'Definitive' Answer re Cyclops Magnification from RSC Singapore

[Ruud Van Driver]

I'm just this second back in the office from RSC Singapore. The date magnification on my Sub LVc has been quietly bugging me since I bought my BLNR so I decided to have my crystal changed.

The lady on service advised me that there is nothing wrong with my Cyclops but the issue surrounds the font of the date wheel. Older models have a bold font whereas newly produced pieces have a date wheel with the fine font. She went on to tell me that several customers have brought all sorts of different pieces in to question the magnification and she has since sought guidance from Geneva. Obviously, this doesn't stack up with US RSCs changing crystals and there being a subsequent improvement in magnification (unless the RSCs have changed the date wheels and not told anyone, which is unlikely but not impossible ).

I then asked her if she had a Submariner with the bold date wheel to show me, so I could compare it with mine side by side. She produced two, still in their shipping caskets and untouched by human hands (outside of the factory). This is what she showed me:

[Old Expat Beast]

Did you ask why the date window/aperture also appears to be smaller?

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Did you ask why the date window/aperture also appears to be smaller?

The date apertures looked the same size to me. Even measuring them on computer screen, there's not much in it.

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

The date apertures looked the same size to me. Even measuring them on computer screen, there's not much in it.

This is bull

The date window is clearly taking up more room in one than the other.

Rolex changed suppliers or the quality control from the supplier is poor and even a fraction of a mm of material missing could result in less magnification.

Just poor qc from rolex.

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by sturgeon123456

This is bull

The date window is clearly taking up more room in one than the other.

Rolex changed suppliers or the quality control from the supplier is poor and even a fraction of a mm of material missing could result in less magnification.

Just poor qc from rolex.

If you're an expert in photogrammetry, then I shall bow to your superior knowledge. Otherwise, STFU. I clearly said the date windows looked the same to me, as in they didn't much different when I was at RSC.

The photographs are taken from different angles and the 'bold' font version is closer to the camera; I'll go back to the RSC now, take my protractor and calculator and ask the silly woman to hold the watch cases steady and at the same angle this time. That work for you?

Whether it is a magnification issue, different date wheels, I know not. I'm just reporting back what RSC told me earlier today.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by sturgeon123456

This is bull
The date window is clearly taking up more room in one than the other.

Rolex changed suppliers or the quality control from the supplier is poor and even a fraction of a mm of material missing could result in less magnification.

Just poor qc from rolex.

You were given an opinion - no need for that.

I see what you see but is it conclusive?

The dial width in both pix measures the same on my screen but the window width is 1mm wider in the pix with the better magnification on the same screen.

If I accept that the dial and dial windows are the same size I am personally leaning towards a variation in magnification from different cyclops suppliers/manufacturers.

But I am not sure yet.

[SUBversive]

Originally Posted by sturgeon123456

This is bull

The date window is clearly taking up more room in one than the other.

Rolex changed suppliers or the quality control from the supplier is poor and even a fraction of a mm of material missing could result in less magnification.

Just poor qc from rolex.

Changed suppliers?

[Sublover2166]

Originally Posted by SUBversive

Changed suppliers?

The crystals and Cyclops are not manufactured by Rolex. I believe it is the only part of the watch which is supplied by an outside vendor. Maybe vendor(s)

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Did you ask why the date window/aperture also appears to be smaller?

I agree it looks smaller.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rollee1]

Uncentered bezel from factory?
What QC

I remember seeing low mag is actually smaller looking Arabic digits, nothing to do with thick-thin fonts.

[AF_Rob]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

I agree it looks smaller.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I concur as well. Either way, Rolex needs a consolidated answer. It looks bad when their centers are telling customers different things.

[Roost5o]

Originally Posted by AF_Rob

It looks bad when their centers are telling customers different things.

Yes sir it does.

[Ruud Van Driver]

Here's the fine font:

[Ruud Van Driver]

And here's the bold:

[AkshayArgade]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

Here's the fine font:

I think my dj has similar magnification and same font. What do you think?

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by AkshayArgade

I think my dj has similar magnification and same font. What do you think?

No offence, but are you going to post this photo in every cyclops thread on TRF?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

No offence, but are you going to post this photo in every cyclops thread on TRF?

Have to agree mate perhaps we have a new a OCD on forum (CMPD) please Rolex bring back the hologram stickers.

[AkshayArgade]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

No offence, but are you going to post this photo in every cyclops thread on TRF?

haha, sorry.

[skeen]

Originally Posted by AkshayArgade

haha, sorry.

Right - bro, you already know yours is incorrect.

[Andad]

Easy there RVD we are just trying to get to the bottom of this issue.

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by directioneng

Easy there RVD we are just trying to get to the bottom of this issue.

Sorry mate, that response really pissed me off. I'm trying to be proactive in getting to the bottom of this issue and I don't respond well to those who choose to shoot the messenger.

I haven't written to Rolex as yet as I'm just back in Singapore after a very lengthy job in Burma. I've finally composed a letter and will get it posted tonight.

[engin33r]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

Sorry mate, that response really pissed me off. I'm trying to be proactive in getting to the bottom of this issue and I don't respond well to those who choose to shoot the messenger.

