ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Andrés G · 6 December 2011, 02:37 AM

Please give me your opinion. Is it me or something is wrong with either the magnification or cyclops on this Sub. I can´t tell what it is, but something seems off.

Thanks for your help.

Am I crazy?

chill · 6 December 2011, 02:40 AM

looks weird, but to me that whole new sub design looks a bit off as well.

The GMT Master · 6 December 2011, 02:41 AM

These cyclops with the AR coating don't appear to have quite the same magnification as cyclops without it. Nothing to be concerned about, however

Tri-Tip · 6 December 2011, 02:43 AM

Your rehaut looks more tapered than mine, more like a DSSD.

dcash0615 · 6 December 2011, 02:53 AM

All looks good to me. I see no issues. Wear it and enjoy.

smallcandle · 6 December 2011, 02:54 AM

Looks fine to me as well...

Mickey® · 6 December 2011, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrés G

Please give me your opinion. Is it me or something is wrong with either the magnification or cyclops on this Sub. I can´t tell what it is, but something seems off.

Thanks for your help.

Am I crazy?

Your great at taking pictures. Can you take one "under" the cyclops so we can see the number un-magnified?

Looks so clear. Must be the AR they are now using. Also it appears larger too...covers more of the crystal but with these macro photos. Who knows!

Andrés G · 6 December 2011, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tri-Tip

Your rehaut looks more tapered than mine, more like a DSSD.

You´re not helping my OCD.

robertneville · 6 December 2011, 04:00 AM

looks good to me!

mrbill2mrbill2 · 6 December 2011, 08:38 AM

That's the way the 116610 cyclops looks. Not the same as the 16610. It's almost looks like a fake compared to the classic Subs.

Andrés G · 6 December 2011, 09:27 AM

Thanks guys for your help.

Andrés G · 6 December 2011, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

These cyclops with the AR coating don't appear to have quite the same magnification as cyclops without it. Nothing to be concerned about, however

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbill2mrbill2

That's the way the 116610 cyclops looks. Not the same as the 16610. It's almost looks like a fake compared to the classic Subs.

I think you both got it. The magnification is different making the date window look smaller. Thanks.

cedargrove · 6 December 2011, 01:12 PM

Looks good.

Kevin.S · 6 December 2011, 01:37 PM

Send it to me, I'll let you know if it's OK :)

Andrés G · 6 December 2011, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey®

Can you take one "under" the cyclops so we can see the number un-magnified?

Took a couple of pics. This was the best shot.

oneillba · 6 December 2011, 02:42 PM

Wonky!

mcjp6 · 6 December 2011, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrés G

Please give me your opinion.

I do not like it...can you provide a link?

MP5 · 6 December 2011, 07:34 PM

Unfortunately it's real, that's how they look now, like older fakies.

mcjp6 · 6 December 2011, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP5

Unfortunately it's real, that's how they look now, like older fakies.

what do you mean, exactly...?

MP5 · 6 December 2011, 07:48 PM

Pretty much exactly that, the new cyclops look like the fake 16610 did. A common way to identify fakes as the fakers couldn't reproduce the Rolex cyclops. Now neither can Rolex

MP5 · 6 December 2011, 07:57 PM

One thing is odd about this watch is the coronet base is one I have not seen, most are more open. You know the Rolex dial changes though

RolexWatcher · 6 December 2011, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP5

One thing is odd about this watch is the coronet base is one I have not seen, most are more open. You know the Rolex dial changes though

Hmm good point...but I am not familar with the SubC

Andrés G · 6 December 2011, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcjp6

I do not like it...can you provide a link?

What kind of link are you talking about?

Selmer Saxman · 7 December 2011, 04:14 PM

'v

GradyPhilpott · 7 December 2011, 05:17 PM

The more I look at this watch, the more questionable it becomes.

The bezel does look wokky.

The coronet on the dial looks "different."

The script on the dial does not look crisp.

I hope I'm wrong about all that.

Andrés G · 7 December 2011, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

The more I look at this watch, the more questionable it becomes.

The bezel does look wokky.

The coronet on the dial looks "different."

The script on the dial does not look crisp.

I hope I'm wrong about all that.

Are you sure about this? Do you think the watch has other issues?

The script on the dial is crisp, it may have to do with the focus on my pics.

bayerische · 8 December 2011, 12:56 AM

I would say you are ok.

GradyPhilpott · 8 December 2011, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrés G

Are you sure about this? Do you think the watch has other issues?

The script on the dial is crisp, it may have to do with the focus on my pics.

No, I'm not sure and I don't mean to alarm you, but you did ask the question, which led to further examination.

The thing to do is to take it to an AD and compare it or talk with a Rolex certified watchmaker who can advise you as to the issue.

So, forgive me, if I caused alarm.

