ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

JPizzzle · 6 February 2015, 03:59 AM

Hey Folks,

Sorry for adding to the threads about cyclops magnification concern, but i'm trying to be proactive in this purchase rather than reactive. My dealer has two blnr's in stock that she is offering at a good discount. The place is an hour from my work and I want to stop by, but wanted to show pics of the two different watches she sent me. Any issues with the magnification on either one-or reason to chose one over the other? I'm leaning towards the one with the"8" in the date window due to the cyclops looking straighter I guess and the crown on the reheat being more centered. I'm not saying that these things should be an issue for anyone, but if having a choice, I might as well take things into consideration.

Truly, thanks in advance.

JP

AS1 · 6 February 2015, 04:10 AM

both seem normal to me at least

GradyPhilpott · 6 February 2015, 04:13 AM

The camera angles are different, so that much is hard to discern from the photo, but you should definitely pick the one that pleases you most.

Mirx · 6 February 2015, 04:13 AM

Agree. Both are fine.

jwallace8 · 6 February 2015, 04:25 AM

Different camera angles always messed with the cyclops/date centering. IMO it's very rare to see a crooked cyclops on the newer style Rolex models. That being said, the one on top does seem to be slightly straighter than the second one. Most likely camera angles though.

Minimalist · 6 February 2015, 04:32 AM

The cyclops with the three looks crooked to me also. Go for the '8' date one.

rmfnla · 6 February 2015, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

The cyclops with the three looks crooked to me also. Go for the '8' date one.

Could easily be camera angle.

Best to decide once you can see them in person...

Ritch99 · 6 February 2015, 04:54 AM

Looks like camera angle...mag looks good at 2.5x

Minimalist · 6 February 2015, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmfnla

Could easily be camera angle.

Best to decide once you can see them in person...

Maybe, but since I've seen quite a few crooked cyclops it's most probably because it is. And even if the camera angle is off the date window should be parallel to the edge of the cyclops... I think anyway.

sunnyd · 6 February 2015, 05:02 AM

Seems like normal magnification.

timuS · 6 February 2015, 05:27 AM

The "3" looks crooked. Go with the "8"...With close to a million watches produced each year these things can happen

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sublover2166 · 6 February 2015, 05:38 AM

Both have the correct magnification. Either one is fine.

pfg1 · 6 February 2015, 05:43 AM

Use a loupe to inspect both watches........

h638 · 6 February 2015, 05:47 AM

Both look fine.

ELITEVIDEOGAMES · 6 February 2015, 05:48 AM

looks good to me

Brian Page · 6 February 2015, 05:49 AM

They seem normal but I like the number 8 better than the number 3

JPizzzle · 6 February 2015, 06:40 AM

Quick, helpful advice! Thanks guys!!!

JPizzzle · 6 February 2015, 08:13 AM

Bonus question-I have one dealer offering new for $8100 and this one new for $8300 which includes an extra 2 years of warranty, which they state will go through Rolex. Would make no sense to not pay the extra $200 for the warranty I'm thinking? Both no tax

busytimmy · 6 February 2015, 09:58 AM

Both are fine. Camera angle makes the '3' look crooked.

Andad · 6 February 2015, 10:10 AM

Both look ok.

Bruins7 · 6 February 2015, 10:34 AM

Return it all!

ap1 · 6 February 2015, 11:21 AM

83 hundo, no brainer for two more years

LarryJoo · 6 February 2015, 11:51 AM

I'd be interested in seeing a normal 2.5 compared to a lesser magnification one.
I'm not sure if mine is correct or not and I can't go to any AD's for a while.
I have a DateJust II and I think it is ok but not sure. I didn't know of this issue when I purchased it a month ago

Larry

regnant · 6 February 2015, 07:55 PM

I have an exact watch but don't remember about these dates. I have another watch with cyclops, DJ II, some numbers seem like misaligned but I think it's due to double digits vs singular digits.
For instance: 6 exactly sits in the middle equal space between left and right
27 is a different story, 7 by microns of microns look bigger than 2
Don't let these bother you

henry333 · 6 February 2015, 07:55 PM

Gotta see it in person .. But from the pictures both looks fine . Angle of the shot can be the reason why

travisb · 6 February 2015, 11:05 PM

Mag is good on both.
I also think it's the camera angle but the cyclops with the "3" appears slightly crooked.
Just go with the "8".

JPizzzle · 7 February 2015, 03:00 AM

Thanks everyone. Cyclopes have always looked crooked to me when looking at close up photos. Are they supposed to be parallel to the date window? If I look at the "8" photo even that looks a little off if you apply a straight line over it. Strange....

6 February 2015, 03:59 AM	#1
JPizzzle "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: USA Posts: 229	Another cyclops thread Hey Folks, Sorry for adding to the threads about cyclops magnification concern, but i'm trying to be proactive in this purchase rather than reactive. My dealer has two blnr's in stock that she is offering at a good discount. The place is an hour from my work and I want to stop by, but wanted to show pics of the two different watches she sent me. Any issues with the magnification on either one-or reason to chose one over the other? I'm leaning towards the one with the"8" in the date window due to the cyclops looking straighter I guess and the crown on the reheat being more centered. I'm not saying that these things should be an issue for anyone, but if having a choice, I might as well take things into consideration. Truly, thanks in advance. JP Attached Images

6 February 2015, 04:13 AM	#3
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK050 Posts: 34,460	The camera angles are different, so that much is hard to discern from the photo, but you should definitely pick the one that pleases you most. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

6 February 2015, 05:02 AM	#10
sunnyd "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: CA Watch: me watch you Posts: 461	Seems like normal magnification. __________________ 116610LVc 1803 Wideboy 1680 Red MKIV

6 February 2015, 05:27 AM	#11
timuS "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Earth Watch: es out for watches Posts: 85	The "3" looks crooked. Go with the "8"...With close to a million watches produced each year these things can happen Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk __________________ Tempus Fugit - Carpe Diem - Memento Mori!

