Sub Paranoia - Counsel required!

[maidenmansions]

Hi,

I recently purchased a 116610 from an AD in the uk (Goldsmiths) and I have a niggling concern about my date magnification. It is perfectly centred in the cyclops but does not fill it.
I'm paranoid I know and I'm sure that the AD would not be foolish enough to deal in knock-offs but I cannot help but be a little concerned that something is fishy. Everything ties up. This is my second Rolex and it has the feel we all know and love. The paperwork quotes the correct SN. I could just do with some reassurance from someone who knows.

I've included a really low quality photo which may help someone comfort me??

Cheers

B

[Old Expat Beast]

This is a recurring issue with some recent models. Some people say its fine/intentional, others say poor quality control. I think at least one member has had their watch returned and the crystal or cyclops replaced by Rolex though.

[maidenmansions]

Thanks for your reply. I will consider my options. Cheers B


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andad]

I would refer this issue to a RSC.

The magnification looks too small in that picture.

[Evad3]

Seems to be cropping up a fair bit lately. If it was me I would return it to the AD (depending how long it is you have had the watch). See if you can exchange it or try and get the cyclops replaced.

[fixinbones]

The mag on my new BLNR looks identical. I actually find it easier to read with less mag.

[maidenmansions]

Thanks all.
Fixinbones, did you consider getting your cyclops replaced? I'm worried that when it gets to service time they'll replace it a sits sub par and charge me a whopper for the privilege!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FTX I]

I prefer the 'old cyclops'.

[melons]

Originally Posted by FTX I

I prefer the 'old cyclops'.

I prefer no cyclops.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by melons

I prefer no cyclops.

Ok

[WWC]

I'm looking at my sub and the mag seems to be larger than yours. I would take it up to RSC and have it replaced

[zama]

Looks fine to me, we all have different expectations on topics such as this

[sturgeon123456]

I wouldn't worry about it unless you can't see the date.

[jack81]

How can you really tell from that picture really i'd never know. To me it looks fine tough.

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by jack81

How can you really tell from that picture really i'd never know. To me it looks fine tough.

With the "standard" magnification being 2.5x normally in a picture of that nature the date window would fill more or most of the cyclops. Lately it has been quite varied with some magnification at less than 2.5x.

Maybe it's just reported more on here but not actually happening anymore than usual who knows. I know it wouldn't bug me.

[Jlsd]

I visited an AD today. I would say 30% of their stock (with cyclops) has this issue. I looks very strange. When I questioned the AD they did not give me a straight answer. I believe they knew about the issue before but they do not have an official answer from Rolex.

When I came back home, I examined an OQ I had serviced at a RSC just a few months ago and the crystal was replaced. When compared to other OQs in the stable, it became very apparent that the cyclops is the new crystal is not magnifying at 2.5 times.

It is now bothering me a lot

[NorthernPike]

Looks bad to me. Mine fills the whole cyclops and I like it that way. Makes it easier to see the date.

[Wesley Crusher]

That doesn't look right. The Sub magnification is supposed to be 2.5x, but that looks like 1.5x. I don't know if this is a QC issue or if Rolex is transitioning to cyclops' with less magnification (Could this be a cost issue?), but I don't like this recent trend. It looks very odd.

[ltmgeller]

Get a DSSD. No cyclops, no problem.

[esdeezy]

Just checked my DJII is like 2x not 2.5. But op looks 1.5 so I can live with mine I guess lol

[viper9669]

Recent batches are like the OP's watch. Saw LVc once with same magnification/date size.

I spend way too much time in ADs and noticed its quite widespread across a range of models.

[maidenmansions]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I've spoken to the AD and they are going to arrange a new crystal.

Thanks again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Macnavara]

I would definatly take that to rolex in london....dont waste your time taking it back to goldsmiths as it will take 10 times longer to sort out.

Ive always been really impressed with the customer service in london.

The reason i wouldnt accept this problem is ,for me ,its one of the give aways on a fake rolex...

I know you want reasurance its normal but youll be glad to get it back new crystal and all.....not nice to be without the watch for 2 weeks but once you get it back youll soon forget the pain.

Good luck with it

[Macnavara]

Sorry forgot to add for the record that i got a new gmt yesterday and the mag is normal

[travisb]

Originally Posted by maidenmansions

Thanks everyone for your responses. I've spoken to the AD and they are going to arrange a new crystal.

Thanks again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would have done the same. The mag is definitely not up to par.
Hopefully a quick turnaround.

[Dyim]

Very interesting issue. Wonder if rolex changed supplier of cyclops?

To OP, can you check to see if the laser etched crown on the crystal is still present at 6 o'clock?

[richard371]

The gmts have lower magnification then the subs from what I've seen and so does my blnr

[Dyim]

Originally Posted by richard371

The gmts have lower magnification then the subs from what I've seen and so does my blnr

My GMT has better magnification than OP's sub.

[richard371]

But do the GMTs in general magnify less then the subs? Mine does and that's kinda what I noticed in the store and pics.

Originally Posted by Dyim

My GMT has better magnification than OP's sub.

[NorthernPike]

Originally Posted by Dyim

To OP, can you check to see if the laser etched crown on the crystal is still present at 6 o'clock?

Good question!