'Definitive' Answer re Cyclops Magnification from RSC Singapore

[Ruud Van Driver]

I'm just this second back in the office from RSC Singapore. The date magnification on my Sub LVc has been quietly bugging me since I bought my BLNR so I decided to have my crystal changed.

The lady on service advised me that there is nothing wrong with my Cyclops but the issue surrounds the font of the date wheel. Older models have a bold font whereas newly produced pieces have a date wheel with the fine font. She went on to tell me that several customers have brought all sorts of different pieces in to question the magnification and she has since sought guidance from Geneva. Obviously, this doesn't stack up with US RSCs changing crystals and there being a subsequent improvement in magnification (unless the RSCs have changed the date wheels and not told anyone, which is unlikely but not impossible ).

I then asked her if she had a Submariner with the bold date wheel to show me, so I could compare it with mine side by side. She produced two, still in their shipping caskets and untouched by human hands (outside of the factory). This is what she showed me:

[Old Expat Beast]

Did you ask why the date window/aperture also appears to be smaller?

[Ruud Van Driver]

Here's the fine font:

[Ruud Van Driver]

And here's the bold:

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Did you ask why the date window/aperture also appears to be smaller?

The date apertures looked the same size to me. Even measuring them on computer screen, there's not much in it.

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

The date apertures looked the same size to me. Even measuring them on computer screen, there's not much in it.

This is bull

The date window is clearly taking up more room in one than the other.

Rolex changed suppliers or the quality control from the supplier is poor and even a fraction of a mm of material missing could result in less magnification.

Just poor qc from rolex.

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Did you ask why the date window/aperture also appears to be smaller?

I agree it looks smaller.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rollee1]

Uncentered bezel from factory?
What QC

I remember seeing low mag is actually smaller looking Arabic digits, nothing to do with thick-thin fonts.

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by sturgeon123456

This is bull

The date window is clearly taking up more room in one than the other.

Rolex changed suppliers or the quality control from the supplier is poor and even a fraction of a mm of material missing could result in less magnification.

Just poor qc from rolex.

If you're an expert in photogrammetry, then I shall bow to your superior knowledge. Otherwise, STFU. I clearly said the date windows looked the same to me, as in they didn't much different when I was at RSC.

The photographs are taken from different angles and the 'bold' font version is closer to the camera; I'll go back to the RSC now, take my protractor and calculator and ask the silly woman to hold the watch cases steady and at the same angle this time. That work for you?

Whether it is a magnification issue, different date wheels, I know not. I'm just reporting back what RSC told me earlier today.

[Andad]

Easy there RVD we are just trying to get to the bottom of this issue.

[engin33r]

Nice info... thanks for sharing!!

Whatever the cause, they sure do look different. IMO this is a problem, Rolex should address this because it's too obvious

[Andad]

Originally Posted by sturgeon123456

This is bull
The date window is clearly taking up more room in one than the other.

Rolex changed suppliers or the quality control from the supplier is poor and even a fraction of a mm of material missing could result in less magnification.

Just poor qc from rolex.

You were given an opinion - no need for that.

I see what you see but is it conclusive?

The dial width in both pix measures the same on my screen but the window width is 1mm wider in the pix with the better magnification on the same screen.

If I accept that the dial and dial windows are the same size I am personally leaning towards a variation in magnification from different cyclops suppliers/manufacturers.

But I am not sure yet.

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by directioneng

Easy there RVD we are just trying to get to the bottom of this issue.

Sorry mate, that response really pissed me off. I'm trying to be proactive in getting to the bottom of this issue and I don't respond well to those who choose to shoot the messenger.

I haven't written to Rolex as yet as I'm just back in Singapore after a very lengthy job in Burma. I've finally composed a letter and will get it posted tonight.

[engin33r]

I hope somebody from Rolex is reading this and will rectify this issue.

[engin33r]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

Sorry mate, that response really pissed me off. I'm trying to be proactive in getting to the bottom of this issue and I don't respond well to those who choose to shoot the messenger.

I haven't written to Rolex as yet as I'm just back in Singapore after a very lengthy job in Burma. I've finally composed a letter and will get it posted tonight.

Yep...

It's just one comment, don't let it get to you. You did great and I (we) really appreciate you spending time and effort to post this information.

Thanks!!

[padi56]

Well IMHO if someone would do a accurate measure of say the SD date window then check the other watches which some say have poor magnification, then perhaps we could get a more accurate result.

[Singslinger]

I don't think Sturgeon 123456's "this is bull'' comment was directed at the OP, I think he's simply expressing unhappiness with Rolex's QC because he sees the sizes of the date apertures as being different.

Anyway, I'm glad the OP brought up the issue. Will certainly be interested to see what the outcome is.

PS Was the lady you spoke to named Diana? She's the most senior person at RSC Singapore and very patient when dealing with difficult issues like this.

