ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Tseg · 19 June 2015, 05:11 AM

I thought we would try to get technical here and discern what creates a small-mag effect vs. a large-mag effect. If you can do some macro-shooting I would be interested in understanding the different cyclops shapes.

joe100 · 19 June 2015, 05:39 AM

Such a personal question!

Blnrwearer · 19 June 2015, 05:40 AM

I doubt it has anything to do with thickness. It's the curve on the top that magnifies.

rollee1 · 19 June 2015, 05:45 AM

This is small mag

hannyalife · 19 June 2015, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blnrwearer

I doubt it has anything to do with thickness. It's the curve on the top that magnifies.

This.

I had the same issue with my first Submariner, which resulted in Rolex exchanging my watch for another Submariner. When I brought it back and pointed out the issue, they had 3 Submariner's and a few GMT's all of which had different magnifications. Its not something one notices, but the minute you put them all side by side, it is very noticeable. I didn't think it bothered me at first but, the 2.5x cyclops mag is one of Rolex's trademark I had to bring it back, and I'm glad I did. Much happier with the current 2.5 mag!

azguy · 19 June 2015, 06:18 AM

Name: 20150618_130239_resized.jpg
Views: 569
Size: 43.3 KB

Name: 20150618_130646_resized.jpg
Views: 563
Size: 52.6 KB

Name: 20150618_130736_resized.jpg
Views: 560
Size: 51.6 KB

Name: 20150618_130753_resized.jpg
Views: 559
Size: 38.2 KB

Tseg · 19 June 2015, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azguy

Attachment 631652

Thanks, that cyclops definitely looks more bulbous... and a larger magnification as a result.

john_nch · 19 June 2015, 06:21 AM

These pictures clearly show the squarer edges due to the lesser curvature or decreased convexity of the variant cyclops. I maybe in the minority and some may disagree, but I like how the variant cyclops is inconspicuous.

Ferdelious · 19 June 2015, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe100

Such a personal question!

Beat me to it.

Naz737 · 19 June 2015, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferdelious

Beat me to it.

Thatguy · 19 June 2015, 07:15 AM

Subc 2.5mag. 1.1mm

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tseg · 19 June 2015, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thatguy

Subc 2.5mag. 1.1mm

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting... my less than 2.5 mag is 1.15mm per my digital caliper.

Andad · 19 June 2015, 05:53 PM

Read the 3rd post....

Loevhagen · 19 June 2015, 07:05 PM

A magnifying glass, which uses a positive (convex) lens to make things look bigger by allowing the user to hold them closer to their eye.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics)

watchwatcher · 19 June 2015, 11:26 PM

Hmm...let me measure it and see. I'll get back to you.

azguy · 20 June 2015, 01:57 AM

Name: 20150619_084522_resized.jpg
Views: 345
Size: 53.1 KB

Name: 20150619_084500_resized.jpg
Views: 345
Size: 48.2 KB

Tseg · 20 June 2015, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azguy

Attachment 631908

Attachment 631909

John, how well magnified is your date with that Cyclops, as that does not look too different from my BLNR, which is undermagnified?

azguy · 20 June 2015, 02:55 AM

I think it's under magnified...But didn't know if these vintage Tudor crystals were different..

Name: 20150619_095047_resized.jpg
Views: 310
Size: 52.9 KB

locutus49 · 20 June 2015, 03:15 AM

Maybe Rolex will pass the flatter lens to Tudor to use. They should just trash them, IMO.

pablofields · 20 June 2015, 03:27 AM

"How thick is your cyclops?"

Would make a great euphemistic challenge to one's manhood!

Mr. K · 20 June 2015, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe100

Such a personal question!

yes....

Munch520 · 20 June 2015, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe100

Such a personal question!

Came here to post the same thing

JayJ · 20 June 2015, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe100

Such a personal question!

joe100 · 20 June 2015, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferdelious

Beat me to it.

I'm glad I got a chuckle out of that one. I was typing so fast to get that in there too!

CHRONOLEX · 21 June 2015, 07:42 AM

With respect to the BLNR, I can tell you that before I got my crystal replaced at RSC, I had a tiny magnification and the cyclops sat high off the crystal. Now that it's back and the date is properly magnified, the cyclops gently rises and then rejoins the crystal. Before the height of the cyclops was one of the things I noticed most clearly, especially while I was driving.