I haven't written to Rolex as yet as I'm just back in Singapore after a very lengthy job in Burma. I've finally composed a letter and will get it posted tonight.

Yep...

It's just one comment, don't let it get to you. You did great and I (we) really appreciate you spending time and effort to post this information.

Thanks!!

[ARTISAN]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

Sorry mate, that response really pissed me off. I'm trying to be proactive in getting to the bottom of this issue and I don't respond well to those who choose to shoot the messenger.

I haven't written to Rolex as yet as I'm just back in Singapore after a very lengthy job in Burma. I've finally composed a letter and will get it posted tonight.

look forward to hearing the reply...............thank you

[engin33r]

Nice info... thanks for sharing!!

Whatever the cause, they sure do look different. IMO this is a problem, Rolex should address this because it's too obvious

[engin33r]

I hope somebody from Rolex is reading this and will rectify this issue.

[padi56]

Well IMHO if someone would do a accurate measure of say the SD date window then check the other watches which some say have poor magnification, then perhaps we could get a more accurate result.

[Singslinger]

I don't think Sturgeon 123456's "this is bull'' comment was directed at the OP, I think he's simply expressing unhappiness with Rolex's QC because he sees the sizes of the date apertures as being different.

Anyway, I'm glad the OP brought up the issue. Will certainly be interested to see what the outcome is.

PS Was the lady you spoke to named Diana? She's the most senior person at RSC Singapore and very patient when dealing with difficult issues like this.

[Andad]

I apologise to Sturgeon if that was the case.

I just read it as it was.

[Sarko]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

I'm just this second back in the office from RSC Singapore. The date magnification on my Sub LVc has been quietly bugging me since I bought my BLNR so I decided to have my crystal changed.

The lady on service advised me that there is nothing wrong with my Cyclops but the issue surrounds the font of the date wheel. Older models have a bold font whereas newly produced pieces have a date wheel with the fine font. She went on to tell me that several customers have brought all sorts of different pieces in to question the magnification and she has since sought guidance from Geneva. Obviously, this doesn't stack up with US RSCs changing crystals and there being a subsequent improvement in magnification (unless the RSCs have changed the date wheels and not told anyone, which is unlikely but not impossible ).

I then asked her if she had a Submariner with the bold date wheel to show me, so I could compare it with mine side by side. She produced two, still in their shipping caskets and untouched by human hands (outside of the factory). This is what she showed me:

The lady is telling you a lie. I will explain why? I had the same issue with my SUBC (LN) here in the Netherlands. I posted also the thread here in June last year, which was one of the first cases discussed here.

My crystal (not a date wheel) was replaced by AD (with inhouse RSC) in approx. 45 minutes while I was drinking coffee and trying on different watches and I got my watch back with normal magnification. They stated it was clearly a crystal which was creating the problem.

Before this, I heard different stroy form other AD's how the crystal is not high enoug pressed in the case and tha this is causing the problem. The truth is that the AD's also do not know what is going on since Rolex is silent on this topic. Of course they will not say we have a bad/different batch of cyclops. Anayway it is clear that the stroy does not add up. Even if the font was different and thinner, it still should be bigger.

My thread http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...=352444&page=3

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by Singslinger

I don't think Sturgeon 123456's "this is bull'' comment was directed at the OP, I think he's simply expressing unhappiness with Rolex's QC because he sees the sizes of the date apertures as being different.

Anyway, I'm glad the OP brought up the issue. Will certainly be interested to see what the outcome is.

PS Was the lady you spoke to named Diana? She's the most senior person at RSC Singapore and very patient when dealing with difficult issues like this.

It was indeed Diana. Very pleasant lady and yes, also very patient

Originally Posted by directioneng

I apologise to Sturgeon if that was the case.

I just read it as it was.

I read it the same as you. If I took it the wrong way, then I will offer a mild apology. However, maybe Sturgeon can help by choosing his words a little more carefully.

Originally Posted by Sarko

The lady is telling you a lie. I will explain why? I had the same issue with my SUBC (LN) here in the Netherlands. I posted also the thread here in June last year, which was one of the first cases discussed here.

My crystal (not a date wheel) was replaced by AD (with inhouse RSC) in approx. 45 minutes while I was drinking coffee and trying on different watches and I got my watch back with normal magnification. They stated it was clearly a crystal which was creating the problem.

Before this, I heard different stroy form other AD's how the crystal is not high enoug pressed in the case and tha this is causing the problem. The truth is that the AD's also do not know what is going on since Rolex is silent on this topic. Of course they will not say we have a bad/different batch of cyclops. Anayway it is clear that the stroy does not add up. Even if the font was different and thinner, it still should be bigger.

My thread http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...=352444&page=3

To say that she's lying is a bit of shotgun approach; she might be passing on the information that Geneva have told her. If that's the case, she's hardly lying.

Also, from my photographs above, irrespective of the size of the date window or magnification of the Cyclops, the Number 24 certainly appears to be a more bold font than the 20.

Also, i'd be very concerned if my crystal was replaced in only 45 minutes. Did they do a pressure test also? I might be hugely mistaken here but that sounds way too quick for me.