Cyclops or not?

[SamP]

So the forthcoming Sea-Dweller now sports a cyclops.
In the past, it was believed a cyclops would come off at really deep depths. If Rolex now think technology is such that they can apply a cyclops that won't come off at really deep depths - should they have added it.
Should a distinctive feature always remain, even when the reason for that feature no longer remains?
What say you?

Best of luck for all those waiting for new arrivals. Remember, the second one always comes quicker than the first - or is that just for babies?

[Abdullah71601]

Terrible add. Totally turned me off the new watch.

[Etschell]

i say anyone going to those depths does it in a submersible vehicle that is pressurized.

[GradyPhilpott]

It's perfectly understandable that Rolex would add a cyclops to the SD when the technology allowed.

I personally am not interested in the watch one way or the other, but that has nothing to do with the cyclops.

I think that the vast majority of those who will buy the watch will not give it a second thought.

It may well be that non-WIS types will prefer the cyclops.

Companies will do as they will and we, the consumers, will buy what we like and avoid those things we don't.

[SamP]

I thinks it was a clever move, as those who like will buy, and those who don't will seek out older versions driving up the price of old pieces.
Win win situation

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by SamP

So the forthcoming Sea-Dweller now sports a cyclops.
In the past, it was believed a cyclops would come off at really deep depths.

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Terrible add. Totally turned me off the new watch.

If a Sea Dweller is actually being used for its intended purpose (i.e. underwater applications 'at really deep depths') does the watch even need a cyclops magnifier? Like who's going to be checking or verifying the date in that environment?

[Sky21]

I think it goes to branding, Rolex = cyclops for most people so give em what they want.

[gwalker]

Well I'm 32. Had 4 SDs to this point. My eyes are getting bad and the cyclops would be helpful. I'm ready for it to come in. I don't look at it as a plus or minus I just see it will help me read the date faster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cru Jones]

Cyclops = Rolex! Great move.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by SamP

I thinks it was a clever move, as those who like will buy, and those who don't will seek out older versions driving up the price of old pieces.
Win win situation

Rolex makes nothing on older versions. More likely they were looking for a SubXL. The new SD is virtually indistinguishable from a sub date now, other than size.

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

If a Sea Dweller is actually being used for its intended purpose (i.e. underwater applications 'at really deep depths') does the watch even need a cyclops magnifier? Like who's going to be checking or verifying the date in that environment?

Saturation divers spend a lot of time in compression chambers (weeks sometimes), which are pressurized to operating depths. The date would come in handy.

[DLRIDES]

1982 called, ..........................and wants the cyclops and fluted bezels back !

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Saturation divers spend a lot of time in compression chambers (weeks sometimes), which are pressurized to operating depths. The date would come in handy.

Under those conditions, I can understand the importance of date recognition/differentiation. But would a cyclops magnifier be of any actual benefit in this kind of environment? The addition of a cyclops on the SD appears to be more of a cosmetic alteration if anything else.

[Psmith]

Yes to the Cyclops.

[c41006]

I don't mind the cyclops

[vladamir15]

Bad addition. What made the watch unique

[RRGHOST1]

love the Cyclops, wouldn't buy a Rolex without one.

[Bluside]

I can't read the date without one.

[Mick P]

Chaps

I suppose from a totally functional point of view, having a cyclops deep down in the ocean does make sense for ease of reading.

On the other hand, I doubt if anyone who is a few thousand feet under the water is really going to enquire what todays date is. Also the SeaDweller's history is a no cyclops thingy, so I am surprised they fitted it.

I normally would never go above 40mm for a watch but in this case, I can make an exception. This is the ultimate tool watch and 43mm over a wet suit is highly appropriate.

Regards

Mick

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

Under those conditions, I can understand the importance of date recognition/differentiation. But would a cyclops magnifier be of any actual benefit in this kind of environment? The addition of a cyclops on the SD appears to be more of a cosmetic alteration if anything else.

Agree. I think they turned it into a fashion SD. They wanted a midsize between the sub and the massive DSSD and came up with the new SubXL SD. The cyclops makes it a super-maxi case sub date. Totally cosmetic adulteration of the classic design, and no more useful as a tool watch than it was before.

Originally Posted by Mick P

Chaps

I suppose from a totally functional point of view, having a cyclops deep down in the ocean does make sense for ease of reading.

On the other hand, I doubt if anyone who is a few thousand feet under the water is really going to enquire what todays date is. Also the SeaDweller's history is a no cyclops thingy, so I am surprised they fitted it.

I normally would never go above 40mm for a watch but in this case, I can make an exception. This is the ultimate tool watch and 43mm over a wet suit is highly appropriate.

Regards

Mick

Underwater, your mask magnifies everything anyway. Before I needed reading glasses, I never needed a magnifier underwater.

[TK-710]

Originally Posted by DLRIDES

1982 called, ..........................and wants the cyclops and fluted bezels back !

Originally Posted by vladamir15

Bad addition. What made the watch unique

Agree. Sticking a magnifier on top of the crystal is done for no other reason then to scream Rolex. If it was an identifying feature of any other watch brand people would be willing to complain about how ridiculous it looks and how it disrupts the visual aspects of the dial. But since it's Rolex people will see this as an improvement. To make matters worse Rolex is advertising this as a technological advancement. What was that? Stronger super glue? The cyclops is the one Rolex feature I was willing to pay more money not to get.

So I guess I'm a "not." And here I didn't think I had anything to add to the unpopular opinion thread

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Cyclops = Rolex! Great move.

I'm in this camp too

[cajunron]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Cyclops = Rolex! Great move.

X2.

[cajunron]

I don't think the cyclops magnifier was intended for underwater viewing.

[kboy2379]

I think it will be a great addition to a great watch!

[chong2k]

Originally Posted by gwalker

Well I'm 32. Had 4 SDs to this point. My eyes are getting bad and the cyclops would be helpful. I'm ready for it to come in. I don't look at it as a plus or minus I just see it will help me read the date faster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same

My eyesight is getting worse at short range and I Love the Submariner cyclops. My DSSDs Date becoming more and more hard to read for me. Getting old

[SC11]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Underwater, your mask magnifies everything anyway. Before I needed reading glasses, I never needed a magnifier underwater.

The minute the cyclops is underwater it's useless anyway as the water negates the magnification of the cyclops

[SC11]

Not adverse to the cyclops, like it on some models and likewise like it not being prsent on my SDc adds little diversities in the collection.

Do wish the SD43 didn't have it but it's not a deal breaker.

[Ruud Van Driver]

I have no particular interest in the watch because I have a Sub and a DSSD. However, I think I prefer the SD without a Cyclops; the new watch will be indistinguishable from a Sub at ten feet away

[randomguy]

Nope, not a fan.

JG

[Smarties]

SD50 is a great watch. It would be better (look cleaner) without a cyclops. (I don't need the cyclops to view the date.)

Yes you can argue that cyclops = Rolex
But no cyclops = Sea Dweller!

No cyclops make SD stand out from a Sub.

There're many other brands/watches that don't have cyclops and yet we rarely see people complain about it. So is cyclops a must have feature?