Don't like them.




Probably more of an issue with Rolex, but it seems like such a poorly considered design trade-off. Has Omega been destroying any otherwise good designs with this ...feature?

The good news is – it seems they can be removed. The bad news is you'll need to heat up the crystal of your watch, and ultimately degrade the collector value.

 

Can't stand them, it's my number one hate as far as watches go. They totally ruin the aesthetics of any watch for me. It's like putting stabilizers on Harley.

 

Just say no to cyclopsssssssssss!

 

Can't stand them either, so gross

Further, if I can choose between a date window and no date, I'm going no-date almost every time

 

Although you can remove some, others can't be removed, and some are not even on the crystal...for example this Anonimo has the magnifier set into the dial:



And as mentioned in this thread, this Omega has a magnifier for the date, set into the hand:
https://omegaforums.net/threads/speedy-tuesday-%E2%80%93-hands-on-with-the-speedmaster-moonphase-co-axial-master-chronometer-in.39189/

And this Panerai has the magnifier machined into the underside of the sapphire crystal, so you aren't just going to heat the crystal up and knock this one off:



I don't absolutely hate all of them, but the Rolex style that lays on top of the crystal is probably my least favorite certainly.

Cheers, Al

 

When I see a beautiful watch with an awkward date I get angry...like this:

 

I'm okay being the odd man out here. I have an Explorer II and have no problem with the Cyclops at all. All of my watches have a date function which is important to me, and my ExpII is the only watch that also includes the GMT function. I travel internationally a lot and being able to glance at my wrist and see the time locally, the time at home and the date very quickly is very important to me. The overall aesthetic I find very pleasing and the Cyclops doesn't take away from that in any respect.

We all have different tastes and for me there are visual items on watches that bother me, but the Cyclops lens is not one of them. Example: I would take a Cyclops date with stick indicators over any dial with Roman Numerals (I know many would disagree, and that's fine by me).

 

When they're built into the dial they aren't too bad.

 

Built into the dial looks ok to me because it doesn't distort the hands as they pass by it.

 

I only have a couple and I don't really mind those. I have passed on some pieces that had day/date blisters that totally distracted from the aesthetic of the watch.

This Longine is not too bad:


And on this Benrus it actually adds interest to a otherwise bland dial:

 

I rather like them!

+ 1. On the Rolex board, they LOVE the Cyclops! Differing points of view, I guess. I quite like my Date-Just with the applied Roman numerals, and the Cyclops lens. Shown below.

 

A big fat wart on a pretty face...

 

That's great! Stick with the brands you prefer, and leave Rolex to those who appreciate them. I shudder to think what would happen to Rolex prices if even more people lusted after them!

 

To me, esp in the Rolex implementation it is an intentional design choice to make the watch known as a Rolex from a distance, I think Omega does it also with the HE valves. There are better more inconspicuous ways to have an HE valve, and Omega has even put it on diver based watches that will never be used for saturation diving recently. (lets bypass the whole sat diving watch use arguments)

Its a design cue, and if you are into industrial design you start to notice very intentional things out there that are part of a design DNA that might be sub par in implementation but are needed for brand ID. Sure a it is obvious what makes a Panari a Panari, Rolex has appropriated the Fluted dial, and date magnifier. But what else is there... a whole lot actually.

For a massively obvious set of design cues that many of you see almost every day. There is more to BMW design DNA then the quad headlights (also a jag thing) and the Kidney grill. Look at the rear side windows of a BMW and everyone has what is called the Hoffmiester Kink. Which has been appropriated by Honda to make some of their cars more sporty looking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmeister_kink

Every Mercedes though has the rear window integrated into a point, and is actually somewhat ugly on some models. This is also used on Most Lexus models intentionally to make the car look more Mercedes like esp in the early days of Lexus.

 

The magnifier on my two watches don't bother me at all, however I have thought of removing the bubbly thing on my Exp II after seeing one w/o it, perhaps I'll have a new crystal installed during the next service on my Exp II...

I'll keep the original settings on the Sub..


My candidate for a crystal mod...


A mod Exp II, pic borrowed from the web...

 

Distinctive and probably deliberately so, but unattractive IMO. I can't remember ever seeing a watch with a cyclops that I thought wouldn't look better without it. The Explorer II above is a nice example. Much cleaner.

 

Not keen on the protruding Rolex magnifier but when an integral part of the crystal they are OK. Like on the Airman.

 

I agree that on the acrylic crystals, they look much better, and are more effective actually (less distortion at various angles), when on the inside of the crystal, like your Glycine and my Bulova...



Cheers, Al

 

I'm so pitiful that I even loathe the date feature itself, over and above any wretched cyclops. I particularly don't want my watch to tell me the date. Watches having a date feature appear to be ulcerated with a hole that ruins the appeal of a stylish dial.

There are very few watches I'd consider owning, even with their date feature. The Glycine Airman is one of those few. The Longines,Omega, and other models from the 1950s, when the date appears anywhere besides the 3:00 position, have been considered on occasion.

 

.............and I still find it ugly.