Let's see your cyclops magnification on BLNR

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by overthehill

Can I see you LV

Here you go; mine's on the left. When I look under the Cyclops and compare the size of the date to when I look through the Cyclops, it certainly does seem magnified by quite a margin. Is it 2.5 x? Not sure. Is it the date wheel font? Hmmmm. I'm going to leave mine well alone given the Singapore RSC stance that it's the date wheel font. I'll see how I feel when I go back to the UK and I might get RSCS at home to switch up the crystal.

[overthehill]

youre right, a bit smaller.

[grrr]

To be able to compare we need to see shots taken properly.
It is hard to say when the picture is taken slightly from the side or from below..

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by grrr

To be able to compare we need to see shots taken properly.
It is hard to say when the picture is taken slightly from the side or from below..

I'm not a professional photographer and only had my iPhone with me. Looking at the two side-by-side, they were more or less identical i.e. the magnification was below what is generally considered as 'correct'.

[XZACM102]

I've read a similar thread on European forum where AD (not Rolex) confirmed this issue by stating that certain batches were produced with cyclops made of thinner glass resulting in lower magnification than what is standard 2.5x. Rolex tracks which series and serial numbers are impacted and replaces the cyclops if requested by customers.
Anyone who is not happy should be able to demand a new cyclops under warranty even though I can imagine that not all RSCs and regions around the world are up to speed yet on this issue.

[grrr]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

I'm not a professional photographer and only had my iPhone with me. Looking at the two side-by-side, they were more or less identical i.e. the magnification was below what is generally considered as 'correct'.

What I mean, it is easier much easier to tell the difference if the date window is centered inside the cyclop lens. ;)

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by grrr

What I mean, it is easier much easier to tell the difference if the date window is centered inside the cyclop lens. ;)

Then go here:

http://rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=401161

[h2000]

I was at my AD today looking at the 116618 and the date window mag appeared to be different from my BLNR. For a second, I thought it was a fake. Lol... Well, it still may be. Who knows!

[regnant]

I think mine looks normal

[Nathan71]

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.

Is right adam

[WatchinMD]

I was in an AD last night and looked through the case of various subs. there was one that was blatantly lower magnification to the point where even the salesman (who of course had never heard of such a thing) agreed that one was definitely lower magnification.

The point is, this is explicitly advertised as a distinguishing feature of a Rolex. They are doing themselves no favor by ignoring this. There are certainly masses of people who will not care but there are a lot who do.

Unfortunately, I think it degrades their brand which is built on an aura of extraordinary quality and attention to detail.

[andrewd]

Does anyone know Jean-Frederic Dufour's email address so we can draw his attention to this? I am sure that Hans Wilsdorf would not accept this blatant QC failure.

[CHRONOLEX]

In Harrods and Selfridges this weekend I saw a myriad of inconsistencies. In the window at Selfridges there were two 36mm YG DDs otherwise identical one with proper mag and one with what appeared to be 1x mag. Looked fake. Just scanning the DJ cases where you can see dozens of identical watches with different dials, you realize they're all inconsistent. This is a serious and hugely widespread problem.

[AJC719]

I posted about my blnr's cyclops a few weeks ago. Honestly, the heavy contrast in opinions made me realize it wasn't as big of a deal as I was making it. I wore it all this week, and love it just as much as the day I bought it. If rolex ever comes out with an official statement on it, maybe I would address it them, or not. Just enjoy your beautiful blnr.

[overthehill]

Originally Posted by ajc719

i posted about my blnr's cyclops a few weeks ago. Honestly, the heavy contrast in opinions made me realize it wasn't as big of a deal as i was making it. I wore it all this week, and love it just as much as the day i bought it. If rolex ever comes out with an official statement on it, maybe i would address it them, or not. Just enjoy your beautiful blnr.

+1

[watchnutty]

mines perfect. wouldn't have bought one with a low mag. I've seen low mags in person and they just look wrong. might as well remove it all together in that case.

[london_v]

So, I was working close to the RSC London today, & decided to swing by to chat with someone about this whole cyclopse issue. My BLNR is only 1 month old and I knew I had the lower mag.

The guy started off saying that it's completely normal for new watches to come with different mags and this is the 'new standard'. I asked him to check what mag I had on mine. He returned after 5 minutes saying I had a 'lower than spec' mag and that it needed replacing right away under warranty. I asked why the watch would be shipped this way, and he wasn't sure why.

The whole experience seemed really strange! It will take up to 2 weeks to fit a mag with a bigger zoom.

[Al1969]

Here's what mine looks like after I had RS NYC replace the crystal(under warranty). Of course, initially they told me there was nothing wrong with the mag, but gave me the option to have the crystal replaced. Thoughts?

[k8wt]

Consolidate all threads and let Rolex know they exist :)

[xjeeunitx]

All of the pictures listed so far look fine to me.

[handsfull]

Originally Posted by london_v

So, I was working close to the RSC London today, & decided to swing by to chat with someone about this whole cyclopse issue. My BLNR is only 1 month old and I knew I had the lower mag.

The guy started off saying that it's completely normal for new watches to come with different mags and this is the 'new standard'. I asked him to check what mag I had on mine. He returned after 5 minutes saying I had a 'lower than spec' mag and that it needed replacing right away under warranty. I asked why the watch would be shipped this way, and he wasn't sure why.

The whole experience seemed really strange! It will take up to 2 weeks to fit a mag with a bigger zoom.

'Completely normal'.....'new standard'.

Returns 5 minutes later = 'lower than spec'....replacement under warranty.

You can't make that up.


This cyclops failure saga is sad. Rolex has no one to blame but themselves for this.

[watchnutty]

Originally Posted by london_v

So, I was working close to the RSC London today, & decided to swing by to chat with someone about this whole cyclopse issue. My BLNR is only 1 month old and I knew I had the lower mag.

The guy started off saying that it's completely normal for new watches to come with different mags and this is the 'new standard'. I asked him to check what mag I had on mine. He returned after 5 minutes saying I had a 'lower than spec' mag and that it needed replacing right away under warranty. I asked why the watch would be shipped this way, and he wasn't sure why.

The whole experience seemed really strange! It will take up to 2 weeks to fit a mag with a bigger zoom.

pics of the low mag please?

[Dubarzy]

Hey guys-

I’m not trying to stir the pot, I’m genuinely interested: How do y’all measure the magnification of the cyclops? I recently got a BLNR, and it looks to me that the mag is about the right size (not too small). I took a couple of pictures and pasted them into PowerPoint to see if I could accurately measure the magnification. I measured the date square with and without the mag. I normalized the measurements to the 4 on the bezel since the distance from the watch to the camera was slightly different in each picture.

Using this method, I estimate that the cyclops magnifies the date square by 1.80x. Since this is less than the 2.50x I expected, I made a square that shows what a 2.50x mag would look like according to my method of calculation. You can see that this is actually slightly larger than the cyclops itself, which leads me to believe I’m not measuring the mag correctly. Does anyone see a flaw in this method?

Here are my questions: (1) Is there a good way to accurately measure the mag at home or must we rely on the ADs (or RSCs) to do it for us? (2) Does anyone know how the RSCs measure cyclops mag?

Again, I'm not trying to cause confusion. I'm genuinely curious. Thanks!

[douglasf13]

no text

[desmoboy]

Dubarzy your methodology sounds about perfect to me..
Another approach could be to use same technique on a picture of a SD4000 to a Sub date


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[adamlea]

Originally Posted by Dubarzy

Hey guys-

I’m not trying to stir the pot, I’m genuinely interested: How do y’all measure the magnification of the cyclops? I recently got a BLNR, and it looks to me that the mag is about the right size (not too small). I took a couple of pictures and pasted them into PowerPoint to see if I could accurately measure the magnification. I measured the date square with and without the mag. I normalized the measurements to the 4 on the bezel since the distance from the watch to the camera was slightly different in each picture.

Using this method, I estimate that the cyclops magnifies the date square by 1.80x. Since this is less than the 2.50x I expected, I made a square that shows what a 2.50x mag would look like according to my method of calculation. You can see that this is actually slightly larger than the cyclops itself, which leads me to believe I’m not measuring the mag correctly. Does anyone see a flaw in this method?

Here are my questions: (1) Is there a good way to accurately measure the mag at home or must we rely on the ADs (or RSCs) to do it for us? (2) Does anyone know how the RSCs measure cyclops mag?

Again, I'm not trying to cause confusion. I'm genuinely curious. Thanks!

I think your formula is accurate. The mag on my G series 216570 is roughly same size as you have theorized in the bottom right pic.

[ericdube]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

Here you go; mine's on the left. When I look under the Cyclops and compare the size of the date to when I look through the Cyclops, it certainly does seem magnified by quite a margin.

My Sub-C is noticeably smaller as well (looks identical to yours.) I noticed it right away when compared to my older Sub (~2001) before I sold it.

I never really gave it much thought though.

[GradyPhilpott]

.

[Sarko]

I see slight difference between my SUBC which has a x2,5 and me blnr which looks normal but when compared with my SUBC still slightly smaller.

I would say SUBC 2.5 and my blrn 2.0-2.2

[Vishy26]

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.