ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Dyim · 15 December 2014, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Not sure. They are basically the same case, I think? The question is whether the crystal is the same. If it is, then the difference is due to different batches of crystal.

maidenmansions · 15 December 2014, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

Hi Dyim,

Yep the crown is there. Spoke to the RSC and they have never heard of this in the UK apparently ;). I guess most buyers wouldn't realise??

They are rectifying the situation for me as we speak.

I will repost once I get it back (expect Christmas delays).

Cheers

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

maidenmansions · 15 December 2014, 11:31 PM

Just a thought. What mag do Tudor watches offer? Perhaps it's spares contamination?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

maidenmansions · 15 December 2014, 11:39 PM

One more!!
Rolex.com still quotes 2.5x mag for the sub, so this must just be a dodgy batch. I doubt they are phasing in a new lesser mag...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr DateJust · 15 December 2014, 11:44 PM

This is becoming more and more common and I have noticed it before. I was at an event in my AD a couple of weeks ago and tried on/handled almost every Rolex model. I was wearing my DateJust which magnifies fine but a number of the watches didn't seem to have the full 2.5x when comparing. I would say approx 20% showed at least some difference from what I would class as "normal". The "worst offender" was the new WG Pepsi. The magnification on that was very similar/slightly less than the OP's sub shown at the start of the thread. I don't know what is going on. Either Rolex have changed the specs for the amount of mag, have a new supplier or it's just bad QC which in the past I would find hard to believe from a company like Rolex. However we have also seen some SD4000's coming with the wrong bezel insert recently too.

shay2nak · 17 December 2014, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directioneng

i would refer this issue to a rsc.

The magnification looks too small in that picture.

+1

Old Expat Beast · 17 December 2014, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maidenmansions

Just a thought. What mag do Tudor watches offer? Perhaps it's spares contamination?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tudor seems to have stopped using magnifiers on their watches.

Grey.Coupe · 17 December 2014, 02:33 AM

OP, all, Merry Christmas, happy holidays.

Tilting the case a fraction of a millimeter towards you or away from you can create or exaggerate this effect. Wear your watch and enjoy it, nothing at all wrong with it.

REDiesel · 17 December 2014, 02:44 AM

That would bother me. The 2.5x mag date is a visual Rolex feature and one of the quick ways I examine for authenticity. I wonder if there is more or less focal distance between the crystal and the date throwing off the observed magnification.

maidenmansions · 14 January 2015, 11:40 PM

An update!!
Just got my sub back from the RSC via Goldsmiths in England. Just about a two week turnaround and a good result. No intel around what's causing the issue, but I am pleased with the outcome.
Cheers

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

betrayedsoup · 14 January 2015, 11:46 PM

Much better!

Racerdj · 14 January 2015, 11:49 PM

Quote:

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

Looks like a good solution.

brandrea · 14 January 2015, 11:51 PM

Wow great result ! What as the charge from RSC?

maidenmansions · 15 January 2015, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandrea

Wow great result ! What as the charge from RSC?

Zilch. Corrected under warranty 😃

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

shay2nak · 15 January 2015, 01:11 AM

great!

mjclark32 · 15 January 2015, 01:31 AM

Looks much better, enjoy!

Minimalist · 15 January 2015, 04:23 AM

Fantastic result, such an obvious difference. Why the hell can't Rolex just get this right the first time round rather than cause all this hassle to its customers and themselves!

p.s. which Goldsmiths (location) did you deal with? And how come they didn't offer you a replacement/exhange instead of having the crystal replaced?

AS1 · 15 January 2015, 04:36 AM

nice. exactly how it should look, and exactly how Rolex advertises it should look.

Bobby T · 15 January 2015, 04:39 AM

The best option is to replace the watch with a comparable model SeaDweller........that way you don't have to worry about that silly, glued on, magnification crystal!!!!!

Sublover2166 · 15 January 2015, 04:45 AM

QUOTE=Bobby T;5538040]The best option is to replace the watch with a comparable model SeaDweller........that way you don't have to worry about that silly, glued on, magnification crystal!!!!![/QUOTE]

This is not everyone's preference. To each his own.

maidenmansions · 15 January 2015, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Fantastic result, such an obvious difference. Why the hell can't Rolex just get this right the first time round rather than cause all this hassle to its customers and themselves!

p.s. which Goldsmiths (location) did you deal with? And how come they didn't offer you a replacement/exhange instead of having the crystal replaced?

It was the Bristol branch and they didn't have one it stock (I'd only just bought it!). They were very helpful though...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Minimalist · 15 January 2015, 05:39 AM

That's good to know. So would they have offered you a total replacement had they had one in stock? Did they not offer to order you a new one?

maidenmansions · 15 January 2015, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

That's good to know. So would they have offered you a total replacement had they had one in stock? Did they not offer to order you a new one?

I don't really know. I was happy to have it repaired so didn't really push the issue

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anthon · 15 January 2015, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby T

The best option is to replace the watch with a comparable model SeaDweller........that way you don't have to worry about that silly, glued on, magnification crystal!!!!!

I was just going to post the very same.

The cyclops lost all its already small appeal to me when I found out that it is just a piece of plastic glued onto your sapphire crystal.

Minimalist · 15 January 2015, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maidenmansions

I don't really know. I was happy to have it repaired so didn't really push the issue

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In any case, I'm very happy for you that the issue has been resolved. Now you can take a big sigh of relief and continue with enjoying the watch! All the best.

maidenmansions · 15 January 2015, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

In any case, I'm very happy for you that the issue has been resolved. Now you can take a big sigh of relief and continue with enjoying the watch! All the best.

