Visit to RSC Kent re Cyclops Magnification

[Ruud Van Driver]

I created a thread yesterday regarding the difference in the Cyclops magnification between my Sub C LV and BLNR. I also researched some previous threads on the same topic and there doesn't seem to be any definitive answers as to whether the discrepancy in the magnification between some pieces is a because of, for example, a change of specification, poor quality control, change of suppliers, etc. I therefore contacted the RSC in Kent which, conveniently, is a few miles up the road from my UK address. The chap I spoke to on the telephone this morning was not aware of any such discrepancies in Cyclops magnification and had never heard of such a phenomenon. As I'm relatively close by, he suggested I pop my LV in for the service technicians to take a looksy.

I arrived at the RSC a (quite an impressive building) and spoke with the young lady at the service desk. She compared my LV and BLNR and acknowledged that there was indeed a discernible difference. She then said that it was most likely because the watches were two different models. I told her that I had been making comparisons between pieces on display in various ADs' windows while I was at home in Cardiff over the weekend. She then took my pieces away around the back for colleagues to take a look at.

When she came back, the first thing she said was that there were no defects with either of my two watches, which is always nice to know. She then went on to say that her colleagues had recently become aware of this apparent issue having heard of a couple of cases over the past few weeks. Interestingly, and to her credit, she then admitted that neither she nor her colleagues could offer any explanation as to why there was a difference in the Cyclops magnification between some watches as there had been no advice, official or otherwise, from Rolex to date. It was too late in the day for her to contact Rolex in Geneva as they had shut down for Christmas. However, she is going to pursue the matter in the New Year and has promised to email me with her findings. As soon as I hear back, I shall write another post on TRF and will hopefully be able to provide a meaningful explanation.

In the meantime, I shall no longer get bent out of shape over the difference in magnification between my two watches, safe in the knowledge that my LV is not defective in any way

[dysondiver]

well , not an answer , but a result.

[Old Expat Beast]

No defect in the watches, but poor QC on the cyclops, I think.

[Roger1079]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

No defect in the watches, but poor QC on the cyclops, I think.

This is my opinion as well. The advertised 2.5 times magnification that has always been identical between every Rolex the cyclops is on for as far back as I can remember. Recently though it seems that some watches randomly come with a magnification of about 2 times. I have only seen it on new GMT's and Submariners and all of the AD staff seems to be oblivious and doubting when asked about it the surprised and speechless when it is pointed out to them in their own display cases. I have yet to see it on a Datejust or DJII, DayDate or DDII, SkyDweller, Explorer II, or Yachtmaster though. The precious metal only models like the DD and SkyDweller I can understand as they do not sell as quickly, but no clue why I have not seen it on the Datejust being that it is one of the best selling models.

I think alignment of crowns, and other such OCD stuff isn't worth even thinking about however this is an obvious QC issue as Old Expat Beast said as these variances appear from watch to watch of the exact same reference. That would definitely be one of those things that would bother me as if you know what it is supposed to look like when magnified, it is a constant remider that the watch isn't quite as Rolex intended it to be, whether the watch was deemed perfectly fine by Rolex or not.

[FlyingSpacer]

I called them a few weeks ago about exactly the same thing on my Hulk. They hadn't heard of it then, so I'll be interested to hear the results. I've long since stopped caring about it. I've noticed in the ADs a number of cyclops with smaller magnification since getting my watch.

[Jim Smyth]

It will be interesting to hear the official Rolex explanation. If I remember right doesn't Rolex outsource the magnifiers?

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by Jim Smyth

It will be interesting to hear the official Rolex explanation. If I remember right doesn't Rolex outsource the magnifiers?

One thing I forgot to mention; apparently, all parts are sourced by Rolex.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

One thing I forgot to mention; apparently, all parts are sourced by Rolex.

Sourced by or made by?

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Sourced by or made by?

Made by.

[Sublover2166]

Originally Posted by Jim Smyth

It will be interesting to hear the official Rolex explanation. If I remember right doesn't Rolex outsource the magnifiers?

I believe the crystals and Cyclops are still the only part sourced by a vendor and not made by Rolex. Wonder if there is more than 1 vendor or if there are manufacturing issues with the cyclops

[Cru Jones]

Rolex QC can be so lame sometimes. How hard is it to get it consistent with this much cash flowing in?

Anyway, thanks for the post.

[Roger1079]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Rolex QC can be so lame sometimes. How hard is it to get it consistent with this much cash flowing in?

Anyway, thanks for the post.

Especially since it has been 100% consistent from 1953 until sometime in 2014.

[SC11]

Surely it just a variation in production/supply?!

[Solo118]

I am no watchmaker, but how could the cyclops be so different between these watches?

I think it might be an issue with a gasket, or crystal height that makes the mag go to 1.5x

[MTROIS]

I can say for sure that it is not just a question of model A vs. model B... Because just today, as I was comparing two BLNR at an AD (incoming thread pending...), I could clearly see a difference between the two watches that just arrived from Rolex last Thursday.

Interestingly, the one with the poor magnification had a crown perfectly lined up... While the other one had a perfect magnification but a "crooked" crown.
Needless to say that I picked the one with the cyclop within specs!
I also mentioned it to the sales person who had not heard about this before.

I am really curious to see what Rolex will do about this. It really seems odd to me.

