Cyclops eye - love it or hate it?

I have ran across a handful of people lately that have a real dislike for the Rolex cyclops eye over the date. To me this is part of what attracted me to the brand. I’m not sure why so many people don’t like it. Can someone shed some light on this?

Reply
·

Definitely hate it...🥺 It kind of ruins my perception of surface symmetry and feel..

·

I absolutely despise the cyclops and will not own a watch with one - despite collecting prospex divers there are whole generations of monster I cant stomach so this isn't just a rolex thing.  Ok, why?

  1. the date is at most an 'extra' complication, it might be necessary but its not the star of the show, it must NEVER overshadow the time. The cyclops reverses this, like making a backing singer more prominent than the lead.
    2. The purpose of the crystal is, in most cases, to just get out of the way and allow the dial and dial furniture to do their thing, the cyclops again screws this up, like a drunk cousin photobombing the bridal photos it messes up the beauty of whats behind it.
    3. There are times when I enjoy the crystal getting up on stage, joining the band and adding to the show.  Big box crystals that have a carnival glass effect across the whole dial are sometimes cool and done right really add to the dial.  A cyclops doesn't do this, it squats on the crystal over one small spot, usually with a harsh edge and corners adding nothing but ugly.  
    4. Speaking of ugly, never look at a cyclops under a macro or loupe, those harsh edges ALWAYs hold a petrie dish of skin, hair and bacteria.

    So that's why I wont abide them.
·

I agree 100%. A Rolex without the cyclops over the date window would look wrong.

But maybe that’s just me, because I‘m a fan of Date windows on watches in general and also a cyclops eye doesn’t bother me. 

·

The cyclops is engrained in the Rolex brand, so while I can take or leave it from an aesthetic or practical perspective, it has an endearing quality to it. The story (or mythology) behind it that Hans Wilsdorf himself came up with the idea when washing his hands (or in the bath, depending on who tells it) and a water droplet magnified the date, is so memorable. Personally, I think Rolex kept it all these years not just for that folklore but also its reflective quality. You can see it sparkle from across the room and immediately know that person has a Rolex on their wrist. 

·

On some watches it looks well. By some watches it looks just weird (especially small diameters). Rolex is just a standard cyclop watch and it is "normal" and looks quite good ...

·

I like the idea of the cyclops but I think it should be on the underside of the crystal not sticking up like a wart

·

Not a cyclops hater, but I wouldn't want one on my watch. You can wash and wipe the crystal as much as you want, the cyclops has a way of keeping dirt and grime around the hedge in a quite annoying way

·

I think @Pete_NSOW nailed it. 

I love a date complication, but I want it to be there in the most unobtrusive way it can be added, while still being useable. 

·

The Cyclops helps me read the date quickly, and I don’t consider it unattractive. What I don’t care for is the cluttered look of a chrono with three added dials.

·

depends on the watch

Rolex, yes, it's okay 

Panerai, no, no, just no

Also, depends on the  execution

Covering date, okay

Covering Day/Date, absolutely hell no

·

I may not detest the cyclops as much as  @Pete_NSOW , but I have to agree that it's a feature I'd rather not have.

I find a date complication to be quite useful, but like @KristianG  I prefer it to be implemented in the most discrete manner possible, where it doesn't draw attention to itself, and where it doesn't mess with the symmetry of the dial. The cyclops is about as subtle as a loud fart in a crowded elevator, so I certainly don't view it as an ideal approach to showing the date.

I also find that while the cyclops does help make the date easier to read when viewed directly on, it ends up creating distortion and reflections that can actually have the opposite effect when viewed at a slight angle.  I personally much prefer the way that Omega has implemented the date window at 6 o'clock on the  Speedmaster 57 for example,  as compared to the cyclops at 3 o'clock as used by Rolex. I find the date is generally easier to read on the Omega, and I find the symmetry of design much more pleasing to the eye. 

Image
Image
·

My vintage eyes can appreciate a well-executed cyclops.

That said, the only watch with a cyclops I have is on my #citizen GMT diver.  

Interestingly the cyclops is on the underside of the crystal so is largely out of the way.

Image

  

·

I literally just dropped a cyclops on one of my watchmod builds. Not sure I love it but at least I can see that date to set it now without looking for my loupe.

·

I love it.  It's a quintessential Rolex design element.  

·

If it really has to have a date, I'm not opposed to it. But I'd rather not have one. As it happens, the age I have had the privilege of achieving thus far has allowed me to recently experience the need for some sort of lense to read the date on a watch. Either on the watch itself or resting upon the bridge of my nose. 

·

Don't have an opinion, I definitely saw some watches that didn't need the Cyclops eye, but then again I judt won't buy it. As for Rolex, I think it's an integral part of the brand identity. 

·

I own one watch with a cyclops. I don’t hate it, but it’s so unnecessary. It’s not like I look at any of my other watches and cry in despair “my kingdom for a cyclops” because I can’t read the date. 

·

I love the Cyclops. To each their own. I have a Rolex and a Panerai with cyclops dates and love ‘em both. 

·

I am a hater except when it comes to the Datejust.  I believe it is an integral part of that watch but other than that I am anti-cyclops and anti-date for that matter.

·

in the hate camp. had quite a few older android models with a reverse cyclops (underside of the crystal) which were okay, but I'd rather just have a legible date or no date. I saw one new Rolex GMT where someone either crystal swapped or had it removed and I must say it drastically improved it for me.  Not that I'll ever own one, but I would be sorely tempted to immediately remove the cyclops (especially as I don't use watches to invest and if I could ever get a GMT, I would never sell)

·

When your eyesight fails but not quite enough to warrant wearing glasses all the time, a cyclops is a good practical feature, the day I have to put glasses on just to to see the time is the day my watch collection will be disbanded.

·

I will NEVER own a watch with a cyclops eye. Ewwww.