ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Gurmot · 2 May 2008, 11:00 PM

Loved by some, hated by others, the removal or addition of a cyclops date magnifying lens has often been discussed. Well, here's a link to someone who seems to have experience.

http://watchmakingblog.com/2008/04/23/cyclops-removal/

For the record, I'm not a fan of the Cyclops and would prefer they were an optional extra. Just my opinion and I know that lots of you will disagree but I also believe that I am not alone in my view..

Cheers - Simon

SPACE-DWELLER · 2 May 2008, 11:04 PM

Thanks for the link!

It went straight to my bookmarks!

BTW.: as far as I know, the cyclops was optional on some of the early GMT's. Mike can tell you more precisely about that.

frostie · 2 May 2008, 11:05 PM

Nice read

I really liked the last sentence

Thanks for sharing

Dan Pierce · 2 May 2008, 11:06 PM

Simon,
Personal taste for sure. I happen to love the iconic symbol of the cyclops. Plus my soon to be 49 year old eyes welcome it too.

No problem for those who don't like it. Variety makes the world go 'round.

Not sure I would try that at home though.

dP

dkpw · 2 May 2008, 11:08 PM

That's the sort of surgery, I would not like to try myself.

f16570 · 2 May 2008, 11:12 PM

No chance of me getting a chisel and giving it a clout. Leave as God intended.

sherwin · 2 May 2008, 11:21 PM

cyclops fan, so im leaving it on. that is why the SD never appealed to me.

oneillba · 2 May 2008, 11:27 PM

Cyclops is it for me. It is iconic. Plus, as said before, my eyes find it easier to see the date with.

karmatp · 2 May 2008, 11:35 PM

Their have been a few threads on this topic over at timezone lately and it was surprising how many people like it more without the cyclops. I have seen Subs and Explorer II's with the cyclops removed and I have to tell you, it looked sharp. The dial just pops out out you like a fine watches dial should, not the cyclops instead. I do wish they offered a option of having it or not, that would be interesting.

tphan · 2 May 2008, 11:36 PM

I am too a cyclop fan but not on the Daytona.

Many people used the cyclop to ID if watch is a Rolex.

GMTII Owner · 3 May 2008, 03:35 AM

Cyclops for me!!!

karmatp · 3 May 2008, 03:42 AM

Here are some pics. I found, they are not ugly watches. I think they look sharp and don't scream Rolex. These are from guys that got sick of the cyclops and knocked they off, they look good either way but the dial definitely pops out out you know.

Red hand is hiding on this one

Jocke · 3 May 2008, 03:51 AM

Here is how it looks when I try that on one of my DateJust´s.

I start with my cyclop remover kit.

Pull it up in my full size Bergeon case holder.

And start the work.

Damn, Rolex have quality glue so I have to warm it up a bit.

Now I hope it will come off.

Ouups, not so good.

What do you think, did I have to change crystal? Or can it
be polished?

Jocke

Ed Rooney · 3 May 2008, 03:52 AM

That expy just looks wrong. I am not a big cyclops guy, but my eyes might need it soon.

warrenmich · 3 May 2008, 03:57 AM

Jocke-

Tell me that's a fake Rolex, PLEASE!?!?!?! I can't stomache that slide! It is worse than ANY horror film I have seen!

IF YOU EVER FEEL COMPELLED TO DO THAT AGAIN, SEND ME THE WATCH!!! I will send you a RADO or SKAGEN TO DO THAT TOO!

n9zez · 3 May 2008, 04:05 AM

I would like to see a picture of a GMT II or GMT IIc without the cyclopes.

Not that I am going to do it....

gmacdo1 · 3 May 2008, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warrenmich

Jocke-

Tell me that's a fake Rolex, PLEASE!?!?!?! I can't stomache that slide! It is worse than ANY horror film I have seen!

KG4LHO · 3 May 2008, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jocke

Here is how it looks when I try that on one of my DateJust´s.

{snip}

Ouups, not so good.

Jocke

That'l Buff Out!

Wes

neilgader · 3 May 2008, 04:55 AM

does this mean that a cyclops applied to an acrylic is not glued? Or that it bonds to the plastic in a manner that prevents its removal?

Neil

Magik · 3 May 2008, 05:02 AM

That was some funny commentary!

Randy · 3 May 2008, 05:34 AM

IMO I think cyclops looks better than without!

Jocke · 3 May 2008, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy

IMO I think cyclops looks better than without!

I just love cyclops.

