Why the SeaDweller did not have cyclops before...

[WAK4]

...according to the A Blog to Watch article on the new SD:

A lesser-known fact is that the original Rolex Sea-Dweller of 1967 did not have a cyclops because when Rolex added it to the plexiglass front, it caused structural weaknesses in it and ultimately caused it to shatter before reaching the desired depth rating – and so the cyclops was omitted.

Take it for what it is worth, but with all the debate I've seen around the forums, maybe that is an actual Rolex answer?


http://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-se...-126600-watch/

[guy369]

I've heard that before as well.
However I do think the non-cyclops SD has become part of it's culture.

But I suppose all things change in time.

[Rolex addict]

I don't think it really matters for 99.9999999% of the people here as they will never reach those depths to test it.

[kilyung]

There have probably been more people to the moon than the depth limits of the DSSD or SD.

[Hwkaholic]

I'm not a fan of the new version. Granted it has a new 3235 movement boasting 70 hours of power reserve. But increasing the Watch to 43mm and adding the cyclops makes me not a fan.

I think the value of my SD4K just went up.

https://m.rolex.com/watches/baselwor...6600-0001.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flywheel]

I once read that Rolex omitted the Cyclops because it popped off when the crystal began to flex under deep-water pressure.

[Mystro]

I am going to say there isnt a customer that paid for either watch has ever been close to those depths. The only way they are going that deep is to take it off your wrist and throw it over the side of the ship.

Originally Posted by Rolex addict

I don't think it really matters for 99.9999999% of the people here as they will never reach those depths to test it.

[rollee1]

The original was plexiglass dome, the connection area is not perfectly flat.

[j-watch]

And that dial still looks like the Satin (not glossy as is stated in Rolex's description / spec's from their website) version to be found in the 116600 and not the glossy version found in the older SD's.

Joe

[TitanCi]

I think I love my 116600 a little bit more now...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Xenophon]

I used my SD for timing many hundreds of dives. I also used a Submariner. The cyclops gets in the way a bit when counting precise minutes. I'd prefer the new one without but you can't have everything

[Xenophon]

Double post, sorry. Forum is really slow and playing up

[Lordofrolex]

I prefer the cyclops, but the SD is too big of a watch for me to wear anyways but i like the cyclops on my GMT II.

[nafkha]

Originally Posted by Rolex addict

I don't think it really matters for 99.9999999% of the people here as they will never reach those depths to test it.

I agree. Still, Rolex cannot afford to claim something wrong...

[Seaotter]

Heard that before as well. In 1967 it was a dome- shaped plexiglass.

Funny to realize that the Sea-Dweller 2000 was the first Rolex Diver watch with a date function.
I think that the reason for not having a cyclops before is a different story.

Talking about the Sea-Dweller 4000 with sapphire glass:
The sapphire glass on the Submariner is 2 mm thick versus 3 mm thick on the Sea-Dweller 4000.The distance between the face (date wheel) and the cyclops on these two watches is different which means Rolex should specifically calculate the cyclops again. At first there was no cyclops on the Sea-Dweller because of this difference (and dome- shaped plexiglass).

Not having a cyclops on the Sea-Dweller before became a kind of style; a feature of this particular watch. Until today

SD Glass.jpg

Sub Glass.jpeg

[AK797]

Originally Posted by kilyung

There have probably been more people to the moon than the depth limits of the DSSD or SD.

Why haven't we been to Mars yet? I thought we'd be there by now, Moon was nearly fifty years ago now. Does no one care anymore?

[Jocke]

Originally Posted by Rolex addict

I don't think it really matters for 99.9999999% of the people here as they will never reach those depths to test it.

And if they do there are no one that will check the date.

[Seaotter]

Source: Rolex PR

The Cyclops lens over the date, a signature feature of
Rolex watches since its first appearance on the crystal in
1953, features on this model for the first time. In the past,
technical constraints related to the thickness of the crystal
had prevented its use. Today its presence is possible,
substantially improving the legibility of the date.

Schermafbeelding 2017-03-27 om 08.54.42.jpg

What I said 😁

[ptxl]

Originally Posted by kilyung

There have probably been more people to the moon than the depth limits of the DSSD or SD.

I hope we all are aware that the moon landings are fake.

[Singslinger]

From The Best of Time, by Dowling and Hess:- (apologies for the sideways orientation)

"The Sea-Dweller differs from a regular Submariner by being much thicker and heavier. It has no 'Cyclops' date lens because the glass on the Sea-Dweller is thicker than on a Submariner. This would place the lens at a greater distance from the date disc, thereby being unable to focus correctly. A 'Cyclops' lens for a Sea-Dweller would need to be almost twice the size of a regular one''.

[Seaotter]

Cool ! Thanks !

[G'ed]

Originally Posted by ptxl

I hope we all are aware that the moon landings are fake.

You meant Speedmaster never been on the moon??

[Seaotter]

Originally Posted by G'ed

You meant Speedmaster never been on the moon??

LOL 🤣


The first and only watch worn on the moon

must be

The first and only watch perhaps worn on the moon

[ptxl]

Originally Posted by G'ed

You meant Speedmaster never been on the moon??

No swearing here!!

[bardm]

To all of you who argue that "no one use their watch at that depth anyway": That's really irrelevant and doesn't change validity og OP's point at all.

Rolex can't release a watch with a depth rating that doesn't hold and say: "Oh, that's just becaurse of the cyclops"

They either had to remove the cyclops or reduce the depth rating.

Now that is no problem anymore, so they added the cyclops.

If you prefer it without a cyclops that is a personal preference, but I think the reason for adding it now actually makes sense.

[Quailhunter]

I see two explanations for the lack of a magnifier in the above posts. One, it destroys the crystal structural integrity. Two, the magnifier' distance away from the date wheel was too far due to the thick crystal and the image was not correct.

I have no way of knowing which explanation is correct, but, to me, the second makes more sense.

[VicLeChic]

I'm not 100% clear on the reason for not having a cyclops on the first SD: is it because its presence would provoke structural damage on the plexi back in the days and cause it to shatter at depth (as Ariel Adams from ABTW mentions) or is it due to the different thickness of the SD crystal and increased distance to the date window which would require a different cyclops lens specifically for this model to be able to focus on the date (as per The Best of Time, by Dowling and Hess)?

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by ptxl

I hope we all are aware that the moon landings are fake.

[Robbyman]

I would go with what Rolex says.

[Cru Jones]

I thought the technical challenge was with the original plexi, but subsequent SDs probably didn't have this issue - it was just a question of tradition. With the latest SD, however, Rolex decided to put its trademark cyclops on the watch, since above all else, it's a Rolex.

Not much mystery or scandal, IMHO....