Battle of the Cyclopses

[freddy333]

At long last, my AR'd GMTIIC cyclops arrived from Chief (my thanks to Chief & Lani). But, since I have yet to see even a single completed/installed AR'd cyclops on anyone's GMTIIC, I thought a test (to gage the effectiveness of the AR coating in reducing the reflectivity & glare that some have found to be a 'give away' identifier when comparing the gen GMT to our Super Rep versions) was in order.

Can you tell which is which?

For reference, here are 2 gen GMTIICs

[PhilipM]

I'd go with the one above the DW, for now, but there are very similar, (although common sense says the one that isn't above the date window is the new one that isn't stuck on!)

[drop]

I'll play - my guess is the one above the datewheel... but if I was smart I would break-out my AR'd cyclops before answering.

I have yet to tackle this mod as it feels a bit daunting. Really looking forward to learning some best practices.

[freddy333]

I'd go with the one above the DW, for now, but there are very similar, (although common sense says the one that isn't above the date window is the new one that isn't stuck on!)

I'll play - my guess is the one above the datewheel... but if I was smart I would break-out my AR'd cyclops before answering.

Anyone else care to spot the AR'd cyclops?

[PhilipM]

come on! more guesses, free entry, and you can win a free jpg!

[cskent69]

It is the one over the DW

[deltatahoe]

ok, i'll bite. i'm going to guess (along with the others) that it is the one over the date

deltatahoe

[Guest TurleyC]

Lets see more pics showing the date in an angle.

[deltatahoe]

Lets see more pics showing the date in an angle.

i think he's intentionally not showing the date -- it will (should!) be obvious when you see the date

deltatahoe

[HauteHippie]

It's really hard to tell. When I look at these things fresh from the AR lab, even I wonder....

After you get it installed shoot a pic with some indirect glare (not directly reflecting your light tubes) like that first gen pic and let's see how it looks... Be careful during the install, and remember the AR is on the domed surface.

[freddy333]

I think it is time to come to the realization that the Emperor has no clothes.

After spending ALOT of time looking at both cyclopses on my GMTIIC's crystal under varying light conditions -- outside, inside, incandescent, florescent, etc -- I cannot tell the difference between them either. And therein lies the rub. I think we have been barking up the wrong tree.

But I finally became convinced after just returning from a reconnaissance trip to my local AD to compare the AR'd rep cyclops with the 1 on the gen watch in the store. (Yes, I took my rep GMT into an AD, but it was strictly for scientific study.)

Although (& I think this bears repeating) I would still be hard-pressed to ID 1 of these GMTIIC reps in the wild (fitted with its original oem, non-AR'd cyclops), when viewed under the right lighting conditions, there is a striking difference in the way the gen GMTIIC reflects light above the date window.........or, rather, I should say the way the gen does NOT reflect light above the date window. No matter what angle I looked at the gen from & no matter where the light was positioned relative to the watch, the date window area on the gen looks like a black hole compared with either rep cyclops on my watch. The difference between the gen & rep cyclopses was/is consistent & unmistakable (assuming you know what to look for).

Here is the bottom line - I still believe that the AR coating on the gen is applied solely to the underside of the crystal (within the confines of the real estate taken up by the cyclops) & nowhere on the cyclops itself. In addition to seeing reflections from both of the rep cyclopses that I did not see in the gen, I also noted that the AR'd rep cyclops produces prismatic effects that neither the gen nor the non-AR'd rep cyclops generally produce under similar lighting conditions. In fact, out of the 40+ pics I took of my watch with both cyclopses installed, only the 5 I posted above did not contain this. I purposely did not post any of the others because this rainbow effect from the AR coating makes spotting the AR'd cyclops quite easy (&, again, I rarely see this on the gen & when it occurs on the gen, it occurs throughout the entire crystal (see Nanuq's posts about this effect for more on this)).

