Rolex Cyclops Finish Scratched / Worn?

[watchwatcher]

^^Looks like you may have scuffed the bezel, too...there are some visible marks around the 20 minute marker that may be consistent with whatever damaged your cyclops. Or they may just be fingerprints.

This isn't a warranty issue. They're going to take one look at that and say you hit it on something.

[Big Bill]

Do you think there is anyway moisture got in from one of the water activities? Maybe a salt residue ?

[smilloy]

Assuming you are talking about the scuffs between the 6 & 8 on the bezel, aright above the black, then that is just fingerprints. (it was really hard to get a good picture of the scuff on the cyclops).

It is possible there are some scuffs right at the 6, on the ss, but without magnification I really can not tell looking at it.

[smilloy]

Originally Posted by Big Bill

Do you think there is anyway moisture got in from one of the water activities? Maybe a salt residue ?

I honestly cant see that as a possibility.

I checked the crown specifically before it was in the water, (and it has never seen salt water, just fresh water).

[cannamedic]

Just taken my BLNR to be serviced for the same thing. All the Rolex fanboys saying maybe you scratched it etc. are just wishfully hoping that Rolex quality control isn't on the downward trajectory that those of us with modern Rollies know it is. AR coating failure, cyclops magnification irregularity etc. The future does not look bright for us consumers I'm afraid. Get it serviced under the 5 year and let the noobs enjoy their stockholm syndrome.

[peterpl]

Take it back to RSC. Its not acceptable for a $10k watch simple as that. That is not a battle scare or a result of use. Its a defect quite clearly.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by handsfull

Thats the adhesive under the cyclops....it appears to have failed and water has accessed the gap between the cyclops and crystal. Needs to be replaced/repaired.

Exactly that.

[MCOSUB]

Originally Posted by Meme-Dweller

Strange. Almost looks like the AR coating on the cyclops was damaged. On an unrelated note, lol @ the sticker still being on the PCL.

Ha Ha. I think the sticker would bother me more than the scratch on the cyclops!

[904VT]

It's the AR coating that is only on the cyclops portion

[cannamedic]

It is clear having done some research, that this AR issue is not a rare problem. These watches are supposed to be able to withstand being taken deep under the sea. If water is getting 'behind the cyclops', as is being professed, whilst being splashed around in pools or at maximum 2 meters below the surface (often within the first year), then as customers we are clearly being f'ed. It stands to reason that Rolex have sub-contracted the manufacture and / or the installation of cyclops' on their watches as a bare minimum. The fact that they've been happy to sell (a large percentage of) pieces where the magnification significantly below the stated 2.5X should tell us something (were we not under some deep spell). Rolex is a fashion brand and anybody using their products as they used to be, will soon realise that they were deceived. The BLNR was my first and will be my last Rolex / swiss watch. This ponzi scheme will eventually implode. Sorry fanboys of stockholm, that's just the facts.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by cannamedic

It is clear having done some research, that this AR issue is not a rare problem. These watches are supposed to be able to withstand being taken deep under the sea. If water is getting 'behind the cyclops', as is being professed, whilst being splashed around in pools or at maximum 2 meters below the surface (often within the first year), then as customers we are clearly being f'ed. It stands to reason that Rolex have sub-contracted the manufacture and / or the installation of cyclops' on their watches as a bare minimum. The fact that they've been happy to sell (a large percentage of) pieces where the magnification significantly below the stated 2.5X should tell us something (were we not under some deep spell). Rolex is a fashion brand and anybody using their products as they used to be, will soon realise that they were deceived. The BLNR was my first and will be my last Rolex / swiss watch. This ponzi scheme will eventually implode. Sorry fanboys of stockholm, that's just the facts.

