They are not something that I like because I think they detract from the aesthetics of the dial. That said, I think the same thing can be said about 98% of date windows of any type, which is why I generally prefer watches without them.
In the works: RGM '801 EE Motor Barrel'
"The stuff that dreams are made of…"
No just throws the balance off.
Depends on the watch.
Takes my breath away....the 1680, for me is almost the perfect watch....picture taken from the internet....
Last edited by peacemaker885; August 2nd, 2013 at 06:25.
seiko · orient · citizen · casio · timex · rolex · omega · garmin · victorinox · scurfa
Children need your help. Please share your blessings...
Hidden Content - https://Hidden Content style="font-family: Verdana">
Hidden Content - http://Hidden Content style="font-family: Verdana">
Hidden Content - Hidden Content style="font-family: Verdana">
Hidden Content - Hidden Content href="Hidden Content target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Save The Children - Hidden Content
Agree, would love my Master even more without the cyclops.
No, and that's why I bought the SD rather than the sub.
Not a fan of cyclops!
But i can live with one on the inside of the crystal...
I am fairly young so I have a functional need for a magnifying lens.
I see them as an aesthetic features on certain model, if I have a choice between a Sub Date or Sub(ND), i'll take the Sub ND
the more I am into the design the more I love the simplicity and balance(on a diver)
With that said, I don't mind a big date on a complication watch, it's much bigger, easier to read with less distortion than a cyclops.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)