Let's see your cyclops magnification on BLNR

[SKL]

I'm hearing there are inconsistencies on the cyclops magnification on BLNR. Let's compare and contrast. I feel my example magnifies quite well. Here's mine:

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1426355688.825694.jpg

[HERITAGE82]

Let's give it a rest......

[Guitarfan]

Mine looks the same as yours:

[Al1969]

Originally Posted by HERITAGE82

Let's give it a rest......

[iazrollie]

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1426361423.368818.jpg

[Sal_UKSheffield]

No offence all
but i am Frankly frustrated about how often this thread appears
i really do not understand why we cant add to an existing thread rather than start 1000 threads on the same topic

[AK797]

Originally Posted by iazrollie

Attachment 598546

Those two look exactly the same, don't know what all the fuss is about

[jjnd08]

Originally Posted by heritage82

let's give it a rest......

+1

[Alf_flash]

Originally Posted by AK797

Those two look exactly the same, don't know what all the fuss is about

They are not the same, september last year i had two and one showed much more magnification than the other. IMO yes there exist inconsistencies.

[GMTII1974]

We know that inconsistencies exist. I believe the point is we don't need a new post on this topic every time someone questions the magnification on their watch, as there are existing threads you can add to if you want to discuss the topic or ask for an opinion specifically to your timepiece. Perhaps the mods should remove any new threads on this topic going forward.

[phils]

Originally Posted by HERITAGE82

Let's give it a rest......

I say let's not. Rolex needs to fix this problem!

[richard371]

Mine is like the ones pictured here and like most of the ones in I have seen in stores. I'm convinced that this is the magnification rolex intends. If it smaller or as big as the subs then it's probably a mistake.

[Old Expat Beast]

I say the more threads on this problem the better. Why bury the issue in one single thread that is too long to read. No one is being forced to open and read them, or comment on them. Repetetiveness isn't exactly unknown on TRF anyway.

[Speed]

You said it Adam.

[john_nch]

Agree, the more the better. I would ultimately like to see Rolex weigh in on this situation with a formal statement attesting to whether cyclops variant is intentional or not.

[Oyster99]

IMO it looks a bit too small in all the pictures in this thread. Looks better on my datejust. (Bigger)

[richard371]

The ones in the pics are normal from what I've seen for the blnr. We

Originally Posted by Oyster99

IMO it looks a bit too small in all the pictures in this thread. Looks better on my datejust. (Bigger)

[macduffi]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

I say the more threads on this problem the better. Why bury the issue in one single thread that is too long to read. No one is being forced to open and read them, or comment on them. Repetetiveness isn't exactly unknown on TRF anyway.

x2

[grrr]

Here's mine:



No complaints at all. I am happy

[Ruud Van Driver]

Here's mine, looking as it should:

[overthehill]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

Here's mine, looking as it should:

looks more like 2.5 compared to others:)

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by overthehill

looks more like 2.5 compared to others:)

Unlike my LV...........

[overthehill]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

Unlike my LV...........

Can I see you LV

[Chadridv]

I've said it once and I'll say it again, IMO this QC issue is a major problem specifically and especially because this is a feature widely considered to be undesirable. If it doesn't work the way it's supposed to work (2.5x magnification) than they should remove the feature entirely, or fix the QC issue.

[Onikage]

This needs to be fixed since it's the initial tell for fakes. Rolex proudly states that its watches each have 2.5x date mag, not each have roughly 2.5, 2.3 2.0 2.1x ish mag. It's a disgrace imo.

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by Chadridv

I've said it once and I'll say it again, IMO this QC issue is a major problem specifically and especially because this is a feature widely considered to be undesirable. If it doesn't work the way it's supposed to work (2.5x magnification) than they should remove the feature entirely, or fix the QC issue.

Rolex is notoriously slow to do anything....and as it seems slow to correct this inconsistency. I think we have reached a point where quantity to them is more important than quality.

They make too many watches a year to care about this stuff anymore.

Thats just my opinion

[HERITAGE82]

Originally Posted by phils

I say let's not. Rolex needs to fix this problem!

I agree Rolex needs to fix the problem, but each individual person needs to decide if their own eyes are happy with the mag. If your eyes are not then tell Rolex and see if they'll change it. Starting 100 threads on TRF and having everyone's different eyes weigh in just won't fix the problem.

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by HERITAGE82

I agree Rolex needs to fix the problem, but each individual person needs to decide if their own eyes are happy with the mag. If your eyes are not then tell Rolex and see if they'll change it. Starting 100 threads on TRF and having everyone's different eyes weigh in just won't fix the problem.

Some members here have sent back to Rolex and they returned the watch saying nothing wrong.

If I remember correctly one person alleged Rolex mishandled and damaged their watch.

[Chadridv]

Originally Posted by sturgeon123456

Rolex is notoriously slow to do anything....and as it seems slow to correct this inconsistency. I think we have reached a point where quantity to them is more important than quality.

They make too many watches a year to care about this stuff anymore.

Thats just my opinion

That's unfortunate. In relation to the opinions of and in this thread I don't see any reason why continuously drawing negative attention to this issue can hurt the potential for a speedier resolution.

[sickened1]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

Unlike my LV...........

Now we need another thread for the LV.