[SoonerTA]

I can't wait to see what comes of this

[Tri-Tip]

Is it possible that the Cyclops are the same but the date wheel is different?

[Rags]

Originally Posted by Tri-Tip

Is it possible that the Cyclops are the same but the date wheel is different?

I believe that might be the case. I have a Squale with a 2.5x magnification & the date fills the window much fuller than my submariner.

[ralpie]

Originally Posted by Tri-Tip

Is it possible that the Cyclops are the same but the date wheel is different?

This blew my mind.

[Sublover2166]

I am surprised nobody has heard ANY feedback from Rolex about this, as it is a valid issue. Magnification has always been 2.5X and clearly some new watches are not. I would refuse to buy one with the lesser date magnification as this is just plain unacceptable for a multi-thousand dollar timepiece.

[Jim Smyth]

The date wheel font could also be the issue. A watchmaker should be able to shed light on that in a side by side comparison of parts.

Cyclops can be found in many places.

http://www.ofrei.com/page474.html

http://www.esslinger.com/generic-rol...nd-tropic.aspx

Where Rolex gets them from (or makes them in house) is anyone's guess. They do come in all sizes and magnifications. If Rolex has changed the magnification it would be nice to know because that was one of the ways to spot a fake.

[Roger1079]

Originally Posted by Jim Smyth

The date wheel font could also be the issue. A watchmaker should be able to shed light on that in a side by side comparison of parts.

Cyclops can be found in many places.

http://www.ofrei.com/page474.html

http://www.esslinger.com/generic-rol...nd-tropic.aspx

Where Rolex gets them from (or makes them in house) is anyone's guess. They do come in all sizes and magnifications. If Rolex has changed the magnification it would be nice to know because that was one of the ways to spot a fake.

It has nothing to do with fonts as the window on the correct 2.5x magnification almost stretches to the edges of the cyclops. If it were a size issue it would be with the dial as well as the date wheel.

[Snow-Dweller]

Originally Posted by Sublover2166

I am surprised nobody has heard ANY feedback from Rolex about this, as it is a valid issue. Magnification has always been 2.5X and clearly some new watches are not. I would refuse to buy one with the lesser date magnification as this is just plain unacceptable for a multi-thousand dollar timepiece.

I agree...we've been seeing threads like this for months now.....I find it hard to believe that Rolex (and the RSCs) are unaware of what is clearly a problem.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Clivek

I agree...we've been seeing threads like this for months now.....I find it hard to believe that Rolex (and the RSCs) are unaware of what is clearly a problem.

No surprise at all.

Only a WIS would notice...

The vast majority of consumers will buy a Rolex and NEVER notice this at all...so Rolex won't worry a nanosecond about it..

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

No surprise at all.

Only a WIS would notice...

The vast majority of consumers will buy a Rolex and NEVER notice this at all...so Rolex won't worry a nanosecond about it..

Have to agree on that one glad I can just wear and enjoy wearing my Rolex watches.

[GradyPhilpott]

I first noticed a difference in magnification on some models some while back. At the time I attributed it to a difference in the height of the rehuat, or bascially, the difference between the cyclops and the date.

Whatever it is, to me it is inconsequential, since as far as I know, Rolex makes no claims as to the effective magnification, except to say that Rolex uses a 2.5x cyclops. It is also inconsequential, since without my glasses, I can't even see the date, cyclops or not.

[MTROIS]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I first noticed a difference in magnification on some models some while back. At the time I attributed it to a difference in the height of the rehuat, or bascially, the difference between the cyclops and the date.

Whatever it is, to me it is inconsequential, since as far as I know, Rolex makes no claims as to the effective magnification, except to say that Rolex uses a 2.5x cyclops. It is also inconsequential, since without my glasses, I can't even see the date, cyclops or not.

I would respectfully disagree with you on this one. Given the purported quality of these watches, I do not think that such variability in the end product is acceptable.

[adamlea]

I'm anxious to see where this goes.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by MTROIS

I would respectfully disagree with you on this one. Given the purported quality of these watches, I do not think that such variability in the end product is acceptable.

Well, that's your opinion and I respect that, but Rolex hasn't stated that every rehaut will be the exact height on every model, if that is indeed the case.

The degree of apparent magnification has varied over the years relative to the kind of material used in the crystal. The old acrylic crystals had a very high magnification relative to models which have the sapphire crystals.

Originally Posted by MTROIS

...a "crooked" crown.

You see, there is no such thing as a "crooked" crown. It is something that bothers a lot of people, but it is a "problem" that does not actually exist, except in the minds of some.

[MTROIS]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Well, that's your opinion and I respect that, but Rolex hasn't stated that every rehaut will be the exact height on every model, if that is indeed the case.

The degree of apparent magnification has varied over the years relative to the kind of material used in the crystal. The old acrylic crystals had a very high magnification relative to models which have the sapphire crystals.



You see, there is no such thing as a "crooked" crown. It is something that bothers a lot of people, but it is a "problem" that does not actually exist, except in the minds of some.

I am happy to agree to disagree!
One of the reasons why I love this forum is indeed because members are respectful of one another.

Also, I agree with you that the crown position is not a problem per say (thus the use of my ""), but I can tell you that if that watch's magnification was spot on, I would not have hesitated to pick the model that looks "as advertised".