Cool Mod or Abomination? Rolex Cyclops Removal

[Rolexx]

To me, it's not a sub if it has no cyclops. The cyclops is basically the thing that tells you it's a sub when you glance at it. It's an important part of the look of the sub, both aesthetically and historically.

That said, I don't care what others do with their subs. I just wouldn't do it to mine lol.

 

[SertiSub]

Id do it with a rep in a heartbeat, but not my gen for sure! Agreed that the cyclops, while ugly etc., it is the hallmark of a Rolex in to me anyway. Excluding the sea-dweller, DSSD, and Milgauss of course..

 

[hautehorloge]

 

[wankerdude]

I have done it multiple times including on a few gen's. I love it without but these days I am starting to need a Cyclops on them.:hypno:

 

[Mendota]

Hi PJ. Yours is really looking fabulous. I've thought about sending it to JMB and having him custom machine a new retainer ring for me. Only drawback is once that is done, there is no going back to the rep crystal. Maybe it isn't a concern and I should do it. Rolex Addict posted in a previous thread here that with these PT cases you actually don't even need to use the plastic retaining ring when using a gen spec crystal. He said to throw it away. I have been meaning to PM him and ask him about it. Maybe I'll do that sometime over the course of the next few days. :adoration:

Speaking of modded Rollies, have you seen the recent thread on TRF in which a guy took his new ceramic Sea Dweller and swapped out the datewheel with the all red datewheel from the Turnograph II? It looks awesome. The members are all telling him to put in the red Yachtmaster hand to complete the look.

 

[pjsayer]

I just read the modded 116600 thread - nice to see someone try something different, although I do prefer the stock white DW.

Did you ever read my thread on my modded SMP on WUS? I basically morphed a PO with an SMP to make the ultimate Seamaster. I loved it, but something didn't quite feel right about it and I swapped it for a 1969 145.022. What do you reckon?



(Wrong brand section I know!)

 

[kelt]

To me, it's not a sub if it has no cyclops. The cyclops is basically the thing that tells you it's a sub when you glance at it. It's an important part of the look of the sub, both aesthetically and historically.

That said, I don't care what others do with their subs. I just wouldn't do it to mine lol.

The original Submariner had no date window, therefore no ugly wart on its Crystal.

Rolex produced the Submariner "date" reference 1680 to accomodate the desk divers, until then it was strictly a tool watch

 

[pjsayer]

The original Submariner had no date window, therefore no ugly wart on its Crystal.

Rolex produced the Submariner "date" reference 1680 to accomodate the desk divers, until then it was strictly a tool watch

Agreed. All the more reason why the 114060 is the thinking man's modern Sub and will probably be my next gen purchase. I'm gutted I missed out on the v3/4 release Sub C ND so I'll be all over the v5 when it's released.

 

[Rolexx]

The original Submariner had no date window, therefore no ugly wart on its Crystal.

Rolex produced the Submariner "date" reference 1680 to accomodate the desk divers, until then it was strictly a tool watch

Good point. Should have said 'modern subs.'

 

[eswilly]

It's like modding your car. You do what you like. Some may like it and some may not. I personally like stock. But I'll tell ya, it looks super badass. Wear it with a smile because it made me smile.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Mendota]

Agreed. Watches are very much like autos, especially when vintage is concerned.

 

[pjsayer]

So the T19 plexi turned up today so I squeezed it on. Not sure if I prefer the flatter, decyclopsed profile to the top hat what do you reckon?

 

[Mendota]

You know, in the other thread where you posted this I was leaning towards the tophat being a really nice look. But this thread shows off a lot more pics and different angles. I have to say, I like them both but I really like the T19. Wow, your watch really looks classy with it. That's just my opinion.

I'm know you have already said this before, but which tophat and T19 did you use again?

 

[GrapeJam]

Totally cool with it. Seems like the kind of thing you'd never have the balls to do with a $7K gen [emoji12].

The rainbow AR on the rep ceramic sports models has always been an obvious tell to me so I removed the cyclops on my Noob v3. Cleans up the crystal a bit and makes the dial pop that little bit more what do you think...?





It always makes me chuckle that gen SubC owners that swap in 114060 crystals tend to get shunned by the RWF community whilst waxing lyrical about the clean look of the SD and No Date Subs go figure!

Wow, I actually really like it. Although that may be largely due to the fact the photos are great

 

[SertiSub]

Looks great, grapejam!

 

[JoeyT]

Its funny no-date was mentioned. My wife's uncle has owned a no-date for as long as I can remember. Didnt occur to me until years later that it had no cyclops.. And looked great. I am thinking the mag bubble might actually detract from the dial, ie sea-dweller looks fantastic.

However, I dont think I could ever do it to my gen.

JoeyT, your de-mag'd TC LV looks great, that's what prompted me to post!

Thanks brother, I think the LV especially looks great without the cyclops. It's such a clean look but I also love the classic look with cyclops. It is funny though that my LV and BP SD are my two favorites and neither has a cyclops

 

[Mendota]

PJ takes great pics, doesn't he? That makes me want to go out and buy the V5 right now.

 

[Finlandesi]

I dont like the bubbles, omegas way of using no bubble + matching DWO is best imo. BUt the bubble makes the rollie...