ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
14 July 2015, 11:35 AM | #31 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Calumet Harbor
Watch: ing da Bears
Posts: 13,568
|
Or... it was intentional. The low mag can be read from all sorts of angles. The "normal" mag needs to be more straight on.
Is it possible that Rolex tried to make the date more readable for the average buyer with a new beta test mag? I would be curious to know what percent of purchases result in a request for the higher mag (I can dream). If they withdraw it, I guess we'll know. |
14 July 2015, 12:45 PM | #32 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Real Name: J
Location: The great Midwest
Watch: youlookinat?
Posts: 2,369
|
Big difference!
Smart idea taking photo's before and after......that provided REAL insight on why an issue exists. It's now crystal clear that there are at least two different versions of cyclops circulating on newer models. |
14 July 2015, 01:21 PM | #33 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Taiwan
Watch: Rolex BLNR
Posts: 2,308
|
Congrats! It is a great and happy ending for you.
|
14 July 2015, 04:17 PM | #34 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Watch: 116710, 114300
Posts: 88
|
It's a completely different profile. The low mag has a flat edge on all sides, the proper cyclops has a flat edge top and bottom, and rounded edge side to side. Must be two different suppliers.
|
14 July 2015, 05:29 PM | #35 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2015
Real Name: Tony
Location: london
Watch: Datejust 11
Posts: 356
|
Looks a lot better.
As it should do, we pay a lot of money for a Rolex watch, and should not recieve bad goods. Congrats, top draw watch sir.. |
14 July 2015, 07:14 PM | #36 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Real Name: Tom
Location: World Traveler
Watch: GMT Master II BLNR
Posts: 1,583
|
^^^^^^^^ Not sure I've heard this theory before but it could explain a lot.
Knowing the cyclops is one of the few components Rolex does not make maybe they implemented a business contingency plan and introduced a 2nd supplier a few years back with a 3 or 5 year deal to supply 15% of demand. Of course there is the additional benefit of keeping 2 suppliers honest with pricing. - could explain the difference in design - could explain why this is ongoing in a small but significant % of watches Rolex could be in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. |
14 July 2015, 07:32 PM | #37 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: Travis
Location: FL / NYC
Watch: Yes..
Posts: 33,493
|
Big improvement. Great watch!
|
14 July 2015, 07:39 PM | #38 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Wales
Watch: 126603
Posts: 2,606
|
Congratulations, I'm glad it's sorted.
It's interesting looking at the before and after profile there is a definite difference, I'll check mine out when I arrive home later. |
14 July 2015, 08:15 PM | #39 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Real Name: Vincent B
Location: New York, NY
Watch: '06 GMT Master II
Posts: 1,261
|
You're better than I am. I didn't want to deal with the RSC here in NYC over this and just flipped my 116710 and got a Daytona.
I'll circle back to the newer models when this issue is resolved. Congrats! Looks great!
__________________
Wearing Today: * Seiko SRP777 (2017) |
14 July 2015, 08:21 PM | #40 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canada
Watch: BLNR
Posts: 1,019
|
Looks perfect now! Glad everything worked out for you.
__________________
Rolex GMT-Master IIc 116710BLNR |
14 July 2015, 09:41 PM | #41 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Real Name: Chopped Liver
Location: S. Wales Valleys
Watch: Mickey Mouse
Posts: 9,926
|
Looks great. Glad it worked out for you
__________________
116520 Black, 116610 LVc, 116660 D-Blue, 116610 LNc, 116622 Blue, PAM359, PAM689, PAM737 "Why should you allow an AD to shake you down, just so you can buy a watch" - Grady Philpott Card carrying member of TRF's Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons
|
14 July 2015, 09:57 PM | #42 |
"TRF" Life Patron
Join Date: Jun 2005
Real Name: Peter
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng
Watch: ing you.
Posts: 53,063
|
Have to agree and would expect if it was not for the many forums you would have been perfectly happy with your watch as it was before the cyclops change.
__________________
ICom Pro3 All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only. "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever." Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again. www.mc0yad.club Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder |
14 July 2015, 10:07 PM | #43 |
2024 ROLEX SUBMARINER 41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Real Name: Lee
Location: 42.48.45N70.48.48
Watch: Too many to list!
Posts: 33,697
|
This is a likely guess, since sapphire is a crystal this was likely grown in a boule, polished to shape and then cut to thickness. At least if I were manufacturing it that's how I'd do it. Very similar to how semiconductor wafer are made in general. It would also explain the thickness differences. I suspect that there is an issue in getting the shape correct during the polishing portion when they give it the either spherical or parabolic shape.
|
14 July 2015, 11:17 PM | #44 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Real Name: Richie
Location: "Nowhere Man"
Watch: out now,take care!
Posts: 29,775
|
Agree. I believe both of mine are small, a GMT and a SUB. Since both are the same, they are staying just the way they are.
