ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

stillsane · 21 August 2017, 10:06 AM

What is the magnification on the BLNR?
It is definitely less than my 1680 sub which I think is 2.5?
What is it on other newer models?

Al1969 · 21 August 2017, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillsane

What is the magnification on the BLNR?
It is definitely less than my 1680 sub which I think is 2.5?
What is it on other newer models?

It's supposed to be 2.5. There are some watches out there with 'defective' mag.
However, RSC has been known to replace the crystal.

Plenty of threads on here about it, use search function.

bjw · 21 August 2017, 11:19 AM

It used to be advertised as 2.5 Mag by Rolex in their literature. They no longer advertise that any longer. That is most likely due to the large amount of undersized/ magnified cyclops that went on so many watches several years ago.

jazznpool · 21 August 2017, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillsane

What is the magnification on the BLNR?
It is definitely less than my 1680 sub which I think is 2.5?
What is it on other newer models?

Whatever it is it works just fine on mine.

Brny11 · 21 August 2017, 12:54 PM

It is what it is... I never minded it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ruud Van Driver · 21 August 2017, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillsane

What is the magnification on the BLNR?
It is definitely less than my 1680 sub which I think is 2.5?
What is it on other newer models?

There are so many threads on this topic, just do a search. There's one started by me, which eventually resulted in Rolex changing the crystal on my Sub LVc.

lhawli · 21 August 2017, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brny11

It is what it is... I never minded it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Picture may be deceiving but looks kinda small to me!

Here's mine for comparison.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Dave-B · 21 August 2017, 07:02 PM

The cyclops on my 2014 SubC had the low mag and it bugged me for a bit, I intended to have it replaced at service time but I ended up scratching the cyclops, so I had the crystal replaced with the correct mag.

When researching the low mag cyclops issue I found several in local ADs, one was even fitted to a £20K+ WG BLRO. Here it is next to a correct mag GMT, the BLRO appears to only have x1 magnification.

Jack T · 21 August 2017, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave-B

The cyclops on my 2014 SubC had the low mag and it bugged me for a bit, I intended to have it replaced at service time but I ended up scratching the cyclops, so I had the crystal replaced with the correct mag.

When researching the low mag cyclops issue I found several in local ADs, one was even fitted to a £20K+ WG BLRO. Here it is next to a correct mag GMT, the BLRO appears to only have x1 magnification.

I'd take that BLRO with the defective mag any day

ap1 · 21 August 2017, 09:12 PM

Better with a pic to show us. If it's low take it back

beshannon · 21 August 2017, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillsane

What is the magnification on the BLNR?

Mine is quite sufficient.

padi56 · 21 August 2017, 11:37 PM

As long as you can read the date what difference does a tiny difference if any in any magnification.

BiH115 · 21 August 2017, 11:51 PM

Looks OK on mine. I think.

RichM · 22 August 2017, 01:11 AM

Mine and I think this one's a little weak.

madmax21 · 22 August 2017, 01:27 AM

Although Rolex will tell you that magnification variances I really not that big of a deal for me I like the date to stand out which is basically the point of magnifying the date anyway so in my opinion it should be at least 2.5x but the whole thing about Rolex be having to be 2.5 times or it's not real is obviously been thrown out the window for the better

watchwatcher · 22 August 2017, 01:45 AM

We've seen quite a few of the GMT's and subs with low mag cyclops. Funny thing, though, Rolex has fixed a bunch of them (from reading a lot of threads on the subject) yet never once admitted there was any kind of problem. Hmm...

Dave-B · 22 August 2017, 02:09 AM

The above two GMTs look fine to me, the low mag is really quite noticeable and these appear to be at full 2.5x magnification.

johnnyjazz · 22 August 2017, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave-B

The cyclops on my 2014 SubC had the low mag and it bugged me for a bit, I intended to have it replaced at service time but I ended up scratching the cyclops, so I had the crystal replaced with the correct mag.

When researching the low mag cyclops issue I found several in local ADs, one was even fitted to a £20K+ WG BLRO. Here it is next to a correct mag GMT, the BLRO appears to only have x1 magnification.