Cheers!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tkerrmd · 15 January 2015, 06:22 AM

wow that was a big change!

jnkay · 15 January 2015, 07:15 AM

Glad they RSC fixed that for you instead of claiming it's "within spec". That would have bothered me.

manonabike · 15 January 2015, 07:30 AM

A good result. Watch looks great

nc42acc · 15 January 2015, 07:43 AM

Have you checked the LEC to see if they used a service crystal? Not sure if these still have the s etched in the coronet.

15 January 2015, 01:31 AM	#46
mjclark32 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: MJC Location: PHL USA Watch: IWC, Rolex, AP Posts: 29,232	Looks much better, enjoy! __________________

15 December 2014, 11:31 PM	#33
maidenmansions "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: UK Posts: 24	Just a thought. What mag do Tudor watches offer? Perhaps it's spares contamination? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

15 December 2014, 11:39 PM	#34
maidenmansions "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: UK Posts: 24	One more!! Rolex.com still quotes 2.5x mag for the sub, so this must just be a dodgy batch. I doubt they are phasing in a new lesser mag... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

15 December 2014, 11:44 PM	#35
Mr DateJust "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Glasgow, UK Watch: 16570 Posts: 909	This is becoming more and more common and I have noticed it before. I was at an event in my AD a couple of weeks ago and tried on/handled almost every Rolex model. I was wearing my DateJust which magnifies fine but a number of the watches didn't seem to have the full 2.5x when comparing. I would say approx 20% showed at least some difference from what I would class as "normal". The "worst offender" was the new WG Pepsi. The magnification on that was very similar/slightly less than the OP's sub shown at the start of the thread. I don't know what is going on. Either Rolex have changed the specs for the amount of mag, have a new supplier or it's just bad QC which in the past I would find hard to believe from a company like Rolex. However we have also seen some SD4000's coming with the wrong bezel insert recently too.

17 December 2014, 02:33 AM	#38
Grey.Coupe "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: NC, USA Posts: 555	OP, all, Merry Christmas, happy holidays. Tilting the case a fraction of a millimeter towards you or away from you can create or exaggerate this effect. Wear your watch and enjoy it, nothing at all wrong with it.

17 December 2014, 02:44 AM	#39
REDiesel "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: USA Watch: GV 18038 DJ Smurf Posts: 625	That would bother me. The 2.5x mag date is a visual Rolex feature and one of the quick ways I examine for authenticity. I wonder if there is more or less focal distance between the crystal and the date throwing off the observed magnification.

14 January 2015, 11:40 PM	#40
maidenmansions "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: UK Posts: 24	An update!! Just got my sub back from the RSC via Goldsmiths in England. Just about a two week turnaround and a good result. No intel around what's causing the issue, but I am pleased with the outcome. Cheers Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

14 January 2015, 11:46 PM	#41
betrayedsoup "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Boston Watch: 116610LN, 116500LN Posts: 61	Much better!

14 January 2015, 11:51 PM	#43
brandrea 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Brian (TBone) Location: canada Watch: es make me smile Posts: 73,697	Wow great result ! What as the charge from RSC?

15 January 2015, 01:11 AM	#45
shay2nak "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Calipornia Watch: 116610LN & 311.006 Posts: 586	great!

15 January 2015, 04:23 AM	#47
Minimalist "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: London Posts: 1,215	Fantastic result, such an obvious difference. Why the hell can't Rolex just get this right the first time round rather than cause all this hassle to its customers and themselves! p.s. which Goldsmiths (location) did you deal with? And how come they didn't offer you a replacement/exhange instead of having the crystal replaced?

15 January 2015, 04:36 AM	#48
AS1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: NYC / Milan Watch: 6263 Posts: 3,938	nice. exactly how it should look, and exactly how Rolex advertises it should look.

15 January 2015, 04:39 AM	#49
Bobby T Banned Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: SoCal Posts: 934	The best option is to replace the watch with a comparable model SeaDweller........that way you don't have to worry about that silly, glued on, magnification crystal!!!!!

15 January 2015, 04:45 AM	#50
Sublover2166 Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Real Name: John Location: Manassas,Virginia Watch: Ol'Bluesy & Hulk Posts: 2,871	QUOTE=Bobby T;5538040]The best option is to replace the watch with a comparable model SeaDweller........that way you don't have to worry about that silly, glued on, magnification crystal!!!!![/QUOTE] This is not everyone's preference. To each his own.

15 January 2015, 05:39 AM	#52
Minimalist "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: London Posts: 1,215	That's good to know. So would they have offered you a total replacement had they had one in stock? Did they not offer to order you a new one?

15 January 2015, 06:22 AM	#57
tkerrmd "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: Tom Location: In a race car! Watch: ME RACE PORSCHES Posts: 24,123	wow that was a big change!

15 January 2015, 07:15 AM	#58
jnkay "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: South Florida, US Watch: du jour Posts: 1,812	Glad they RSC fixed that for you instead of claiming it's "within spec". That would have bothered me.

15 January 2015, 07:30 AM	#59
manonabike "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: London Posts: 11	A good result. Watch looks great

15 January 2015, 07:43 AM	#60
nc42acc "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Marty Location: North Carolina Watch: out!!!!! Posts: 502	Have you checked the LEC to see if they used a service crystal? Not sure if these still have the s etched in the coronet.

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