I recognize the practicality for some, but I think they look terrible. It’s a complete non-starter for me.

both, some look great with some without… a GMT without a cyclops is trash, a field watch with one is bigger trash

Im a fan. Its distinctive and adds character!

Hate them. Just takes away from the dial and looks tacked on. Maybe when I’m old and have trouble seeing even more, I’ll want one. Until then I’ll just wear contacts and not need a magnifier for the date.

i rather no cyclops regardless

Love a cyclops. ☻

They’re shit, lazy watch design and have no place on anything released within the last few decades.

Even the more expensive versions just seem to be stuck on with no thought to transitioning them into the main crystal, let alone integrating them into the crystal itself.

They actively reduce legibility the majority of the time because of the edges and distortion and really only work when you move your hand into a certain position - and if you’re doing that then you could equally as well move your hand into a position where you can see the date on a proper watch.

The same lazy designers also tend to leave the date window looking pretty basic, unfinished and undersized so when you do see the date from an angle which allows you to look under the cyclops you’re reminded of those people who take their glasses off and somehow seem to have really small piggy eyes.

Once the brands most associated with cyclops designs finally shit-can them all the media etc will lose their shit about how much better they look and everyone will break free from the collective delusion that they were acceptable.

Kill it with fire.