Wow, that is taking the piss by Rolex QC.

Loevhagen · 22 August 2017, 02:17 AM

Some watches from 2015 were affected by this sub-standard cyclops.

Syed117 · 22 August 2017, 02:23 AM

There is absolutely no acceptable reason for the magnification to vary so much, especially between the same models. I shouldn't be able to pick up two GMTs and see any difference in the cyclops.

Not personally caring is perfectly fine, but it's a quality control issue and embarrassing that it is so common for Rolex.

stillsane · 22 August 2017, 02:28 AM

They havent fixed it because my just arrived at the AD a week ago.

21 August 2017, 10:06 AM	#1
stillsane "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Real Name: Tom T Location: Illinois Watch: 1680, 214270, BLNR Posts: 168	Cyclops on BLNR What is the magnification on the BLNR? It is definitely less than my 1680 sub which I think is 2.5? What is it on other newer models?

21 August 2017, 11:19 AM	#3
bjw "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: USA Posts: 440	It used to be advertised as 2.5 Mag by Rolex in their literature. They no longer advertise that any longer. That is most likely due to the large amount of undersized/ magnified cyclops that went on so many watches several years ago. __________________ 116710 BLNR 16710 COKE Tudor 7922R Tudor 79220N Tudor 79260P Panda "Opinions are like wrist watches, everyone's shows different time from the other. But all believe that theirs is accurate. "

21 August 2017, 11:37 PM	#12
padi56 "TRF" Life Patron Join Date: Jun 2005 Real Name: Peter Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng Watch: ing you. Posts: 52,236	As long as you can read the date what difference does a tiny difference if any in any magnification. __________________ ICom Pro3 All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only. "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever." Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again. www.mc0yad.club Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder

22 August 2017, 01:27 AM	#15
madmax21 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Location: Toronto Canada Watch: GMT Master ll Posts: 1,036	Although Rolex will tell you that magnification variances I really not that big of a deal for me I like the date to stand out which is basically the point of magnifying the date anyway so in my opinion it should be at least 2.5x but the whole thing about Rolex be having to be 2.5 times or it's not real is obviously been thrown out the window for the better __________________ May the hands of time always treat us well...

21 August 2017, 12:54 PM	#5
Brny11 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Real Name: Brian Location: Florida Posts: 2,456	It is what it is... I never minded it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

21 August 2017, 09:12 PM	#10
ap1 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: usa Posts: 19,036	Better with a pic to show us. If it's low take it back

21 August 2017, 11:51 PM	#13
BiH115 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2017 Location: NH Watch: your mouth! Posts: 384	Looks OK on mine. I think.

22 August 2017, 01:45 AM	#16
watchwatcher "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Larry Location: Kentucky Watch: Yes Posts: 34,479	We've seen quite a few of the GMT's and subs with low mag cyclops. Funny thing, though, Rolex has fixed a bunch of them (from reading a lot of threads on the subject) yet never once admitted there was any kind of problem. Hmm...

22 August 2017, 02:09 AM	#17
Dave-B "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Real Name: Dave Location: UK Watch: 116610LN Posts: 274	The above two GMTs look fine to me, the low mag is really quite noticeable and these appear to be at full 2.5x magnification.

22 August 2017, 02:17 AM	#19
Loevhagen "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: The aperture Posts: 4,906	Some watches from 2015 were affected by this sub-standard cyclops.

22 August 2017, 02:23 AM	#20
Syed117 "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Real Name: Syed Location: The Ether Posts: 3,388	There is absolutely no acceptable reason for the magnification to vary so much, especially between the same models. I shouldn't be able to pick up two GMTs and see any difference in the cyclops. Not personally caring is perfectly fine, but it's a quality control issue and embarrassing that it is so common for Rolex.

22 August 2017, 02:28 AM	#21
stillsane "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Real Name: Tom T Location: Illinois Watch: 1680, 214270, BLNR Posts: 168	They havent fixed it because my just arrived at the AD a week ago.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)