See if you can spot the AR'd cyclops in these pics.........& no, I did not reverse the positions of the cyclopses

Again, this is what it should look like

Here are the 2 rep cyclopses from a similar angle

Early on, around the time the 1st ceramic GMTII reps arrived at the beginning of the summer, someone (it may even have been me) suggested that before any group buys of AR'd cyclopses get started, someone (I think Lani was the 1st to send his cyclops in to Chief for the AR) ought to have a single watch fitted with an AR treated cyclops & post some good, clear pics of it so we can all see the results. Then, if the date window on the test watch looks like the date window on the gen, it would make sense to proceed. But I think we all got ahead of ourselves, because I have yet to see even 1 rep watch so fitted with an AR'd cyclops that looks any different than the oem rep cyclops. If I am wrong, please point me in the right direction.

p.s. The AR'd cyclops was the 1 over the 9 o'clock index marker (it has now been removed).

p.p.s. Even though this road turned out to be the wrong 1, I think Lani & Chief deserve thanks (Thank you, Lani & Chief) for all of the time & effort they put into this project. Sometimes these experiments turn out & sometimes they do not. But the only way to know is to try.

[HauteHippie]

freddy,

Yours was double coated, on the domed side and on the flat side. After having a long discussion with sssurfer, it was decided that a good quality sapphire glue would work fine on an AR coated surface.

So there you go....

-Chief

[freddy333]

Yours was double coated, on the domed side and on the flat side. After having a long discussion with sssurfer, it was decided that a good quality sapphire glue would work fine on an AR coated surface.

So much for AR'ing the cyclops..... But, at least, no one has to worry about having to remove a cyclops now.

Any idea whether your AR can be applied to the underside of the crystal below the cyclops? I think that would probably achieve the correct effect.

[sssurfer]

On PAMs, the best result I got was with single-side AR applied with the cyclops already glued to the crystal, so that the AR covered both the crystal and the cyclops. Stunning. It erased 95% of reflections from the cyclops (even if only 50% from the crystal, naturally).

Unfortunately, I suppose this does not apply to Rolex crystals -- unless they are AR coated on the external side.

On PAMs again, single-side AR coated cyclops (domed side) on double AR coated crystals proved not as effective as single AR involving both the cyclops and the crystal.

I did not try a double AR cyclops (that I do not have) on a double AR crystal, but I expect nothing good. Preliminary tests with double AR crystals coupled together resulted in worsening reflections.

[HauteHippie]

So much for AR'ing the cyclops..... But, at least, no one has to worry about having to remove a cyclops now.

Any idea whether your AR can be applied to the underside of the crystal below the cyclops? I think that would probably achieve the correct effect.

No, that's not what Rolex is doing. The external surface is probably all they're coating. I'd still like to see a shot of yours, like that gen shot, where there is indirect glare on the crystal.

[RobbieG]

Keep in mind that Rolex claims to use single sided AR on all its watch crystals since the F serials. It is colorless they claim as well. If you look at my gen DJ it is obvious to me this is true, since I recall previous DJ's I owned which were much more reflective. It shows up especially on the cyclops of course. Modern Rolex watches have dates FAR easier to read than before (besides the extreme of the ceramic watch of course) The AR is very subtle though, but it is there to my eye so I have no issue with that claim. That is the funny thing about truly colorless AR - especially if it isn't very "strong" on purpose. Leaves a lot of room for people to debate. So they must do the cyclops too in some way as there is definitely a difference there and it is certainly not the underside crystal "standard" Rolex AR which is producing that level on the GMT.

[freddy333]

According to Rolex, the only AR used on their current line is on the GMTIIC (in the area of the cyclops). Unfortunately, they refuse to provide any details beyond that.

However, according to J Dowling, Rolex will not consider widespread use of AR until/unless it can be made both scratchproof & impervious to normal cleaning substances like ammonia (used in Windex), which is known to smear or remove AR coatings. For that reason, I doubt Rolex applies AR to any of the external surfaces of the GMT's crystal or cyclops.

[HauteHippie]

Keep in mind that Rolex claims to use single sided AR on all its watch crystals since the F serials. It is colorless they claim as well. If you look at my gen DJ it is obvious to me this is true, since I recall previous DJ's I owned which were much more reflective. It shows up especially on the cyclops of course. Modern Rolex watches have dates FAR easier to read than before (besides the extreme of the ceramic watch of course) The AR is very subtle though, but it is there IMO. So they must do the cyclops too in some way as there is definitely a difference there and it is certainly not the underside crystal "standard" Rolex AR which is producing that level.