6 February 2015, 05:43 AM	#13
pfg1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wisconsin Watch: 116622 YM Blue Posts: 505	Use a loupe to inspect both watches........ __________________ Life is filled with choices......and consequences! 2019 Sky-Dweller Giveaway 2019 GMT CHNR Giveaway 2019 DEEPSEA Giveaway 2018 Rolex Red SD43 Giveaway 2018 Bond Submariner Giveaway 2020 Rolex + Tudor GMT Giveaway 2020 Rolex Submariner Giveaway

6 February 2015, 04:10 AM	#2
AS1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: NYC / Milan Watch: 6263 Posts: 3,938	both seem normal to me at least

6 February 2015, 04:13 AM	#4
Mirx "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: UK Watch: RLX Posts: 437	Agree. Both are fine.

6 February 2015, 04:25 AM	#5
jwallace8 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 5	Different camera angles always messed with the cyclops/date centering. IMO it's very rare to see a crooked cyclops on the newer style Rolex models. That being said, the one on top does seem to be slightly straighter than the second one. Most likely camera angles though.

6 February 2015, 04:32 AM	#6
Minimalist "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: London Posts: 1,221	The cyclops with the three looks crooked to me also. Go for the '8' date one.

6 February 2015, 04:54 AM	#8
Ritch99 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Real Name: Mitch Location: CONUS Watch: DSSD and others Posts: 1,186	Looks like camera angle...mag looks good at 2.5x

6 February 2015, 05:38 AM	#12
Sublover2166 Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Real Name: John Location: Manassas,Virginia Watch: Ol'Bluesy & Hulk Posts: 2,871	Both have the correct magnification. Either one is fine.

6 February 2015, 05:47 AM	#14
h638 Banned Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Wales UK Watch: Cosmograph Daytona Posts: 70	Both look fine.

6 February 2015, 05:48 AM	#15
ELITEVIDEOGAMES "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Real Name: Tom Location: Long Island NY Watch: me sell games Posts: 1,898	looks good to me

6 February 2015, 05:49 AM	#16
Brian Page "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: USA Posts: 6,624	They seem normal but I like the number 8 better than the number 3

6 February 2015, 06:40 AM	#17
JPizzzle "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: USA Posts: 229	Quick, helpful advice! Thanks guys!!!

6 February 2015, 08:13 AM	#18
JPizzzle "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: USA Posts: 229	Bonus question-I have one dealer offering new for $8100 and this one new for $8300 which includes an extra 2 years of warranty, which they state will go through Rolex. Would make no sense to not pay the extra $200 for the warranty I'm thinking? Both no tax

6 February 2015, 09:58 AM	#19
busytimmy "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Sydney, Australia Watch: ing the detectives Posts: 3,745	Both are fine. Camera angle makes the '3' look crooked.

6 February 2015, 10:10 AM	#20
Andad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Eddie Location: Australia Watch: A few. Posts: 37,526	Both look ok. __________________ E

6 February 2015, 10:34 AM	#21
Bruins7 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: LA Watch: Rolex(4),15400 Posts: 1,105	Return it all!

6 February 2015, 11:21 AM	#22
ap1 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: usa Posts: 19,537	83 hundo, no brainer for two more years

6 February 2015, 11:51 AM	#23
LarryJoo "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: USA Posts: 16	I'd be interested in seeing a normal 2.5 compared to a lesser magnification one. I'm not sure if mine is correct or not and I can't go to any AD's for a while. I have a DateJust II and I think it is ok but not sure. I didn't know of this issue when I purchased it a month ago Larry

6 February 2015, 07:55 PM	#24
regnant "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Close to Rolex AD Posts: 3,474	I have an exact watch but don't remember about these dates. I have another watch with cyclops, DJ II, some numbers seem like misaligned but I think it's due to double digits vs singular digits. For instance: 6 exactly sits in the middle equal space between left and right 27 is a different story, 7 by microns of microns look bigger than 2 Don't let these bother you __________________

6 February 2015, 07:55 PM	#25
henry333 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Real Name: Hendricks Location: USA Watch: 116600 Posts: 826	Gotta see it in person .. But from the pictures both looks fine . Angle of the shot can be the reason why

6 February 2015, 11:05 PM	#26
travisb 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Real Name: Travis Location: FL / NYC Watch: Yes.. Posts: 33,489	Mag is good on both. I also think it's the camera angle but the cyclops with the "3" appears slightly crooked. Just go with the "8".

7 February 2015, 03:00 AM	#27
JPizzzle "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: USA Posts: 229	Thanks everyone. Cyclopes have always looked crooked to me when looking at close up photos. Are they supposed to be parallel to the date window? If I look at the "8" photo even that looks a little off if you apply a straight line over it. Strange....

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