Switch to larger Cyclops ?

[FritzW]

Well, in my case if they say that, I will point out that they did advertise 2.5 mag in 2013. The year my was produced.

[Boaters]

For my eyes bigger is better

[jrs146]

I'd get it fixed. Worst case would be you don't and then after warranty ends you change your mind. Plus, for resale it could be a problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Daytona88]

I would get it changed.

[Mystro]

Fix it. I personally need the cyclops to actually work as designed. It helps a lot in lower light.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by FritzW

Well, in my case if they say that, I will point out that they did advertise 2.5 mag in 2013. The year my was produced.

They advertised 2.5 from the very beginning in 1954 until they dropped it recently. See line two of the small print in this ad. You might need a magnifier to see it though

[RichM]

Originally Posted by Bluside

Thanks for the response. Interesting. Since Rolex no longer lists the cyclops at 2.5x, it seems kind of hard to insist they make it that way.

My BLNR sure looks like it is lower than 2.5x, but I'm not sure it bothers me. It really only does when I read these kind of threads. Oh, the dilemma.

You're Welcome

[madmax21]

Originally Posted by rabbithole88

A word of caution:

I sent my BLRO to the SF RSC in early January for the cyclops swap (the low mag was really annoying). I was told it would be done in a couple of weeks.

Unfortunately the ceramic bezel cracked when the watchmaker was fitting it back on the watch. They called to tell me and were very apologetic, I understand that accidents happen and said that I'd wait for a replacement bezel.

As of today (8 weeks after I dropped it off) they are still waiting for Dallas/Geneva to send them this part.

I would still send it back if I were you, but be aware that if anything goes wrong these bezels seem to be hard to come by even at the RSC.

I can relate to this as well I sent my GMT Master ll to have the magnifier replaced the watche was promised to be ready three times and they didn't deliver all three times...they ended up not having it for my vacation which really sucked and it was only two weeks old at that point. They were very apologetic even got to meet the Canadian CEO who is a standup guy but I must admit It left a bad tast in my mouth. On top of that they also dinged the case when I got to the car I had to walk back up to have it polished.

I was expecting better service and you expect amazing service based on what the brand is all about unfortunately it sounds like they're very much overloaded there, especially in the summertime when employees take vacation.

But to answer your question I would definitely have the magnifier replaced if It doesn't magnify at 2 1/2 times what's the point of a magnifier if the magnification is too low anyone. Some people argue that if you're comfortable with it and you like the look then leave it alone. I think that is a ridiculous attitude it's supposed to be 2 1/2 times magnification that is the whole Rolex DNA. if it's not 2 1/2 times that means there's something wrong with it...definitely have it replace .

[madmax21]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

They advertised 2.5 from the very beginning in 1954 until they dropped it recently. See line two of the small print in this ad. You might need a magnifier to see it though

I love the AD....that's what it's all about if it's not 2 1/2 times to me it's not a Rolex

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

They advertised 2.5 from the very beginning in 1954 until they dropped it recently. See line two of the small print in this ad. You might need a magnifier to see it though

And it is intriguing that mention was dropped right after the problem surfaced here and the news caught traction in the watch world.

[madmax21]

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

And it is intriguing that mention was dropped right after the problem surfaced here and the news caught traction in the watch world.

This is what kills me when I find out things like that, they really try to spin doctor the whole issue but I think it was a major screwup on the part of Rolex in my opinion in an effort to save money by buying parts probably from China or something. I would like to see a major Major effort put into keeping amazing quality in these watches in the next 10 years we will wait and see what they do, hopefully they learned there lesson

[soundserious]

Originally Posted by zakattack62

I can't fathom how anyone would buy a Rolex with a cyclops even though I know it's part of the Rolex DNA. They look awful, make the watch look unbalanced and they give the appearance that the watch is flawed because of a chip. No date watch all day for me.

Dumbest post I've read in awhile, bravo!

[madmax21]

Originally Posted by soundserious

Dumbest post I've read in awhile, bravo!

I second that

[Chadridv]

Originally Posted by SemperFi

I prefer no date but as long as you have a cyclops, get it fixed.

Funny, I prefer a date but no cyclops, so if it has a cyclops it should be functional!

I say definitely get it fixed.

[dddl]

Fix it...

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by madmax21

This is what kills me when I find out things like that, they really try to spin doctor the whole issue but I think it was a major screwup on the part of Rolex in my opinion in an effort to save money by buying parts probably from China or something. I would like to see a major Major effort put into keeping amazing quality in these watches in the next 10 years we will wait and see what they do, hopefully they learned there lesson

Well, this has been a topic of debate around here for a bit now. Did they get a batch of defectives that got passed QC and into the market or that they knew were out of spec but used anyway? Or was it just one more change deliberately made that Rolex is famous for not announcing or confirming?

I lean towards the deliberate change theory. I find it difficult to believe Rolex used a batch they knew were out of spec. Certainly they order and receive parts well in advance of running out of existing inventory. Plus they are most certainly in a position to not have to accept anything from any vendor. It's more likely they would ram them back down the vendor's throat than eat a shipment of bad lenses. They've got the power with their vendors. In the unlikely event they got passed QC and got shipped out on pieces, certainly it would have stopped the moment they got wind of the problem. Yet there are still watches coming out of the factory with the smaller magnification.

Overall, the response to the smaller mag here on TRF was not positive. But some have stated it is easier to see at more angles whereas the higher mag is viewable only straight on. I'd find it more believable that Rolex thought the latter and deliberately made what they figured was an improvement, only to get negative feedback from the WIS community than to believe they're covering up a QC mistake by changing the whole line-up to mags that are all over the board. It is more reasonable to me that they simply overlooked amending the website about the 2.5X statement until the issue surfaced.

Having said all that, I'm not convinced of anything. Even if they did make the change on purpose, it seems odd that the recent magnifiers seems to be all over the place, not consistently smaller. That doesn't make sense at all either. Plus the 2.5X cyclops is iconic Rolex, it's been around for decades. Why not do away with the ET bezel on the Sub since no one uses it as the primary diving tool anymore? Also, they have been replacing them at customer request, though I'm not sure that means much. They could be doing it because of the oversight in removing the claim from the website, or simply for good customer service. The whole thing is just bizarre to me.

Bottom line, we'll never know because Rolex isn't saying. If they go back to the 2.5X lenses it doesn't mean it was one of the above things and not the other.

I will say this - the entire situation is "vintage" Rolex. Circle the wagons and omerta.

[KrismanX]

Fix it! Good luck :)