Cyclops Mag on Rolex website

[FritzW]

As been discussed ad naseum, I just wanted to post a screen shot from Rolex.com the clearly shows that, while Rolex is not publicly addressing the issue, they are clearly showing the cyclops with different mags in their advertising. See attached photo. If its too small just got to Rolex.com as see for yourself


I was in an AD here in Cincinnati and pointed to two DateJust side by side one black dial the other white that clearly had different cyclops. One the traditional 2.5 and the other less mag. While they didn't have an answer, he seemed legitimately surprised and said they would ask the Rolex rep./contact. (I will get back to you on that). Suffice to say, the 2.5 mag, or lack of, is no longer a bell weather in identifying a replica/fake.

All that being said, I have a BLNR with a reduced mag. As i am not the original owner, although it was factory services 12-9-15 and is warranted for 2 yrs, does the warranty follow the watch or owner? The person i spoke with the RSC in New york said the warranty follows the owner. In other words, my warranty is void.

Again, I apologize resurrecting this topic as there are those that will certainly make me aware the topic has been exhausted.

[Old Expat Beast]

The service warranty should follow the watch, not the owner, but I doubt a service warranty would cover a cyclops replacement, just the movement.

[FritzW]

That's what I'm thinking too. She said i would have to send it to them before they would decide. Iver heard the RSC in Dallas is a easier to deal with.

[RichM]

My YM is at the RSC in New York. At first, they told me they were not going to replace it. It was considered "within spec".

I asked what is the "spec" and they couldn't answer me. Finally they caved and said they would replace it but would only guarantee that the new one would be at least as good or better, but not worse.

I called today and it's due back to me next week. They've had it over a month.

I'll let you know how it turned out.

To answer the OP's question, I don't think NYC would replace that under the two year service warranty. I get the impression it should be a new watch. Maybe they would have considered it when it when in for service but I doubt they'd address the issue now. Just my opinion and I have nothing to back it up with. Try Dallas.

[albmich]

Originally Posted by Rich Mickol

My YM is at the RSC in New York. At first, they told me they were not going to replace it. It was considered "within spec".

I asked what is the "spec" and they couldn't answer me. Finally they caved and said they would replace it but would only guarantee that the new one would be at least as good or better, but not worse.

I called today and it's due back to me next week. They've had it over a month.

I'll let you know how it turned out.

To answer the OP's question, I don't think NYC would replace that under the two year service warranty. I get the impression it should be a new watch. Maybe they would have considered it when it when in for service but I doubt they'd address the issue now. Just my opinion and I have nothing to back it up with. Try Dallas.

I, too, am very bothered by the magnification issues on the newer models. Good for you for pressing them on what the "spec" definition is and for standing up for getting this fixed. Can't wait to see pics

[eonflux]

Warranty follows the watch
Try the Dallas or Beverly Hills RSCs

[JohnBaker3]

I'm going to take a wilda$$ guess that the cyclops is manufactured by an outside vendor....

They come into Rolex in a batch of 10,000 units. Rolex glues them onto the crystal during the manufacturing process and sends them down the line...

Due to a quality control issues, they aren't being caught at the vendors site nor by Rolex upon receipt.

I suggest this because Rolex's "in-house QC" is top of the line.

Who knows what it will take to get the problem under control. Maybe some poor schmuck will be assigned to look through every single cyclops BEFORE they are used.

In the meantime, it has become a PR nightmare for all involved.

[pd999]

Thanks for the heads-up; I didn't even know this was an issue.

Can I assume that the 2.5x is the 'best' original magnification?

[RichM]

Originally Posted by pd999

Thanks for the heads-up; I didn't even know this was an issue.

Can I assume that the 2.5x is the 'best' original magnification?

Yes. That was the standard.

[FritzW]

Or.......Rolex resolves the issues, resumes with the 2.5 mag cyclops and 30 years from now the low mag will be worth twice as much.........

[albmich]

My 1979 submariner 1680 has 2.5 magnification. I've owned 3 different ceramic submariner in the last year (all with "proper" magnification) and they seem to measure out at about 2x (I took a picture of the date window and the date window under the cyclops and measured it). A friend of mine who just got a hulk has an undersized date mag and his seems to be around 1.5 tho I haven't formally measured it. Sigh. I'm fine with the 2x mag, it is a better balance with the dial and isn't quite as distracting as the old 2.5 mag cyclops where that's the only thing you notice. With that said, I hope Rolex can sort this issue out because, as mentioned above, it is frustrating for everyone involved.

[vila251]

I recently sent my BLNR to the dallas RSC to have the cyclops replace. The watch was purchase last year from a forum member that still had warranty left. Dallas RSC is replacing the cyclops under warranty. So the warranty follows the watch not the original purchaser. My BLNR should be back next week.

[FritzW]

Vila251- Thats encouraging as I'm not the original owner of mine. I was thinking of calling calling Dallas. So what how did they address the issue of the lower mag cyclops when you brought it to their attention?

[CHRONOLEX]

RSC NY told me same thing about no guarantees or whatever but still did it and it turned out great. Don't regret for a second.

[beer]

Originally Posted by FritzW

Suffice to say, the 2.5 mag, or lack of, is no longer a bell weather in identifying a replica/fake.

yes it is

if it has low mag it is real; if it has a 2.5 mag, it is fake

[Ruud Van Driver]

Why would a BLNR need a service? They haven't been around long enough, unless it was a warranty job

As for the warranty following the owner, that makes no sense at all and has to be B/S. That's like selling your car and keeping the service book and attaching it to your brand new ride, which would be nuts.

[FritzW]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

Why would a BLNR need a service? They haven't been around long enough, unless it was a warranty job

As for the warranty following the owner, that makes no sense at all and has to be B/S. That's like selling your car and keeping the service book and attaching it to your brand new ride, which would be nuts.

It was serviced because the seller wanted it to be factory fresh before selling it. I have taken it to two dealers and the head of Fine Jewleryand Times pieces at a national auction house. I have the box,all papers, warranty card, factory service warranty card (12-9-15), tags etc. I did a background check of the seller. It has been keeping perfect time (25 secs fast over the last month). It is genuine.

As for the warranty following the owner questions; I was told specifically by the service rep at RSC in NYC that since I wasn't the original purchaser, that any work done could not be warranted. Whisky Tango Foxtrot!??!

I'm not here to validate my watch. I'm Just trying to share and receive in info regarding the enigma of the cyclops mag issue.

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by FritzW

It was serviced because the seller wanted it to be factory fresh before selling it. I have taken it to two dealers and the head of Fine Jewleryand Times pieces at a national auction house. I have the box,all papers, warranty card, factory service warranty card (12-9-15), tags etc. I did a background check of the seller. It has been keeping perfect time (25 secs fast over the last month). It is genuine.

As for the warranty following the owner questions; I was told specifically by the service rep at RSC in NYC that since I wasn't the original purchaser, that any work done could not be warranted. Whisky Tango Foxtrot!??!

I'm not here to validate my watch. I'm Just trying to share and receive in info regarding the enigma of the cyclops mag issue.

Mate, I am not for one nano-second questioning the authenticity of your BLNR. I just wondered why a watch that's not more than two years old would need a service, that's all.

I went through the same Cyclops faff with my LVc, so I have a fair idea of how you feel. Mine was sorted by RSC Singapore. Go here:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=402806

Absolutely Whiskey Tango Foxtrot with RSC NY's response re the warranty. I can't comment on US service centres but others here speak highly of RSC Dallas so give them a call and see what they say. Good luck and keep us posted

[FritzW]

No worries. It's a Legit question. Didn't mean to come off defensively. I am definitely going to call Dallas RSC. I've only heard positive things about them. I'm writing off my NYC RSC experience as just east coast "attitude".

[vila251]

Originally Posted by FritzW

Vila251- Thats encouraging as I'm not the original owner of mine. I was thinking of calling calling Dallas. So what how did they address the issue of the lower mag cyclops when you brought it to their attention?

I was at my AD in Biloxi Mississippi where i have purchase another rolex from them. I compared my BLNR with one they had in the showcase and mine clearly showed the smaller magnificaiton . I ask them to send my watch to Dallas RSC to see if they would replace the cyclops. The RSC requested to see the warranty card which was later sent. After they received the warranty card my AD called and said they will be replacing the cyclops at no charge. I have heard mostly bad things and how difficult NY RSC. So thats why i sent mine to Dallas RSC.

[dbhak22]

I know I'm beating a dead horse here but don't think the difference has been shown like this before...I hope.

I couldn't help but notice while perusing HQMilton (as I do multiple times a day) that a modern was sitting next to a vintage...both with a cyclops and the difference is very clear...keeping in mind BOTH are 40mm cases and the pictures are taken from very similar (if not exact) distances:



Lots of folks have been saying the moderns seem to have 2x mag while older ones had 2.5x...but from this pic it appears to be less than 2x on the moderns.

[Ancestral Star]

Originally Posted by dbhak22

I know I'm beating a dead horse here but don't think the difference has been shown like this before...I hope.



I couldn't help but notice while perusing HQMilton (as I do multiple times a day) that a modern was sitting next to a vintage...both with a cyclops and the difference is very clear...keeping in mind BOTH are 40mm cases and the pictures are taken from very similar (if not exact) distances:







Lots of folks have been saying the moderns seem to have 2x mag while older ones had 2.5x...but from this pic it appears to be less than 2x on the moderns.

They just don't make'em like they used to.

[Porsche]

Hi Fritz

very interesting observations. The website "pics" are not real pics! Although based on actual pics, most of the image is photo-composition... ie. they copy/paste common items like bands etc, as well as the date window. Obviously whoevere does this needs to pay attention to scale when re-using items, so it wouldn't surprise me if they missed this when creating 36mm vs 40mm cases etc.

Have a look at this animated GIF I made from 2 pics on their site....

[msdtra]

I had purchased a Rolex Ceramic that was serviced 3 months ago from Dallas RSC and noticed the Magnification issue was pointed out on here. I am not the original owner and Dallas RSC is covering the cost and warranty is still listed on the invoice for additional time period.

[T. Ferguson]

As mentioned by others it is my understanding the service warranty follows the watch just like the factory warranty. As to the cyclops however, I doubt it's covered. I'm thinking the service warranty does not cover manufacturing defects like the original warranty does. Now, had they replaced the cyclops at service it would perhaps be a different matter, although Rolex has never officially called a low mag cyclops a defect.

[DCheeta]

Originally Posted by FritzW

No worries. It's a Legit question. Didn't mean to come off defensively. I am definitely going to call Dallas RSC. I've only heard positive things about them. I'm writing off my NYC RSC experience as just east coast "attitude".

East coast attitude?! What the f$&@ are you f#%&$'n talkin' about, buddy?!

[msdtra]

Sorry, let me be clear at time watched was serviced 3 months ago Crystal was replaced as well. So, even though I wasn't original owner Dallas RSC did exchange out low Mag Cyclops Crystal at my request. If watch had just been serviced without Crystal replacement not sure they would fix issue.

[lzz73]

Originally Posted by DCheeta

East coast attitude?! What the f$&@ are you f#%&$'n talkin' about, buddy?!

Maybe that's Ted Cruz who posted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AAMartinez]

IMG_9496.jpg

IMG_9465.jpg

After 3 weeks at the Beverly Hills RSC for servicing to include a crown replacement and sapphire crystal replacement I just received my 16710 back. Tell me if my eyes are deceiving me or not, but it looks to me as if the crystal was replaced with a cyclops that has less than 2X magnification.

I’d appreciate your opinions on this, but I could swear that the date appeared much larger with the old crystal/cyclops.

I just want to make sure that I’m seeing things right before I reach out to the RSC and ask if I can get a new crystal/cyclops with the original issued 2.5X magnification.

As a long time lurker, I want the members of this community to know that I appreciate your collective expertise and banter. You’re a fun part of my daily dose and have turned a what was just a watch purchase into a real (expensive) hobby!

Cheers!

[DLCU2]

That's definitely off. Reach out to rsc and have them make it right.