Jocke

JJ Irani · 3 May 2008, 06:02 AM

I love the cyclops. Why fiddle around with originality?

mfer · 3 May 2008, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jocke

Here is how it looks when I try that on one of my DateJust´s.

I start with my cyclop remover kit.
...

Pull it up in my full size Bergeon case holder.
...

And start the work.
...

Damn, Rolex have quality glue so I have to warm it up a bit.
...

Now I hope it will come off.
...

Ouups, not so good.
...

What do you think, did I have to change crystal? Or can it
be polished?
...

Jocke

Jocke-

Your getting me in trouble at work. I shouldn't laugh so loud at my desk!!!!!!!!

Danovich · 3 May 2008, 06:12 AM

lol Jocke i love your "cyclop remover kit" very original

sphereman · 3 May 2008, 06:15 AM

I hate the cyclops.. the only reason I sold my GMT2 Ceramic.

I think I want to buy my second GMT2 ceramic and remove the cyclops.. seriously..

sphereman · 3 May 2008, 06:16 AM

GMT2 without cyclops look really SHARP. I love it.

Scarface · 3 May 2008, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

I happen to love the iconic symbol of the cyclops.

Me too Dan. Very nicely said!

Spark · 3 May 2008, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurmot

Loved by some, hated by others, the removal or addition of a cyclops date magnifying lens has often been discussed. Well, here's a link to someone who seems to have experience.

http://watchmakingblog.com/2008/04/23/cyclops-removal/

For the record, I'm not a fan of the Cyclops and would prefer they were an optional extra. Just my opinion and I know that lots of you will disagree but I also believe that I am not alone in my view..

Cheers - Simon

Simon,
Are you going to put one on your Daytona

JJ Irani · 3 May 2008, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spark

Simon,
Are you going to put one on your Daytona

2 May 2008, 11:00 PM	#1
Gurmot Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Real Name: Simon Location: UK Posts: 568	Removing a cyclops - yes you can! Loved by some, hated by others, the removal or addition of a cyclops date magnifying lens has often been discussed. Well, here's a link to someone who seems to have experience. http://watchmakingblog.com/2008/04/23/cyclops-removal/ For the record, I'm not a fan of the Cyclops and would prefer they were an optional extra. Just my opinion and I know that lots of you will disagree but I also believe that I am not alone in my view.. Cheers - Simon

2 May 2008, 11:04 PM	#2
SPACE-DWELLER "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Real Name: Bo Location: Denmark Watch: Rolex, of course! Posts: 22,436	Thanks for the link! It went straight to my bookmarks! BTW.: as far as I know, the cyclops was optional on some of the early GMT's. Mike can tell you more precisely about that. __________________ With kind regards, Bo LocTite 221: The Taming Of The Screw...

2 May 2008, 11:05 PM	#3
frostie 1,000,000th PostMember Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Earth Posts: 14,048	Nice read I really liked the last sentence Thanks for sharing __________________ GMT - Master II C - 116710 LN

2 May 2008, 11:06 PM	#4
Dan Pierce 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Real Name: D'OH! Location: Kentucky Watch: Rolex-1 Tudor-3 Posts: 35,733	Simon, Personal taste for sure. I happen to love the iconic symbol of the cyclops. Plus my soon to be 49 year old eyes welcome it too. No problem for those who don't like it. Variety makes the world go 'round. Not sure I would try that at home though. dP __________________ TRF Member# 1668 Bass Player in TRF "AFTER DARK" Bar & NightClub Band Commander-in-Chief of The Nylon Nation The Crown & Shield Club Honorary Member of P-Club

2 May 2008, 11:08 PM	#5
dkpw "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: David Location: Scotland Watch: 16610 & 214270 Posts: 1,294	That's the sort of surgery, I would not like to try myself. __________________ Sub 16610, Explorer 214270, Ω Speedy Pro & many others. David

2 May 2008, 11:12 PM	#6
f16570 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: F Location: Scotland Watch: Exp II White Face Posts: 4,272	No chance of me getting a chisel and giving it a clout. Leave as God intended. __________________ Why have what's new when you have what's best. f

2 May 2008, 11:21 PM	#7
sherwin "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Perth/Singapore Posts: 1,764	cyclops fan, so im leaving it on. that is why the SD never appealed to me. __________________ Want to Buy:SS GMT black;116509 WG Daytona Metrorite

2 May 2008, 11:27 PM	#8
oneillba "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: Brian Location: Hamilton, MI USA Watch: My beloved TT DJ Posts: 3,831	Cyclops is it for me. It is iconic. Plus, as said before, my eyes find it easier to see the date with. __________________ My Trusty TT DJ

2 May 2008, 11:35 PM	#9
karmatp "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Real Name: Trevor Location: Arizona Posts: 5,740	Their have been a few threads on this topic over at timezone lately and it was surprising how many people like it more without the cyclops. I have seen Subs and Explorer II's with the cyclops removed and I have to tell you, it looked sharp. The dial just pops out out you like a fine watches dial should, not the cyclops instead. I do wish they offered a option of having it or not, that would be interesting.