I think this is the missing piece of the puzzle right here to be honest. I think we need to coat the GMT IIc crystals on the inner surface as well. Maybe then we'll achieve the proper look with the coated cyclops...

But knowing what single sided AR looks like, I highly doubt the GMT IIc cyclopes is coated (only) on the underside. That's not the look I see on the gen.

[lanikai]

I think this is the missing piece of the puzzle right here to be honest. I think we need to coat the GMT IIc crystals on the inner surface as well. Maybe then we'll achieve the proper look with the coated cyclops...

But knowing what single sided AR looks like, I highly doubt the GMT IIc cyclopes is coated (only) on the underside. That's not the look I see on the gen.

I have a couple of "white sapphire" crystal w/mags on the way.. I'll sign up for the next run and we can try a couple of variations.. but thinking it through ... the glue may remove some if not all of the AR coating from the underside of the mag.. maybe we can try single ar inside the crystal and ar on the outside of the mag..

I agree with you .. if the mag was only ar'd on the underside.. how then would it dampen the light on the outside surface of the mag ?? since light spectrums would still have a surface to "bounce" off of..

the only other hypothesis would be that the mag has the coating imbedded into the sapphire.. dun know.. the genuine mag looks really dark as far as "hue" goes.. maybe it's something totally different .. could the Ar content be manufactured into the sapphire??

since your ar is "colourless there has to be a way..

[drop]

...there has to be a way..

Oh yeah, here we go! Where there's a will, there's a way

Happy to support the experimentation as I can.

[Shundi]

Industrial espionage boys...lets get a man on the inside!

...seriously though, it's pretty crazy how...clear the gen cyclops is! I tried on another GMT IIC in an AD and was amazed...

[RobbieG]

That is not what I'm hearing which is that they have been using some kind of AR since the F serials. The AR doesn't have to be scratchproof if on the underside of course. There is no doubt that something is there to me so it is easier to believe it. It is colorless though that is for sure and not particularly strong. Like Chief says, I think maybe that may be the added mystery of the GMTIIc issue which makes the cyclops look like double AR strength?

According to Rolex, the only AR used on their current line is on the GMTIIC (in the area of the cyclops). Unfortunately, they refuse to provide any details beyond that.

However, according to J Dowling, Rolex will not consider widespread use of AR until/unless it can be made both scratchproof & impervious to normal cleaning substances like ammonia (used in Windex), which is known to smear or remove AR coatings. For that reason, I doubt Rolex applies AR to any of the external surfaces of the GMT's crystal or cyclops.

[RobbieG]

I don't know much about this stuff guys, but it is possible that the AR is "impregnated" in the glass or something as part of the blowing process or some other process getting the AR into the middle of the glass somehow when they make the cyclops? Rolex is certainly the one company who would do something crazy like that and is famous for pulling stunts of that nature...

I think this is the missing piece of the puzzle right here to be honest. I think we need to coat the GMT IIc crystals on the inner surface as well. Maybe then we'll achieve the proper look with the coated cyclops...

But knowing what single sided AR looks like, I highly doubt the GMT IIc cyclopes is coated (only) on the underside. That's not the look I see on the gen.

[chefcook]

If the newer Datejusts would have a AR coating on the inside the sub 16610 would have it too - both use the same crystal with only different gaskets.

When I bought a brand new 295c crystal from my AD a few months ago I had a little accident with superglue on the inside of the crystal (never ever work with superglue, you fingers and afterwards with expensive crystals...).

I polished the glue from the crystal. With a dremel. The polished area looked like the rest of the inner surface, too. Therefore I don't think there is any AR.

[RobbieG]

It is going to be pretty tough to spot if it is colorless. You wouldn't really see a difference in the crystal itself especially given that the AR isn't all that strong according to what I am hearing from my Rolex guy.

If the newer Datejusts would have a AR coating on the inside the sub 16610 would have it too - both use the same crystal with only different gaskets.

When I bought a brand new 295c crystal from my AD a few months ago I had a little accident with superglue on the inside of the crystal (never ever work with superglue, you fingers and afterwards with expensive crystals...).

I polished the glue from the crystal. With a dremel. The polished area looked like the rest of the inner surface, too. Therefore I don't think there is any AR.