.

[Inq50]

+1 cyclops.. love it.. it’s practical and gives Rolex its uniqueness.. also love the reverse
Cyclops on my Panerai

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by ink3027

This might be the dumbest question in the world, but why doesn't Rolex make the date window 2.5x larger and remove the cyclops? At this point, it won't happen because the cyclops is such a Rolex icon, but is there something wrong with doing that originally?

Sure mate.
Why not?

And while they're at it make each and every date watch they have in their line up thicker to accommodate the thicker mechanism required to drive both the inner and outer date wheels with the larger numerals.
You missed your calling. You should be the chief engineer and stylist for Rolex

Some people are already whinging about how thick the DSSD is and you propose a change to make everything Rolex makes even thicker with a date

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by cdnwatchguy

I would wager that the great unwashed mass of Rolex owners and those who notice watches equate the brand with the cyclops. I can't see the company changing their product to satisfy a handful of enthusiasts. I don;t think it has anything to do wit legibility.

Not even in the beginning then when the DJ was first introduced?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

They could do without the cyclops (Tudor started dropping it around 20 years ago, and other companies manage just fine*) but they're kind of a prisoner to it now. It's an historical hallmark of their date watches.

*not x2.5, but big enough to read.

That's the problem isn't it?
Rolex was always committed to having the numbers visibly 2.5x bigger than the numerals on the actual date wheel.

From what I can see(no pun intended) there's no other way of achieving their design objective unless the Cyclops is on the outside.
Especially with the original plastic crystals.
The Cyclops could be on the inside, but the watch would again need to be thicker right across the Crystal to have an internal Cyclops clear the hands

[spoilsofwar01]

I dont like cyclops... Sorry, I just prefer my watches not to have the date function, some threads back I read of one owner having the magnifying lens polished off his Submariner as he deemed it to be ugly? either way a great iconic idea but as Ive previously mention.... not for me

[SeaDweller50]

Originally Posted by DoctorA

The DEEPSEA has no cyclops. It’s a 44mm case with a larger date wheel yet it’s not as legible as models with cyclops

The dial size is no different to the Submariner therefore same date wheel. 3135 calibre

[samson66]

My nearly 50 year old eyes appreciate the cyclops, and as others have pointed out it's part of Rolex's DNA, probably their most signature feature. I'm happy they added it to the Sea Dweller, more due to function than form.

[DoctorA]

Originally Posted by Ra_88

The dial size is no different to the Submariner therefore same date wheel. 3135 calibre

Thanks for clarifying. Then the cyclops make a big difference! 2.5X

[lhawli]

Originally Posted by AboutTime

Probably tough to fit 31 big digits onto one date wheel.

Not really! Big dates exist on many brands - not to mention NOMOS being one of them.



Of course they can, but why would they! After all it’s their trademark and what’s makes Rolex Rolex!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro