Calling all eyes: Cyclops Mag Check!

[wach16]

Def looks a little small to me but could be the angle too

[Mirx]

I too think that mag is smaller than 2.5

[Lurizzle]

OP here,

I just got this new Samsung S8 phone... I thought it was strange the app did not offer me the option to upload the pics and smaller resolution like ot does on iPhone. I just noticed how big the pictures are... ANNOYING! My apologies and thank you for still answering my questions despite the size. And thanks to those of you who pointed it out with gentle ribbing - all taken in good stride :)

I called the RSC in NY who offered me pdf instructions on how to send the watch. Very specific on how to package everything. They offered me the alternate solution of attending dropping it off with an AD who is very familiar how to package and send the watch on my behalf. In that scenario, i would be communicating with the AD and not Rolex directly. I like the idea of sending it to Rolex RSC and dealing with them directly... Who knows, maybe i'll get a green travel pouch out of it! I'll continue to post updates here as a matter of record in case it is of benefit to anyone in the future.

Rolex RSC NY did mention one thing: He said normally when a mag is under-powered, as appears to be the case with mine, he said it was because it has a non-Rolex crystal. He asked where i purchased the watch and i told him. He said the fix is to replace the entire crystal. Not the cyclops but the entire crystal. I asked if there would be a marking on the crystal indicating it is a replacement. He said no, but it would be in the paperwork they send me.

I think i'l stop by the local AD after work and see what they think, and go from there.

[vakman]

I had the same problem with my blnr just went to a AD and they replaced the complete glass. Have the Same with my wife's sub didnt fixed that one yet. They telled me that the glass didnt was deep enough in the case.

[Swiss Mad!]

I don't think Rolex quote the x2.5 magnification on their website anymore so you may/may not have any luck getting it replaced for free especially if as you state it may be an aftermarket item and not genuine Rolex.

The length of warranty depends which coloured hang tag you have.

You state that the warranty period increased from 3 to 5 years around the time you purchased your watch so you should be entitled to an additional 2 years???

That is irrelevant - if your tag is Red its 3 years, if its Green its 5 years no arguments.

Also, just curious, if your not happy with the magnification of your Cyclops, why wait 2 years to do anything about it?

[Lurizzle]

Originally Posted by Swiss Mad!

I don't think Rolex quote the x2.5 magnification on their website anymore so you may/may not have any luck getting it replaced for free especially if as you state it may be an aftermarket item and not genuine Rolex.

The length of warranty depends which coloured hang tag you have.

You state that the warranty period increased from 3 to 5 years around the time you purchased your watch so you should be entitled to an additional 2 years???

That is irrelevant - if your tag is Red its 3 years, if its Green its 5 years no arguments.

Also, just curious, if your not happy with the magnification of your Cyclops, why wait 2 years to do anything about it?

I have the red tag which is normally 2yrs but in my case i fall in a window of eligibility for 3yrs. I have 10 months left so it's now or never!

I waited 2 yrs because to be honest, I never really noticed it. The more i played around with some friends' vintage pcs, the more i silently noticed the mag difference. The gift/curse of ambient awareness that is the internet confirmed my suspicions. Shouldnt make a difference since i am still within the warranty period. If anything hopefully i benefit from the time regulation under service.

I purchased the watch from an AD, unworn. I saw it come out of the coffin and have the box and papers. I suppose stranger things have happened, but all will be revealed soon enough.

[Skyrider01]

Looking at my BLNR with the same date of 13 on it. Yours seems a little smaller, but not by much.

[TuckerHorology]

Not 2.5x. I would fix asap at a rsc and refuse to pay.

[Watch This]

Small. Fix.

[Bluside]

Again, the question is asked...Since Rolex does not advertise 2.5X mag, what is the correct mag supposed to be? Will the RSC change it? if so, to what? Why should they?

My BLNR that I bought last year does not appear to be 2.5x.

[arinsd]

Smaller than my sub for sure.

RSC time.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by beshannon

Hard to tell if the magnification is too small as the picture itself is magnified.

Um, that doesn't compute.

An analysis of the date magnification is based on the relative size of the date versus the date window and the watch. Since the entire picture is magnified, the relative size of the date in comparison with other parts of the watch is not affected since the entire picture was magnified.

[Glidelock]

Clearly not a 2.5 magnification!

[RichM]

Here's my suggestion, if you don't mind being without the watch for at least a month, send it to an RSC.

Let us know how you make out.

[HogwldFLTR]

Comparing the date window to cyclops lens, I'd say a bit over 1.5X mag.

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

Um, that doesn't compute.

An analysis of the date magnification is based on the relative size of the date versus the date window and the watch. Since the entire picture is magnified, the relative size of the date in comparison with other parts of the watch is not affected since the entire picture was magnified.

And viewing it 1:1 would have been much easier

Good luck to you

[wrist_watcher]

It clearly is not proper magnification. I would not be happy with that.

[Swiss Mad!]

Tried to take a pic of the date window looking under the Cyclops on my Submariner date and one looking at the Cyclops to try and compare the actual size to the magnified size.

Difficult to tell whether it is a full x2.5 larger but it definitely magnified enough for me to be able to see it a lot clearer which is good enough for me.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the x2.5 figure - in fairness the magnification on your GMT is good enough to read clearly.

Chill & enjoy the watch.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Swiss Mad!

Tried to take a pic of the date window looking under the Cyclops on my Submariner date and one looking at the Cyclops to try and compare the actual size to the magnified size.

Difficult to tell whether it is a full x2.5 larger but it definitely magnified enough for me to be able to see it a lot clearer which is good enough for me.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the x2.5 figure - in fairness the magnification on your GMT is good enough to read clearly.

Chill & enjoy the watch.

It depends upon how good one's eyesight is.

To those experienced with the brand. The actual magnification is an issue because Rolex has clearly stated in their marketing material that the magnification is 2.5 times. That is a stated standard which is absolutely unique to Rolex watches that has been quietly set aside due to a quality issue and when called out on it, Rolex attempts to make it right in accordance with the quality standards they are renowned for.

Personally, if I were to pay for 2.5x magnification I would want it on my watch says me with my reading glasses on as I type.
The difference in magnification is rather noticeable in practical terms.

[Andad]

That magnification is too small.

My calculation gives me x1.8 but I could be out by up to 5%.

Take it to your nearest RSC and discuss it with them.

I really thought Rolex had fixed this issue.

[Benjo74]

Originally Posted by Bluside

Again, the question is asked...Since Rolex does not advertise 2.5X mag, what is the correct mag supposed to be? Will the RSC change it? if so, to what? Why should they?

My BLNR that I bought last year does not appear to be 2.5x.

But did Rolex advertise it as 2.5x at the time the OP bought it? If so? That's what he was supposedly sold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Noxa]

Certainly is not at 2.5x pic issues or not it's clear to see, I'd be going to my AD no doubt, why bypass them and go direct, you paid a premium let them earn their money I say.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by beshannon

And viewing it 1:1 would have been much easier

Good luck to you

Don't be cranky, Brian from NoVa, just because I pointed out something that didn't make a lot of sense.