Just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt. I'm not a YM fan, but also not a cyclops fan, so removing the cyclops should improve the YM in my eyes. However ...

In addition to making the date easier to read, the magnification by the cyclops makes the date window look like it extends closer to the edge of the dial. Without it, the date window seems to look too far in from the edge, like when a too-small movement is used in a large watch.

 

Totally agree. The Rolex movement is designed to have an inset date window, in order to leave room for the cyclops. It looks out of proportion when you remove the cyclops.

A Tudor Sub, on the other hand, looks pretty good without a cyclops, since it has a different movement, and the cyclops looks a little too close to the edge of the crystal when installed.

 

The date does look far away. I’ll give you that. I’ve never been a fan on the tumor, but I have a hulk ant it fits. The YM... not as much. Thanks for the feedback

 

There's no rule that says it has to be at the edge, I think it looks fine, in fact I quite like it.

 

There's no rule that says my left and right shoes have to match either. The OP asked for an opinion, not a legality check.

 

It looks really good; but I do prefer leaving Rolexes as stock as possible.

 

Great watch, think it will be my next watch !!!!

 

That looks great! Not a fan of of the magnifier too, which is why I keep the SD 4000 and ND Sub . . .

 

I think the position of the date looks of, since the cyclops is.

 

Re: date window placement, a major complaint about the IWC Mark XVIII is the date is too far in. I own an LPP and it's even more pronounced in that model due to the blue sunray dial and white date wheel. As several have commented, it's really noticeable in pictures. However, everybody who owns one says the same thing: you really never notice it on the wrist.

That said, it's probably a different story if for the types who spend too much time with the 10x loupe and post zoomed pics of their watch asking if the marker being off by 0.05mm is an issue, who are probably the same ones who leave plastics on!

 

That said, it's probably a different story if for the types who spend too much time with the 10x loupe and post zoomed pics of their watch asking if the marker being off by 0.05mm is an issue, who are probably the same ones who leave plastics on!

I'm not at all like that. It's just visually jarring to see when you remove a cyclops. In terms of the IWC, I'd also agree, and it's why the 36mm looks so great.

 

Thanks for sharing as I've never seen this before. I'm not a fan of it but that's because I'm a huge cyclops fan. Even sold my ND because I missed having a date and the cyclops. The only Rolex that gets a pass is the SD.

 

Removing a Rolex icon was not easy. It came down to form vs function/ function vs form. I love the ND due it’s simple dial, but I do enjoy a date. I just didn’t want the DW to overtake the YM and it’s platinum bezel. Just one mans opinion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The new Rolex Yacht-Dweller.

 

I may be the minority here, but I actually prefer having the cyclops. Why?
1. It is practical - makes reading the date so much easier for my aging eyes.
2. Visually, it is iconically Rolex.

 

Totally agree. Also agree that without the cyclops, the inset date window looks oddly placed.

 

You are not the minority. Obviously it’s part of the iconic feature ROLEX presents. When one sees it from a distance they know what it is, or could be. I’ve keyed in on it too. Personally, ive never found a need. When a product is your own, you should make it your own. Regardless of what Rolex says is acceptable. The obvious issue is warranty. But explainable to a service center.

I have a 335i with a computer mod. That voids the warranty as well. But it works for me.

Again. Love the discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I own this watch in its latest iteration ref 116622.

It looks even cleaner without the Cyclops I must say. Yes the date window appears slightly misplaced but I could live with that.

Would you care to share how you removed it? I might give it a go myself with a non Rolex diver where the Cyclops has no AR treatment and makes the date difficult to read.

 

Disclaimer: may void the warrenty and you absolutely must remove the crystal from the case. Or the heat will melt the crystal gasket.



Option 1: first remove the crystal from the case. Then take a flame to the crystal. You will see after a few seconds the glue between the crystal and the cyclops flash milky white. Scrape the clops off and remove the residual glue. Done. The heat will not damage the crystal or cyclops. It you have a 6 digit model it will have an AR coating. The coating is not applied underneath the cyclops. It will be noticeable.


Option 2: purchase a correct OEM no date crystal. Remove the crystal from the case. Install the no date crystal. Done. No need to worry about the AR coating if your 6 digit has one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Option 3: Leave it alone. Rolex was "meant" to have the cyclops on the crystal.

 

I quite like the cleaner look without the cyclops. However, I definitely think the date sits awkwardly towards the center -- it doesn't balance the 9 index properly. So, I don't personally see it as an improvement, but I also don't see it as making anything worse. Still, it's at least a nice change of pace.

 

I feel like I am the only cyclops fan sometimes

 

Not true, I'm also a fan. 2 isn't exactly a large number, but hey! it's a start. Aside from the utility (which works really well), it's distinctively Rolex. My scientifically unsubstantiated guess is that most non-WIS seeing a watch with a cyclops would think "That's a Rolex! Wonder if it's real...?"

 

The horse is out the proverbial barn for the OP, so this observation really won't make much difference, but Rolex is the most recognized watch brand on the planet, and the cyclops is a big part of that iconic look. I've known people with SDs who had strangers point out that their watch was a counterfeit because of no cyclops.

Now that you've removed the cyclops on your YM, prepare yourself for these types of comments, because Rolex inspires jealousy. Nothing gives these haters more satisfaction than thinking you're wearing a fake, and trying to call you on it.

 

True, however


I have been questioned once by a guy wearing a calculator watch. My reply: “I remember when I had one of those. I was 5 and needed help with addition”. He slowly walked away.


Bottom line is... you own the watch. The watch doesn’t own you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I have been questioned once by a guy wearing a calculator watch. My reply: "I remember when I had one of those. I was 5 and needed help with addition". He slowly walked away.

Gee, that was kind of mean. Good job ;-)

 

A great upgrade, IMHO, I like the clean look.

 

Still loving it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Still loving it

The absence of the cyclops, or lack of date window frame or even an abbreviated lumed marker at 3:00, makes the dial look asymmetrical. But if you're loving it, that really is all that matters. Enjoy!

 

Don't like it, OP, sorry.

 

looks weird without the cyclops

 

Love it. I was never a big fan of the cyclops.