How about you take some time to understand the definitions of the words you use before you post. Ponzi scheme is quite ridiculous as are your comments. No manufacture in the world can prevent AR scuffs. Tell us what is your ideal tool brand now? I mean we all know Rolex aren't able to go below 5 m in a pool of course

You really should've taken some time to think of a more mature post being that it was only your 3rd

[cannamedic]

Originally Posted by 904VT

How about you take some time to understand the definitions of the words you use before you post. Ponzi scheme is quite ridiculous as are your comments. No manufacture in the world can prevent AR scuffs. Tell us what is your ideal tool brand now? I mean we all know Rolex aren't able to go below 5 m in a pool of course

You really should've taken some time to think of a more mature post being that it was only your 3rd

Perhaps if I'd used some emojis you would would have understood better? To disregard the thrust of the point because I used a mildly hyperbolic term shows your intellectual maturity. If it's more of a bubble than a ponzi, I think the point is still valid; i.e. the amount which they are charging for watches is based on high levels of marketing, given that it is clearly inconsistent with the falling levels of quality which we are discussing.

I'm sorry that my 3rd post wasn't the soft handjob that you are no doubt accustomed to. I came onto this forum to find out if it was normal for a 6k watch to be showing this defect after a year of use. I found my answer, in addition to the typical Rolex fanboy bs. Aggressive sycophancy and denialism. Kind of typical Daytona wearer really aint ya?

p.s. Also if you had managed to read the post i made objectively you would have noticed that this was my first ever 'swiss' tool brand watch. The fact that they are regarded as the best and it was still slightly disappointing, is a fairly good indication of the answer. My favourite 'tool' brand watch is unknown to the extent that such a thing even exists any more. I still like the design of Rolex, but I'm not so enthralled as to them as to deny that there is something wrong with their quality control and the absurd pricing. The reason we as consumers are in this position is because of the legions of mindless, undiscerning sheep who continue to buy into marketing and hype.

[cannamedic]

Originally Posted by 904VT

No manufacture in the world can prevent AR scuffs.

You are joking right?

[cannamedic]

Originally Posted by 904VT

No manufacture in the world can prevent AR scuffs.

Perhaps you should have thought this one out a little better given it's your 9xx something post.

[GMT Aviator]

It's moisture that's got between the cyclops and the main crystal. Easily fixed back at RSC, and NO, this isn't a common problem any more than any typical problem that can arise with any brand over anything.

[BladeDogg]

I am interested in this topic and wonder if anything like this has happened in the past and what may or may not cause it. If it is a manufacture flaw, I hope Rolex would take this into consideration in the future.

In contrast to this topic, why would the poster above buy a Rolex, find things wrong with it, join the Rolex forum, find this topic, research it, and then chastise the members for liking Rolex products. There is such a thing as, leaving the forum if you are unhappy. It is almost like beating your head over with a stick when you come here, to of all places a ROLEX forum, and people that actually like Rolex watches.

[TickTockChuck]

Take it to your AD and have their watchmaker look at it. The saphire Cyclops is bonded to the main crystal with the AR coating on the flat face of the Cyclops. There are threads in TRF where it has fallen off or excess glue can be seen around the edges or some people don't like the Cyclops and have it removed. I'd say you have a partial delamination perhaps with some moisture ingress underneath. See your AD. Good luck. Cheers!

[Gshummel]

This same thing happened on my sub today, or at least I noticed it today. I've only had the watch for 8 months and have never hit it on anything. Any word if Rolex took care of the defect on anyone else's watch. What exactly is happening to the cyclops?

[suux88]

the exact same thing happened to my cyclops
my original thinking was this was an AR issue, I can't feel any scratches or imperfections with my finger/nail

Any update what RSC did or said what issue was?
Was this covered by warranty?

[Rolexlover43]

My advice (and earlier experience) is : rub with toothpaste! Because the cyclops itself is from plastic, not like the glass itself. No worries, it cannot harm your cyclops, it worked before when i noticed a scratch on my cyclops and got this advice from a reliable source!

[Benzsiam]

It isn't scratches. If it happened to my watch, I will send it in to have it fix under the warranty. I don't want my beautiful watch has some defect.

[jerryguo]

it looks like an air bubble in the glue layer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dahh]

I wouldn't worry about it, cause the Cyclops can be replaced