2 May 2008, 11:36 PM	#10
tphan "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 831	I am too a cyclop fan but not on the Daytona. Many people used the cyclop to ID if watch is a Rolex.

3 May 2008, 03:35 AM	#11
GMTII Owner "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: John Location: Nashville, TN Watch: S/S GMT Master IIc Posts: 1,210	Cyclops for me!!! __________________

3 May 2008, 03:42 AM	#12
karmatp "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Real Name: Trevor Location: Arizona Posts: 5,740	Here are some pics. I found, they are not ugly watches. I think they look sharp and don't scream Rolex. These are from guys that got sick of the cyclops and knocked they off, they look good either way but the dial definitely pops out out you know. Red hand is hiding on this one

3 May 2008, 03:51 AM	#13
Jocke 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Real Name: Jocke Location: Sweden Watch: A dozen of Rolex's Posts: 22,514	Here is how it looks when I try that on one of my DateJust´s. I start with my cyclop remover kit. Pull it up in my full size Bergeon case holder. And start the work. Damn, Rolex have quality glue so I have to warm it up a bit. Now I hope it will come off. Ouups, not so good. What do you think, did I have to change crystal? Or can it be polished? Jocke __________________ This message is written in perfect swenglish. What is best a custom Rolex or a Rolex that is stuck in custom? Buy a professional camera and you´re a professional photographer, buy a flute and you own a flute.

3 May 2008, 03:52 AM	#14
Ed Rooney "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Annapolis, MD Watch: Sea-Dweller 16600 Posts: 5,081	That expy just looks wrong. I am not a big cyclops guy, but my eyes might need it soon.

3 May 2008, 03:57 AM	#15
warrenmich "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Michigan Watch: Rolex GMTII C Posts: 322	Omg!!!!! Jocke- Tell me that's a fake Rolex, PLEASE!?!?!?! I can't stomache that slide! It is worse than ANY horror film I have seen! IF YOU EVER FEEL COMPELLED TO DO THAT AGAIN, SEND ME THE WATCH!!! I will send you a RADO or SKAGEN TO DO THAT TOO! __________________ Longines Master Collection Chrono Rolex GMTIIc SS

3 May 2008, 04:05 AM	#16
n9zez "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Real Name: Jordan Location: Indiana Watch: GMT Master II C Posts: 418	I would like to see a picture of a GMT II or GMT IIc without the cyclopes. Not that I am going to do it.... __________________ 116710 GMT Master II Ceramic Black Bezel M Serial (HAVE) 16710 GMT Master II Coke (HAD) 16622 Yacht-Master Platinum / SS (WANT) 116509 Daytona WG Meteorite (GRAIL)

3 May 2008, 04:55 AM	#19
neilgader "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Real Name: Neil Gader Location: Studio City Watch: Rolex 1680 Red Sub Posts: 153	does this mean that a cyclops applied to an acrylic is not glued? Or that it bonds to the plastic in a manner that prevents its removal? Neil

3 May 2008, 05:02 AM	#20
Magik Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Real Name: Patrick Location: Royal Kunia, HI Watch: Sub-Date & GMT ll Posts: 603	That was some funny commentary!

3 May 2008, 05:34 AM	#21
Randy "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Real Name: Randy Location: Ohio Watch: AP, Rolex, Panerai Posts: 1,241	IMO I think cyclops looks better than without!

3 May 2008, 06:02 AM	#23
JJ Irani Fondly Remembered Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: JJ Location: Auckland, NZ Watch: ALL SOLD!! Posts: 74,320	I love the cyclops. Why fiddle around with originality? __________________ Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!! I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!

3 May 2008, 06:12 AM	#25
Danovich Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Real Name: Don Location: TLV Posts: 33	lol Jocke i love your "cyclop remover kit" very original

3 May 2008, 06:16 AM	#27
sphereman "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: SoCal Posts: 980	GMT2 without cyclops look really SHARP. I love it. __________________ 2023 Watch Collection Panerai: 249 California, 232, 390 Rolex: Starbucks Tudor: Blue Pelagos

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)