Richmond1958 · 8 December 2011, 01:45 AM

Andres --

For what its worth, here is a link to a ceramic sub from one of TRF's most trusted sellers (DavidSW).

http://rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=204185

This watch also seems to be similar to yours in terms of the magnification, so I'm sure you are fine. Also, The GMT Master (my personal, recently adopted "patron saint" of anything Rolex ... smile) chimed in earlier on and said that it is perfectly normal. Of course, nothing wrong with stopping in to the authorized and just asking about AR coatings and magnification. With any luck they will have one in the case that you can compare against.

When ordering my ceramic sub and comparing it against the previous design, I did notice a difference and, to me, the date actually looked sharper on the cyclops on the ceramic sub (which I liked).

6 December 2011, 02:37 AM	#1
Andrés G "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Guatemala Posts: 3,392	Is it me or something is wrong with this cyclops? Please give me your opinion. Is it me or something is wrong with either the magnification or cyclops on this Sub. I can´t tell what it is, but something seems off. Thanks for your help. Am I crazy?

6 December 2011, 02:54 AM	#6
smallcandle "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: Brian Location: Kansas Watch: 16610, Omega PO Posts: 1,898	Looks fine to me as well... __________________ Things got out of control and I had to stab a clown...

6 December 2011, 04:00 AM	#9
robertneville "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: Greg Location: PA Watch: me burn Posts: 1,435	looks good to me! __________________ Motocross is life!

6 December 2011, 08:38 AM	#10
mrbill2mrbill2 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Real Name: Mr. Bill Location: South Florida Watch: 16610 Posts: 6,148	That's the way the 116610 cyclops looks. Not the same as the 16610. It's almost looks like a fake compared to the classic Subs. __________________ Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of the Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons - ID # 13

6 December 2011, 02:42 PM	#16
oneillba "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: Brian Location: Hamilton, MI USA Watch: My beloved TT DJ Posts: 3,831	Wonky! __________________ My Trusty TT DJ

6 December 2011, 02:40 AM	#2
chill "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: New York Posts: 149	looks weird, but to me that whole new sub design looks a bit off as well.

6 December 2011, 02:41 AM	#3
The GMT Master "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Chris Location: England Posts: 8,150	These cyclops with the AR coating don't appear to have quite the same magnification as cyclops without it. Nothing to be concerned about, however

6 December 2011, 02:43 AM	#4
Tri-Tip "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: CA, USA Watch: Out!!! Posts: 6,474	Your rehaut looks more tapered than mine, more like a DSSD.

6 December 2011, 02:53 AM	#5
dcash0615 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: Dave Location: CA Watch: es Posts: 4,395	All looks good to me. I see no issues. Wear it and enjoy.

6 December 2011, 09:27 AM	#11
Andrés G "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Guatemala Posts: 3,392	Thanks guys for your help.

6 December 2011, 01:12 PM	#13
cedargrove "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Real Name: Rich Location: Canada Watch: Milgauss, GMT IIc Posts: 3,013	Looks good.

6 December 2011, 01:37 PM	#14
Kevin.S 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Real Name: Kevin Location: Maine Watch: All of them Posts: 1,376	Send it to me, I'll let you know if it's OK :)

6 December 2011, 07:34 PM	#18
MP5 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: ATX Posts: 2,886	Unfortunately it's real, that's how they look now, like older fakies.

6 December 2011, 07:48 PM	#20
MP5 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: ATX Posts: 2,886	Pretty much exactly that, the new cyclops look like the fake 16610 did. A common way to identify fakes as the fakers couldn't reproduce the Rolex cyclops. Now neither can Rolex

6 December 2011, 07:57 PM	#21
MP5 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: ATX Posts: 2,886	One thing is odd about this watch is the coronet base is one I have not seen, most are more open. You know the Rolex dial changes though

7 December 2011, 04:14 PM	#24
Selmer Saxman "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Real Name: Art Smith Location: NH, USA Watch: Rolex TT Datejust Posts: 6	'v

7 December 2011, 05:17 PM	#25
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK050 Posts: 34,460	The more I look at this watch, the more questionable it becomes. The bezel does look wokky. The coronet on the dial looks "different." The script on the dial does not look crisp. I hope I'm wrong about all that. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

8 December 2011, 12:56 AM	#27
bayerische "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Real Name: Andreas Location: Margaritaville Watch: Smurf Posts: 19,879	I would say you are ok. __________________ Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

8 December 2011, 01:45 AM	#29
Richmond1958 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Real Name: Rich Location: USA - Minnesota Watch: 116610LN Posts: 97	Andres -- For what its worth, here is a link to a ceramic sub from one of TRF's most trusted sellers (DavidSW). http://rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=204185 This watch also seems to be similar to yours in terms of the magnification, so I'm sure you are fine. Also, The GMT Master (my personal, recently adopted "patron saint" of anything Rolex ... smile) chimed in earlier on and said that it is perfectly normal. Of course, nothing wrong with stopping in to the authorized and just asking about AR coatings and magnification. With any luck they will have one in the case that you can compare against. When ordering my ceramic sub and comparing it against the previous design, I did notice a difference and, to me, the date actually looked sharper on the cyclops on the ceramic sub (which I liked).

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