__________________
"I love to work at nothing all day" TRF #139960 |
15 July 2015, 12:09 AM | #45 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SNA
Posts: 3,637
|
Some pics of my SubC cyclops
From a few inches away From about a foot away, photo cropped From further away, date window looks a little larger in the cyclops, as expected from a magnifying glass The cyclops isn't as easy to photograph with an iPhone Cyclops from the bottom of the watch Cyclops from the side of the side Another shot from the side, with a slight angle The curvature of the cyclops on my SubC looks like the replacement cyclops for the OP's BLNR. If you're not sure if your cyclops magnification is weak, look at the profile of the cyclops, and if it's flatter, the weaker magnification observed is real. |
16 July 2015, 09:29 AM | #46 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SNA
Posts: 3,637
|
Quote:
|
|
16 July 2015, 12:49 PM | #47 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Real Name: Tom
Location: World Traveler
Watch: GMT Master II BLNR
Posts: 1,583
|
Quote:
With that said, my new cyclops view of the date is phat, with a P-H. I'm still ecstatic I made the decision to go with the replacement. My new watch look inspires increased boldness. I did not buy a Rolex to be timid. |
|
17 July 2015, 07:52 AM | #48 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Real Name: Tom
Location: World Traveler
Watch: GMT Master II BLNR
Posts: 1,583
|
|
17 July 2015, 07:59 AM | #49 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Here!
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 4,366
|
Very nice....enjoy!
__________________
16610LN | 16613LB | 16710 Pepsi | 118238 | 116500 (White) | 116500 (Black) | 116710BLNR | 116610LV "The one thing I fear most is time; time waits for no one and leaves no options."
|
17 July 2015, 08:12 AM | #50 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SNA
Posts: 3,637
|
Quote:
Definitive evidence that something is different, and the magnification discrepancies are not just perceived but due to actual physical differences. The greater curvature of the replacement cyclops would provide greater magnification. If Rolex is so willing to replace the cyclops, perhaps they had a irregular batch that deviates from their usual specs, and how many of these were used in production? They obviously have a supply of cyclops with greater magnification. |
|
17 July 2015, 09:47 AM | #51 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Toronto, Canada
Watch: 1675/1016/5513
Posts: 105
|
+1
Quote:
|
|
7 August 2015, 04:21 AM | #52 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: FL
Watch: platinum sub
Posts: 15,884
|
has rolex actually commented on this matter?
|
7 August 2015, 04:25 AM | #53 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NYC / Milan
Watch: 6263
Posts: 3,938
|
|
7 August 2015, 06:53 AM | #54 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: CA
Posts: 655
|
What if, years down the road, watches with low mag turn out to be highly desirable by the collecting public? What once was considered a quality control issue that got a lot of owners bent out of shape ends up being a rare and unique quality of an otherwise ordinary watch. You know, like the "tropical" and "Patrizzi" dials and faded red or "fuschia" GMT bezels or the "Ghost" or even the patina effect. Did we ever think that there was a time in the past when these vintage qualities were once considered defects? Hilarious...
|
7 August 2015, 07:05 AM | #55 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: FL
Watch: platinum sub
Posts: 15,884
|
Quote:
|
|
21 November 2015, 09:34 PM | #56 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1
|
Hello all
First time poster here. I realise I am resurrection an old thread but felt it appropriate as it was this thread in particular (as well as a number of others) that helped me get my low mag problem on my subc date sorted out. Just wanted to share my experience as the various threads on this forum helped me a lot. I realised my subc had the low mag issue when comparing to other rolex watches a few months after getting mine back in May this year. Google led me here after the initial worries about fakes etc. I identified mine to have exactly the same issue from Tseg's excellent photos showing the squarer profile, low mag cyclops. I'm in the UK and don't live close to the RSC in London but do travel there occasionally on business. I didn't want to mess about trying to convince the AD there was a problem, so I decided I would visit the RSC (St James sq) when I next visited which turned out to be at the end of October. I was initially a bit worried they would deny any issue. However, after a quick explanation and examination, the chap on reception said something along the lines of "Yes, I can see there is an issue with that and we can fix that under warranty sir by replacing the crystal" - simple as that!! I also asked if they would be able to regulate my watch as it was running c2.5 secs a day slow and I prefer my watches to run a little fast. That was also no problem, they said they would also take care of that, with no charge (despite it being within COSC specs. He said they aim to complete warranty work as a priority within 7-10 working days, including pressure testing and regulating/ monitoring the timing in different positions over several days. Frankly I was really pleased with that as I was expecting it to take a fair bit longer. I received my watch back about 2 1/2 weeks later (a little longer than stated, but no issue) by fully insured mail delivery to my office. The results are exactly the same as in Tseg's "after" photos and in the few days I've had the watch back, it seems to be running at c +1.5s a day, so I'm really pleased with it. In summary, RSC london didn't admit to any wider scale issue, but clearly recognised the low mag issue, how it would be resolved and offered to fix it straight away, with no fuss. This would lead me to believe they are actually aware of this and must have come across this on at least a few occasions recently. The new cyclops on my watch has the same profile as Tseg's, with the domed appearance, rather than the squarer profile of the low mag version. If you have the same issue and want it fixing, RSC London were very accommodating and I had my watch back pretty quickly. Thanks for the useful information on this forum and I hope my story is useful too. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.