Reply With QuoteThe one with the cyclops comes with the date. The sub with no date does not have a cyclop as there is no need for one.Originally Posted by RAJEN
I thought Submariner comes with no date.
The one with the cyclops comes with the date. The sub with no date does not have a cyclop as there is no need for one.
This is really interesting now.
Oh I see.
I thought the one with the cyclops/date was called Submariner Date rather than the other way around.
Hmmm, interesting.
This is really crackling along now.
Rajen, you are a very naughty boy.
Intense debate over a number of years - and forums - has established to all but an autistic minority that the terms are interchangeable - even to rolex themselves.
Also that it really doesn't matter - not even the tiniest bit.
Every day is a school day. I asked Rolex a few years ago to replace the bezel on my 116200 with a fluted one and they categorically said that they won't do anything to a watch that takes it away from its standard spec.
EDIT: The post below involves me being a complete arse. I'm not deleting it to in order to make it clear to everyone how poorly I misread the post. Apologies to Schofie.
Indeed it is.
Apparently in school, you never learned the concept of disproof by counterexample. A single point example (your experience with Rolex) is not sufficient to prove a general rule (Rolex will never alter a watch from its standard spec). However a counterexample (the two I provided) is sufficient to disprove your assertion.I asked Rolex a few years ago to replace the bezel on my 116200 with a fluted one and they categorically said that they won't do anything to a watch that takes it away from its standard spec.
Not sure what the point of you being a condescending twat about something where you're clearly wrong is.
Last edited by Foodle; 12th March 2016 at 23:51.
Which charm school did you go to?
Wow. That's got to be the biggest mis-read of a post I've seen to date. Without reacting to your obviously over aggressive and unnecessary rant, let me clarify my post. 'Every day is a school day' means 'you learn something new every day', which therefore acknowledges your contribution and the effort you made in seeking out the links. I then posted my own experience just as a point of what Rolex told me directly. Not only did you misinterpret my post but you also used language that is not suitable for this area of the forum. If you really want to have a go, for whatever reason that I'm not quite clear about, then take it into the bear pit.
Last edited by Schofie; 12th March 2016 at 18:14.
Cyclops for me as well.
Struggle to see the date on watches with no cyclops.
In fact I sent a new watch back recently, as the date for me was absolutely minute and unreadable.
When your eyes deteriorate with age, cyclops is a very handy feature to have.
Apparently in school, you never learned the concept of reading with understanding...
I wouldn't ever consider buying a watch with a cyclops.
Where can I buy a small cyclops and the necessary adhesive? I need to fit one to a dive watch I have.
Joking apart, I was thinking the same thing a few weeks ago.
I wasn't joking, I really am looking for one!
Given their popularity I thought they must be available somewhere.
I think the Rolex cyclops is almost a trademark on their range. The datejust being the most popular selling range is identified by it. It kinda identifies a Rolex as a Rolex to the common man. And to most Rolex is a status symbol and hence by inference the cyclops is.
Just my two pennies.
Martyn.
Guilty!
I think you're probably correct. Ive already had the authenticity of my seadweller challenged (politely) at work due to its lack of a date magnifier.
Worse than that, a conversation in the pub a while ago led to the question "lf that's a rollie then how come it's not got an oyster?" - the inquisitor believing that to be the term for date magnifier on a rolex. The watch in question being a no-date submariner...
The whole point is that if you own a Rolex with a cyclops, you will yearn for a non-cyclops model. If you hve purchased a non-cylops Rolex, you ill wish for a a cyclops model. I speak as one who owns a DJ and a GMTIIc, but I'd love a no date Sub.
Personally I have always had Rolex watches with a cyclops.
Never did, nor never will yearn for a non cyclops model.
Your personal opinion, is your opinion, and not necessarily how others would feel.
I like them send all your unwanted Cyclops to me please i would use them.
Don't like the cyclops myself so that is why I got a ND Sub. That said I also prefer the date window at the six o'clock position to give absolute symmetry, guess I'm just a bit fussy.
I had 2 subs with cyclops but the cyclops ended up annoying me. Funnily enough I don't mind it on my GMT. But if I had another sub in the future it would be without.
I'm in the no cyclops camp.
I'm quite happy with a date on a Rolex, but I've never liked the cyclops and can't ever see myself buying a Rolex with this (although given my finances I won't be buying a Rolex without this for a while either!)
I think inspite of valiant efforts of some Sub ND usage is here to stay.
Frankly, don't mind it personally as that is obviously the more popular term but I do sympathize with purists as well.
Personally,I am flexible- can live with cyclops as well as without.
Not a fan of removing it if already there.
I agree 100%. I detest the Cyclops so much I would not buy a watch with it.
Apologies. My significant misread of Schofie's post.
Last edited by Foodle; 12th March 2016 at 23:52.
No worries mate, and thanks for the PM
Couldn't agree more.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
No Cyclops, No date, No Rolex......
I like the cyclops, it's part of the classic Oyster look. I actually prefer watches without a date function generally, yet I still like the cyclops.
My 16030 Datejust has a cyclops which I don't like but the watch has sentimental meaning for me so it will stay
[QUOTE=pacchi;3937665]No Cyclops, No date, No Rolex......[/QUOTE
What about the no date models made by rolex in the rolex factory? And the date models with no Cyclops made by rolex - also in the rolex factory?
Or the ceramic Submariner-Dates fitted with ceramic submariner crystals by RSC
No Cyclops, Yes Date, Yes Rolex
So many extreme points of view. I hate the cyclops, the cyclops is the centre of my world, nothing matters more than the cyclops, the cyclops is the root of all evil. Either way, it's daft and all "fundie" to ignore entire watches because of it.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
That is because the cyclops is the only thing worth talking about apparently! I swear it's like all other facets and characteristics of Rolex wristwatches are irrelevant.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
In my younger days I would not have a cyclops but now, with glasses, I find it easier to read the date when magnified. Head rules heart - I want a watch that is accurate and easy to read so for me it's an advantage.
Purely in terms of attractiveness, l would think differently about an "entire" woman if she had an unsightly growth on her face - or one lens was ridiculously over-magnified on her glasses - even if she was otherwise "perfect". Nothing "daft" about that, just not my taste - lm sure there's someone out there who loves women with warts who are visually impaired in one eye - nowt so queer as folk...
These are luxury wristwatches, not people. If you can't tell the difference, that's extremely unusual.
In practical terms, if you don't like the Cyclops, but you like the rest of the watch, you can have it removed.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Google "Analogy".
My advice to you is to try to focus upon the spirit of a thing rather than the letter...
That said - lm sure some otherwise normal women regularly benefit from having ugly growths removed.
I dislike the Cyclops so much I would not buy a watch with one. Spoils the crystal/dial IMO.
Have never been a fan, but the model I wanted isn't available without one, have to say it has never bothered me at all. Frankly it's quite nice to have the big date even if my sight is pretty good, and not having a date is a bit of a bummer on an everyday watch. Also suits the brands' "form follow function". I don't like when it's removed, makes the watch look crippled.
However the symmetry and cleaner look of the ND makes it a more handsome watch hands down.
Collectors (of all sorts of things) tend towards obsessiveness and fundamentalism in their respective fields. It's who we are. ;-)
I prefer the non cyclops look with a date, its just tidy
Amazed this thread is still going.
Ask a silly question...
And get quite a good range of answers
Posting Permissions
