To cyclops or not to cyclops?

[stormclock]

That has worked for some members. Mine wouldn't come off so I soaked it in acetone for 30 min and it fell off. Had to take it off the watch of course. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Didn't you damage the crystal with the soldering iron?

 

[elloello]

Wow what a great idea I don't like the Cyclopes at all

 

[Mendota]

Only problem is with a gen crystal, if you remove the cyclops there is still AR in the exact shape of the cyclops. People who have done it have posted pics of what it looks like and it looks goofy. You have to remove the crystal so you can remove the AR. You'd just have to be prepared for that question to come up.

 

[maxracingshox]

Only problem is with a gen crystal, if you remove the cyclops there is still AR in the exact shape of the cyclops. People who have done it have posted pics of what it looks like and it looks goofy. You have to remove the crystal so you can remove the AR. You'd just have to be prepared for that question to come up.

In that case I'd buy a 30$ clark crystal and mod and install it rather that destoying a 300$ rolex crystal.:yoda:

 

[rjk1]

In that case I'd buy a 30$ clark crystal and mod and install it rather that destoying a 300$ rolex crystal.:yoda:

Wait, so the AR is on the inside of the main crystal, not just the underside of the cyclops? If it's the latter then any cape cod cloth will polish it right out

 

[Mendota]

It's in 3 spots. On the underside of the cyclops, and then both surfaces of the crystal. I have the Rolex spec sheet for it bookmarked on my computer so I can post it later. It shows the locations of the AR application. That combination of locations is what produces the pronounced black hole effect.

 

[Turbo350z]

Didn't you damage the crystal with the soldering iron?

No. What would damage it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[maxracingshox]

removing the AR damages it.
The crystal is worth nothing after the procedure.
Just my 0.02

 

[Mendota]

This shows what happens when you remove the cyclops on a gen. You can read about it here. http://www.minus4plus6.com/116710.htm

 

[stormclock]

No. What would damage it?

The crystal. Iron soldering. Hot. Too hot.

 

[demolitionman]

Is it then ok to remove cyclops on reps because they don't adhere to same triple AR specs.
Haven't attempted to remove mine yet on a TimeShop first release 21j SubC but if it will leave a ghost cyclops footprint, it defeats the purpose.

 

[pjsayer]

Okay guys here she is sans cyclops...









Let me know what you think...

 

[Mendota]

Love it. That looks so much better!

 

[Turbo350z]

Okay guys here she is sans cyclops...









Let me know what you think...

I like it! A lot!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[pjsayer]

This is what I love about rep collecting - I wouldn't dream about messing with a £5K gen 116610, but I greatly prefer the cleaner look. Let's face it the cyclops is signature feature, but it's pretty damn ugly and functionally restrictive. For me, this is what the updated Sea-Dweller should've look like instead of the monster that is the DSSD! My perfect watch ;-)

 

[maxracingshox]

It's in 3 spots. On the underside of the cyclops, and then both surfaces of the crystal. I have the Rolex spec sheet for it bookmarked on my computer so I can post it later. It shows the locations of the AR application. That combination of locations is what produces the pronounced black hole effect.

An AR coating between the cyclops and the glass wouldn't make any sense. It's on the inside of the watch and on the outer surface of the cylops.

 

[Essray]

Old thread resurrected

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ZENNON]

Yeah nice - much better without it IMO

Ps. good timing for the resurrection (this thread is relevant to my interests!)
Where do/did you guys get the crystals from?