|
Post by erik on Oct 23, 2005 14:32:47 GMT -6
Mamas, it looks better without the cyclops. (my opinion) It is not that cyclops are ugly.. it is Rolex.. but i would choose without.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 23, 2005 15:00:52 GMT -6
That's the one I was talking about Mamas,I don't know,I guess I'm to much of a purist. I like the cyclops. It's so........Rolex!
|
|
|
Post by JJ on Oct 25, 2005 11:16:20 GMT -6
Simple rule of thumb as far as my thinking is concerned: If you don't like the cyclops, buy a Sea-Dweller or any other non-date Rolex. But I hate to screw around with originality. "Chopping" off cyclops is just not my thing and I frown upon such stupid actions....but that's just my opinion! Cheers - JJ
|
|
|
Post by mamas on Oct 25, 2005 11:18:28 GMT -6
i was going to buy a sub and get rid of the cyclops.. but because it would look like a SD.. thought i would go with the original and buy a SD! dont regret my decision.
|
|
|
Post by rambler on Oct 25, 2005 12:52:58 GMT -6
You make a good point really JJ. And I've always been a huge Dweller fan. I think I'll wait until Basel 2006 anyway. Rambler
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 25, 2005 13:07:50 GMT -6
I gotta agree with JJ on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Oct 25, 2005 13:11:36 GMT -6
Yeah, there's just something about busting the cyclops off of a $4500+ watch that I don't like.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 25, 2005 13:13:50 GMT -6
Yeah, there's just something about busting the cyclops off of a $4500+ watch that I don't like. LOL! Couldn't have put it better!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by rambler on Oct 26, 2005 4:47:01 GMT -6
You know, not sure I agree; if that's what you like. I don't think anyone would be busting anything, hopefully. ;D LOL Rambler
|
|