Anyone remove the cyclops from their polar Explorer II?

[madgraf]

I've been looking at the polar 216570 as perhaps my next watch down the road, but I'm really not a fan of cyclops at all (hence why I went with no date sub). Does anyone on here have a polar explorer II with the cyclops removed? I'd love to see pictures of what that looks like. I found one on google image search , but it wasn't a very good photo, and I'd love to see a few different angles.

[bettenmv]

I didn't know you could do that! I would be interested in this same thing. I'm not a big fan of the cyclops.

[meganfox17]

Hello Sir !

We had a fun discussion on the OF discussing about the types of cyclops placed above or below the sc , intra crystal or embedded within the dial.

I have some photos Sir of the cyclops-less Explorer II from the OF but would humbly respectfully allow members of the TRF to post their photos first
( Perhaps similar photos ? )

Here's a hilarious post about cyclops removal on the Watchuseek forum many years ago....


#Step 1
Long face of chisel should go against crystal like a blade . And Up against the squared facet of the cyclops

#Step 2
Secure casing by placing it inside an open book against the stationary vertical pages

#Step 3
Make yourself comfortable and before you swing the blade of chisel in an arc manner.....

#Step 4
Say a couple of Hail Marys and dont close your eyes...

I was really laughing my head off after I read a member from the watchuseek forum who posted this particular comment :

" Holy Crap ! That sounds like giving yourself a Home-Made Vasectomy ! "

[madgraf]

Originally Posted by bettenmv

I didn't know you could do that! I would be interested in this same thing. I'm not a big fan of the cyclops.

There are a couple ways people have done it online from what I've read:

- Just buy a new crystal and have it swapped out

- Soak it in some type of solvent that dissolves the glue that adheres the cyclops to the crystal

- Lastly, the crazy chisel it off method that MeganFox17 linked above

I've seen on some models that have it removed though that there is only AR coating on one side, so it leaves this odd looking window where the cyclops was that stands out from the rest of the crystal. Not sure if that's the case with the 216570 though.

[Nav01L]

To be honest, I've never seen a "cyclops removed watch" that looked any good. They're just not designed with that in mind. The EX II is one of the prettiest Rolexes in my mind, better to get used to how it looks than to bastardize it with a chisel. It'll grow on you.

[imperio]

Originally Posted by Nav01L

To be honest, I've never seen a "cyclops removed watch" that looked any good. They're just not designed with that in mind. The EX II is one of the prettiest Rolexes in my mind, better to get used to how it looks than to bastardize it with a chisel. It'll grow on you.

If you have a wart growing on your foot do you let it continue to "grow on you" or would you "bastardize" it

A cyclops is like a wart

[slipperman]

if the crystal has the AR under the cyclops you would still see the AR, would look bad. better to switch out the crystal if you want the no cyclops look.

[westsiderkg]

Back from the dead...

Does the 216570 have AR coating?

Has anyone removed?

To each their own but to me its a wart as well and I want the cyclops gone!

Thanks.

[mactruck]

AR is under the crystal so removing cyclops show where it was. You would have to remove the crystal and remove the AR after. Not worth it.

[westsiderkg]

Originally Posted by mactruck

AR is under the crystal so removing cyclops show where it was. You would have to remove the crystal and remove the AR after. Not worth it.

Bummer...but agreed, tks.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by mactruck

AR is under the crystal so removing cyclops show where it was. You would have to remove the crystal and remove the AR after. Not worth it.

Correct. A polishing wheel can get the AR coating off easily though.

[Daveclock]

Bum clench anyone??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNnxKrf820g

[Juan Luis]

The cyclops on the Explorer II "Polar" is the least noticeable of all Rolex watches with date, in my opinion. Almost stealthy.

[imperio]

Originally Posted by mactruck

AR is under the crystal so removing cyclops show where it was. You would have to remove the crystal and remove the AR after. Not worth it.

This is what stopped me from removing mine as well.

[Jocke]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Correct. A polishing wheel can get the AR coating off easily though.

How about get rid of the AR from the forhead? Polishing too?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Jocke

How about get rid of the AR from the forhead? Polishing too?

Sandblasting

[toxicavenger]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Correct. A polishing wheel can get the AR coating off easily though.

question, if ar is applied under the crystal and the cyclops is on top of the crystal then how does the ar leave a line when the cyclops is removed? Is the ar under the crystal only applied where the cyclops is?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by toxicavenger

question, if ar is applied under the crystal and the cyclops is on top of the crystal then how does the ar leave a line when the cyclops is removed? Is the ar under the crystal only applied where the cyclops is?

Yep, only where the cyclops is. Would look odd to just leave it.

[toxicavenger]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Yep, only where the cyclops is. Would look odd to just leave it.

Its odd that they decided to only do it where the cyclops is. I am sure the whole crystal would benefit from it.

Thanks for the info brother.

[Rocket_Man]

Originally Posted by toxicavenger

Its odd that they decided to only do it where the cyclops is. I am sure the whole crystal would benefit from it.

Thanks for the info brother.

That is a Rolex thing. Rolex seems to like the way the dial looks without the AR coating.

But I don't think all Rolex watches with Cyclops have the AR on the backside. Some do and some don't. I don't know which ones. But I have seen a pic of one with the AR coating and Cyclops removed. It looked a little odd.

[jdb0]

I’d always thought the cyclops on Rolex watches was ugly, detracts from the dial symmetry, etc. Since owning a 16570 polar, the white face changed my mind. I’ve seen this reference with and without the cyclops and WITH looks better in my opinion.

[crbrown]

Disagree.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ranxoren]

I've done it and I think it looks great without! Then again I am known to mod my watches a bit :P

[Sub Capt.]

Originally Posted by Juan Luis

The cyclops on the Explorer II "Polar" is the least noticeable of all Rolex watches with date, in my opinion. Almost stealthy.

Totally agree. Best looking cyclops dial period!

T