AkshayArgade · 21 June 2015, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tseg

I thought we would try to get technical here and discern what creates a small-mag effect vs. a large-mag effect. If you can do some macro-shooting I would be interested in understanding the different cyclops shapes.

I got the exact same thickness cyclops on my dj and its a small mag. I did compare my cyclops to other rolexes which have bigger mag. you are right, bigger ones are not as thick as the smaller ones.

AkshayArgade · 21 June 2015, 02:58 PM

according to me- thick cyclops, lower mag

Andad · 21 June 2015, 04:54 PM

With cyclops of similar size?

jamesbondOO7 · 21 June 2015, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe100

Such a personal question!

That :lol

19 June 2015, 05:11 AM	#1
Tseg "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Real Name: Tom Location: World Traveler Watch: GMT Master II BLNR Posts: 1,583	How Thick Is Your Cyclops? I thought we would try to get technical here and discern what creates a small-mag effect vs. a large-mag effect. If you can do some macro-shooting I would be interested in understanding the different cyclops shapes.

19 June 2015, 05:39 AM	#2
joe100 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Real Name: Joe Location: New Mexico Watch: Explorer Posts: 12,840	Such a personal question! __________________ It's Espresso, not Expresso. Coffee is not a train in Italy. -TRF Member 6982-

19 June 2015, 05:45 AM	#4
rollee1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Real Name: Rollee Location: Boston Watch: it watching me Posts: 1,945	This is small mag __________________ Time you enjoy wasting was not wasted

19 June 2015, 05:53 PM	#13
Andad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Eddie Location: Australia Watch: A few. Posts: 37,534	Read the 3rd post.... __________________ E

21 June 2015, 02:58 PM	#27
AkshayArgade "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Real Name: akshay argade Location: earth Posts: 497	according to me- thick cyclops, lower mag Attached Images

19 June 2015, 05:40 AM	#3
Blnrwearer "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: California, USA Posts: 65	I doubt it has anything to do with thickness. It's the curve on the top that magnifies.

19 June 2015, 06:18 AM	#6
azguy Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Real Name: ------- Location: ------- Watch: --------- Posts: 12,609

19 June 2015, 06:21 AM	#8
john_nch "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: US Watch: 16710B Posts: 69	These pictures clearly show the squarer edges due to the lesser curvature or decreased convexity of the variant cyclops. I maybe in the minority and some may disagree, but I like how the variant cyclops is inconspicuous.

19 June 2015, 07:15 AM	#11
Thatguy "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Real Name: Wayne Location: California Watch: Rolex, PAM Posts: 3,302	Subc 2.5mag. 1.1mm Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

19 June 2015, 07:05 PM	#14
Loevhagen "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: The aperture Posts: 4,941	A magnifying glass, which uses a positive (convex) lens to make things look bigger by allowing the user to hold them closer to their eye. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics)

19 June 2015, 11:26 PM	#15
watchwatcher "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Larry Location: Kentucky Watch: Yes Posts: 35,047	Hmm...let me measure it and see. I'll get back to you.

20 June 2015, 01:57 AM	#16
azguy Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Real Name: ------- Location: ------- Watch: --------- Posts: 12,609

20 June 2015, 02:55 AM	#18
azguy Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Real Name: ------- Location: ------- Watch: --------- Posts: 12,609	I think it's under magnified...But didn't know if these vintage Tudor crystals were different..

20 June 2015, 03:15 AM	#19
locutus49 Banned Join Date: May 2014 Real Name: John Location: La Jolla, CA Watch: Platona Posts: 12,194	Maybe Rolex will pass the flatter lens to Tudor to use. They should just trash them, IMO.

20 June 2015, 03:27 AM	#20
pablofields "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: SF East Bay Posts: 585	"How thick is your cyclops?" Would make a great euphemistic challenge to one's manhood!

21 June 2015, 07:42 AM	#25
CHRONOLEX 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,629	With respect to the BLNR, I can tell you that before I got my crystal replaced at RSC, I had a tiny magnification and the cyclops sat high off the crystal. Now that it's back and the date is properly magnified, the cyclops gently rises and then rejoins the crystal. Before the height of the cyclops was one of the things I noticed most clearly, especially while I was driving.

21 June 2015, 04:54 PM	#28
Andad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Eddie Location: Australia Watch: A few. Posts: 37,534	With cyclops of similar size? __________________ E

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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode