ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Nathan71 · 6 February 2015, 01:58 AM

Hi this is the first time I've posted on this site so I hope I've done it right.Got a new unused rolex explorer 2 white dial with seals stickers box papers etc.manufacture date November 2014.Im just not sure about the size of the date in the cyclops lens it looks a bit low
Please can someone have a look at the pics enclosed and give me some advice

Many thanks

Nathan

AS1 · 6 February 2015, 02:02 AM

It's low, and it's a known issue at the moment. There are several threads about this on the forum. If I were you, I would absolutely go to a RSC to get this fixed.

Nathan71 · 6 February 2015, 02:08 AM

Thanks
Should I take it into a rolex dealer and will they send it away for a repair
I got it off watchfinder a couple of weeks ago I thought it was a replica buts it's mint apart from the low mag
Watchfinder said its under warranty and they would have to send it back to rolex
Is that what you meant by rsc
Thanks

travisb · 6 February 2015, 02:20 AM

Yes RSC is Rolex Service Center.
The mag is low and they can replace the crystal under warranty.
There's so many of these out there....

AS1 · 6 February 2015, 02:29 AM

Not sure where in the UK you are, but there's a RSC in London and they should be able to help you. An AD might help or might not have the motivation to be as helpful as they could be if you didn't buy from them. RSC don't have that luxury!

There is a thread on here about a poster's experience with RSC NY, you should read up on that before going!

As an aside, the fact you thought it might be a replica because of the cyclops issue is exactly why this issue is a serious one.

Good luck!

gwozhog · 6 February 2015, 02:32 AM

Shocking that this keeps on happening to people. I wander how many cyclops were in this bad batch from the factory. Sounds like a automobile service bulletin that should be a recall. Shame on Rolex for releasing a disappointing product.

omx5o · 6 February 2015, 02:48 AM

If anyone questions it, just direct them to the official Rolex website, where it states (2.5x) magnification.

Nathan71 · 6 February 2015, 02:50 AM

Thanks ASL1
That's really helpful
Yes I phoned two rolex AD in liverpool where I live
One said they don't validate and would send it to rolex for them to view it
The other AD wasn't really interested like you said they may be

gerrya · 6 February 2015, 02:58 AM

Here is mine, with the magnification the date numbers are about the size of the numbers on the Bezel.
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ps560bb5f9.jpg

Mirx · 6 February 2015, 03:18 AM

I would not send it back to Watchfinder as it will take longer. Ideally, as already mentioned take it to RSC in London and they will send you the watch when the work is completed. Done this a few times over the years, they are excellent.

Alternatively, you can send your watch (insured) to the London RSC with a request to contact you when they receive the watch. Done this too and have always received a phone call to confirm they received the watch.

john_nch · 6 February 2015, 03:39 AM

You may want to consider watch will need to be gutted (case back opened) for the replacement crystal. Not sure if it would affect your decision, but I have never really heard anyone complain about a sea-dwellers date being too small to read.

Brushpup · 6 February 2015, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_nch

You may want to consider watch will need to be gutted (case back opened) for the replacement crystal. Not sure if it would affect your decision, but I have never really heard anyone complain about a sea-dwellers date being too small to read.

Done by a qualified WM there is no issue with having a watch opened. Especially at RSC.

KBM · 6 February 2015, 06:24 AM

Too bad this keeps happening. Just send it directly back to Rolex and good luck sorting it out!

Nathan71 · 6 February 2015, 06:49 AM

thanks very much everybody feel reassured now
its amazing how theres a lot of talk about perfection and stringent quality control but like life...theres no such thing as perfection..

MrSimba · 6 February 2015, 06:50 AM

Defiantly too low there!

here's mine for you to compare

1995akcoop · 6 February 2015, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan71

Hi this is the first time I've posted on this site so I hope I've done it right.Got a new unused rolex explorer 2 white dial with seals stickers box papers etc.manufacture date November 2014.Im just not sure about the size of the date in the cyclops lens it looks a bit low
Please can someone have a look at the pics enclosed and give me some advice

Many thanks

Nathan

wow thats tiny

Nathan71 · 6 February 2015, 07:36 AM

wow mr simba thats loads bigger
why is my so small
story of my life!!!!

c.capt · 6 February 2015, 07:40 AM

That looks like a cyclops issue. You said you were concerned it may not be real... the best way to tell with this movement is the hand stack and jump hour - hard to fake those features.

ap1 · 6 February 2015, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c.capt

That looks like a cyclops issue. You said you were concerned it may not be real... the best way to tell with this movement is the hand stack and jump hour - hard to fake those features.

curious what hand stack is?

c.capt · 6 February 2015, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ap1

curious what hand stack is?

The order the hands are placed on the dial. In this case, the hour hand should be the lowest followed by the orange second time zone hand.

GradyPhilpott · 6 February 2015, 08:15 AM

That's the worst magnification I've seen to date on a presumably authentic Rolex.

I'd be hard pressed to say that that is any magnification at all, like x1.

Cru Jones · 6 February 2015, 08:28 AM

Hope it gets fixed right and quick.

otisc · 6 February 2015, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

That's the worst magnification I've seen to date on a presumably authentic Rolex.

I'd be hard pressed to say that that is any magnification at all, like x1.

I agree. There are about a half-dozen threads about this problem with photos, but this is the worst I have seen.

Nathan71 · 6 February 2015, 08:30 AM

too right gradyphilpott,its deffo a real rolex....why do you think rolex would vary the magnification like this?
I've been reading all the other posts about this issue...it goes on and on doesn't it
...i knew i should have got that milgauss instead haha

sunnyd · 6 February 2015, 08:46 AM

That looks really low...go get it replaced.

rmfnla · 6 February 2015, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brushpup

Done by a qualified WM there is no issue with having a watch opened. Especially at RSC.

Exactly...

AK797 · 6 February 2015, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan71

too right gradyphilpott,its deffo a real rolex....why do you think rolex would vary the magnification like this?
I've been reading all the other posts about this issue...it goes on and on doesn't it
...i knew i should have got that milgauss instead haha

So it has the correct hand stack? Can't quite tell from the pic.

If so send or take direct to RSC in St James don't go to WF.

GradyPhilpott · 6 February 2015, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan71

too right gradyphilpott,its deffo a real rolex....why do you think rolex would vary the magnification like this?
I've been reading all the other posts about this issue...it goes on and on doesn't it
...i knew i should have got that milgauss instead haha

Rolex has a new CEO who has a reputation for shaking up things. I don't think that this is the way to shake up things at Rolex and I'm not saying that these things we are seeing are necessarily planned, but they may indeed be the effects in changes in policy and protocol.

If this is more than just a bad shipment that slipped through, it is a very bad sign, as even on bad shipment slipping through is a very unusual thing for Rolex, who once rejected an entire shipment of 904L steel because of one bad sample.

silverbug · 6 February 2015, 10:09 AM

I had a quick look at the window display today of a local AD to see if any of their stock suffered from this known cyclops issue.
Sure enough they had one there, a BLNR at a mag of 1.0 by the look of it ,positioned about an inch away from a black GMT II that appeared perfect in all respects.
I was quite shocked that it was so obvious the magnification was different on the 2 watches yet they were still there, side by side in the window of a large AD.
I wouldn't be at all happy if I were the purchaser of that BLNR, it shows that there are still affected watches out there......

soap_1984 · 6 February 2015, 02:10 PM

That's almost laughable if this is a genuine piece. Most of the others I have seen were at least in the realm of 2.5x but this looks like almost no magnification at all.

Update once you get it sorted out.
I wonder if there is a specific period of production associated with this quality issue?

6 February 2015, 01:58 AM	#1
Nathan71 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Liverpool Posts: 160	Cyclops mag looks low on my new rolex explorer 216570 Hi this is the first time I've posted on this site so I hope I've done it right.Got a new unused rolex explorer 2 white dial with seals stickers box papers etc.manufacture date November 2014.Im just not sure about the size of the date in the cyclops lens it looks a bit low Please can someone have a look at the pics enclosed and give me some advice Many thanks Nathan Attached Images

6 February 2015, 02:20 AM	#4
travisb 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Real Name: Travis Location: FL / NYC Watch: Yes.. Posts: 33,493	Cyclops mag looks low on my new rolex explorer 216570 Yes RSC is Rolex Service Center. The mag is low and they can replace the crystal under warranty. There's so many of these out there....

6 February 2015, 02:32 AM	#6
gwozhog "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Point Blank, TX Posts: 2,894	Shocking that this keeps on happening to people. I wander how many cyclops were in this bad batch from the factory. Sounds like a automobile service bulletin that should be a recall. Shame on Rolex for releasing a disappointing product. __________________ I once dated a girl in high school and her dad told me I would never amount to anything. He was right

6 February 2015, 07:40 AM	#18
c.capt "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Chicago, IL Watch: Hulk Sub Posts: 683	That looks like a cyclops issue. You said you were concerned it may not be real... the best way to tell with this movement is the hand stack and jump hour - hard to fake those features. __________________ BALL EHC Airborne · EHC Black \| EBEL 1911 BTR Chrono \| GLASHÜTTE ORIGINAL Senator Navigator Panodate IWC Aquatimer 2000 \| OMEGA SMPc · SM PO 8500 · Speedmaster Apollo XI 35th · Speedmaster GSOTM ROLEX Datejust · Datejust II · Explorer II · Sea Dweller Ceramic 4000 · Submariner LVc \| TUDOR Black Shield

6 February 2015, 08:15 AM	#21
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK047 Posts: 34,460	That's the worst magnification I've seen to date on a presumably authentic Rolex. I'd be hard pressed to say that that is any magnification at all, like x1. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

6 February 2015, 02:02 AM	#2
AS1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: NYC / Milan Watch: 6263 Posts: 3,938	It's low, and it's a known issue at the moment. There are several threads about this on the forum. If I were you, I would absolutely go to a RSC to get this fixed.

6 February 2015, 02:08 AM	#3
Nathan71 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Liverpool Posts: 160	Thanks Should I take it into a rolex dealer and will they send it away for a repair I got it off watchfinder a couple of weeks ago I thought it was a replica buts it's mint apart from the low mag Watchfinder said its under warranty and they would have to send it back to rolex Is that what you meant by rsc Thanks

6 February 2015, 02:29 AM	#5
AS1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: NYC / Milan Watch: 6263 Posts: 3,938	Not sure where in the UK you are, but there's a RSC in London and they should be able to help you. An AD might help or might not have the motivation to be as helpful as they could be if you didn't buy from them. RSC don't have that luxury! There is a thread on here about a poster's experience with RSC NY, you should read up on that before going! As an aside, the fact you thought it might be a replica because of the cyclops issue is exactly why this issue is a serious one. Good luck!

6 February 2015, 02:48 AM	#7
omx5o "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Real Name: Richard Location: UK Watch: Tudor Ranger Posts: 1,613	If anyone questions it, just direct them to the official Rolex website, where it states (2.5x) magnification.

6 February 2015, 02:50 AM	#8
Nathan71 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Liverpool Posts: 160	Thanks ASL1 That's really helpful Yes I phoned two rolex AD in liverpool where I live One said they don't validate and would send it to rolex for them to view it The other AD wasn't really interested like you said they may be

6 February 2015, 02:58 AM	#9
gerrya "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Real Name: Gerry Location: Mahopac, NY Watch: Exp II Polar Posts: 129	Here is mine, with the magnification the date numbers are about the size of the numbers on the Bezel. http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ps560bb5f9.jpg

6 February 2015, 03:18 AM	#10
Mirx "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: UK Watch: RLX Posts: 437	I would not send it back to Watchfinder as it will take longer. Ideally, as already mentioned take it to RSC in London and they will send you the watch when the work is completed. Done this a few times over the years, they are excellent. Alternatively, you can send your watch (insured) to the London RSC with a request to contact you when they receive the watch. Done this too and have always received a phone call to confirm they received the watch.

6 February 2015, 03:39 AM	#11
john_nch "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: US Watch: 16710B Posts: 69	You may want to consider watch will need to be gutted (case back opened) for the replacement crystal. Not sure if it would affect your decision, but I have never really heard anyone complain about a sea-dwellers date being too small to read.

6 February 2015, 06:24 AM	#13
KBM 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: K. Location: 780 Posts: 10,460	Too bad this keeps happening. Just send it directly back to Rolex and good luck sorting it out!

6 February 2015, 06:49 AM	#14
Nathan71 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Liverpool Posts: 160	thanks very much everybody feel reassured now its amazing how theres a lot of talk about perfection and stringent quality control but like life...theres no such thing as perfection..

6 February 2015, 06:50 AM	#15
MrSimba "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: uk Watch: DSSD & ExpII Posts: 259	Defiantly too low there! here's mine for you to compare

6 February 2015, 07:36 AM	#17
Nathan71 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Liverpool Posts: 160	wow mr simba thats loads bigger why is my so small story of my life!!!!

6 February 2015, 08:28 AM	#22
Cru Jones 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Paris, France Posts: 35,300	Hope it gets fixed right and quick.

6 February 2015, 08:30 AM	#24
Nathan71 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Liverpool Posts: 160	too right gradyphilpott,its deffo a real rolex....why do you think rolex would vary the magnification like this? I've been reading all the other posts about this issue...it goes on and on doesn't it ...i knew i should have got that milgauss instead haha

6 February 2015, 08:46 AM	#25
sunnyd "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: CA Watch: me watch you Posts: 461	That looks really low...go get it replaced. __________________ 116610LVc 1803 Wideboy 1680 Red MKIV

6 February 2015, 10:09 AM	#29
silverbug "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: UK Watch: 116610LN Posts: 52	I had a quick look at the window display today of a local AD to see if any of their stock suffered from this known cyclops issue. Sure enough they had one there, a BLNR at a mag of 1.0 by the look of it ,positioned about an inch away from a black GMT II that appeared perfect in all respects. I was quite shocked that it was so obvious the magnification was different on the 2 watches yet they were still there, side by side in the window of a large AD. I wouldn't be at all happy if I were the purchaser of that BLNR, it shows that there are still affected watches out there...... __________________ Submariner 116610LN Air-King 114200

6 February 2015, 02:10 PM	#30
soap_1984 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Toronto Posts: 13	That's almost laughable if this is a genuine piece. Most of the others I have seen were at least in the realm of 2.5x but this looks like almost no magnification at all. Update once you get it sorted out. I wonder if there is a specific period of production associated with this quality issue?

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