Cyclops Question

[vesnyder]

I just read another persons thread that stated that the cyclops was a separate piece of glass and was glued to the crystal? Is that accurate? In 35 years of DJ ownership I assumed it was all one piece. Is it the same for the all crystals?

[beshannon]

Originally, the Cyclops lens and the crystal were one single piece moulded from Plexiglas. As of the 1970s, watchmakers started to equip watches with scratch-proof resistant sapphire. Sapphire crystals were first used with reference 5100 (OysterQuartz) in the early 1970s before progressively spreading throughout the brand’s line-up. The Cyclops, therefore, evolved, becoming an extra piece of sapphire, produced separately and glued to the crystal. Since 2005, it also features double-sided anti-reflective coating to avoid glare. Rolex mentioned for a long time a 2.5x magnification on their website but this is no longer the case. And this alone is a subject of controversy among hardcore Rolex fans.

https://monochrome-watches.com/the-rolex-cyclops-lens/

[justjay82]

That is my understanding as well. Separate piece. But RSC would likely just replace the whole crystal if there’s an issue.

[othertbone]

Originally Posted by beshannon

https://monochrome-watches.com/the-rolex-cyclops-lens/

Good article!

[badass09]

Yes it is and over the years i have seen some guys removing the cyclops on their watches.

But i do wonder how legible the date window is underwater?

As most would now that light bounces off the crystal differently. Eager to hear what others who actually dive with their rolexes have to say about this.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Originally Posted by badass09

Yes it is and over the years i have seen some guys removing the cyclops on their watches.

But i do wonder how legible the date window is underwater?

As most would now that light bounces off the crystal differently. Eager to hear what others who actually dive with their rolexes have to say about this.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

The only thing any diver would be interested with any dive watch under water would be the time lapse bezel in relation to the setting of the minute hand in relation with the bezel before going underwater.And the date and most all objects under water would appear larger than it does in air at surface.

[abozz]

Originally Posted by padi56

The only thing any diver would be interested with any dive watch under water would be the time lapse bezel in relation to the setting of the minute hand in relation with the bezel before going underwater.And the date and most all objects under water would appear larger than it does in air at surface.

In a Diver Chamber is usefull a cyclop.

Enviado desde mi SM-G975F mediante Tapatalk

[Jocke]

Originally Posted by padi56

The only thing any diver would be interested with any dive watch under water would be the time lapse bezel in relation to the setting of the minute hand in relation with the bezel before going underwater.And the date and most all objects under water would appear larger than it does in air at surface.

I never dive without a cyclop.

[thegobetween]

I quite fancy trying a cyclops on my Tudor GMT...

[Onikage]

I believe it actually is one piece on the old plexiglass models.

[joli160]

I wish i could glue one on my DSSD with it's domed crystal

[crbrown]

My explorer ii has it removed.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[badass09]

Why can't rolex just ditch the cyclops and make a larger date window n date fonts ?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by badass09

Why can't rolex just ditch the cyclops and make a larger date window n date fonts ?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Date wheels only have so much space to put numbers on. They could go BIG date where there are two wheels but it would be a change to the movement that I don't think Rolex will do. Try to love the Cyclops!