[Andad]

I apologise to Sturgeon if that was the case.

I just read it as it was.

[Sarko]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

I'm just this second back in the office from RSC Singapore. The date magnification on my Sub LVc has been quietly bugging me since I bought my BLNR so I decided to have my crystal changed.

The lady on service advised me that there is nothing wrong with my Cyclops but the issue surrounds the font of the date wheel. Older models have a bold font whereas newly produced pieces have a date wheel with the fine font. She went on to tell me that several customers have brought all sorts of different pieces in to question the magnification and she has since sought guidance from Geneva. Obviously, this doesn't stack up with US RSCs changing crystals and there being a subsequent improvement in magnification (unless the RSCs have changed the date wheels and not told anyone, which is unlikely but not impossible ).

I then asked her if she had a Submariner with the bold date wheel to show me, so I could compare it with mine side by side. She produced two, still in their shipping caskets and untouched by human hands (outside of the factory). This is what she showed me:

The lady is telling you a lie. I will explain why? I had the same issue with my SUBC (LN) here in the Netherlands. I posted also the thread here in June last year, which was one of the first cases discussed here.

My crystal (not a date wheel) was replaced by AD (with inhouse RSC) in approx. 45 minutes while I was drinking coffee and trying on different watches and I got my watch back with normal magnification. They stated it was clearly a crystal which was creating the problem.

Before this, I heard different stroy form other AD's how the crystal is not high enoug pressed in the case and tha this is causing the problem. The truth is that the AD's also do not know what is going on since Rolex is silent on this topic. Of course they will not say we have a bad/different batch of cyclops. Anayway it is clear that the stroy does not add up. Even if the font was different and thinner, it still should be bigger.

My thread http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...=352444&page=3

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by Singslinger

I don't think Sturgeon 123456's "this is bull'' comment was directed at the OP, I think he's simply expressing unhappiness with Rolex's QC because he sees the sizes of the date apertures as being different.

Anyway, I'm glad the OP brought up the issue. Will certainly be interested to see what the outcome is.

PS Was the lady you spoke to named Diana? She's the most senior person at RSC Singapore and very patient when dealing with difficult issues like this.

It was indeed Diana. Very pleasant lady and yes, also very patient

Originally Posted by directioneng

I apologise to Sturgeon if that was the case.

I just read it as it was.

I read it the same as you. If I took it the wrong way, then I will offer a mild apology. However, maybe Sturgeon can help by choosing his words a little more carefully.

Originally Posted by Sarko

The lady is telling you a lie. I will explain why? I had the same issue with my SUBC (LN) here in the Netherlands. I posted also the thread here in June last year, which was one of the first cases discussed here.

My crystal (not a date wheel) was replaced by AD (with inhouse RSC) in approx. 45 minutes while I was drinking coffee and trying on different watches and I got my watch back with normal magnification. They stated it was clearly a crystal which was creating the problem.

Before this, I heard different stroy form other AD's how the crystal is not high enoug pressed in the case and tha this is causing the problem. The truth is that the AD's also do not know what is going on since Rolex is silent on this topic. Of course they will not say we have a bad/different batch of cyclops. Anayway it is clear that the stroy does not add up. Even if the font was different and thinner, it still should be bigger.

My thread http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...=352444&page=3

To say that she's lying is a bit of shotgun approach; she might be passing on the information that Geneva have told her. If that's the case, she's hardly lying.

Also, from my photographs above, irrespective of the size of the date window or magnification of the Cyclops, the Number 24 certainly appears to be a more bold font than the 20.

Also, i'd be very concerned if my crystal was replaced in only 45 minutes. Did they do a pressure test also? I might be hugely mistaken here but that sounds way too quick for me.

[Ruud Van Driver]

As an update, my secretary has just returned from the post office after posting my letter to Rolex in Geneva. I'm not expecting a reply any time soon, but as soon as I get something back (if indeed I do!), I'll be on here straight away.

[travisb]

Thanks for the update. It's evident that there is an issue.

[CKL1213]

So a bold date is the default magnification ?

[Sarko]

[/QUOTE] To say that she's lying is a bit of shotgun approach; she might be passing on the information that Geneva have told her. If that's the case, she's hardly lying.

Also, from my photographs above, irrespective of the size of the date window or magnification of the Cyclops, the Number 24 certainly appears to be a more bold font than the 20.

Also, i'd be very concerned if my crystal was replaced in only 45 minutes. Did they do a pressure test also? I might be hugely mistaken here but that sounds way too quick for me.[/QUOTE]

It was replaced with indeed the pressure test etc. etc.. I am not working at RSC so I can not tell you if this is too quick or not!

Indeed maybe she is passing the information so GENEVA is lying :)
The font of the wheel could be thinner that is not a problem. But If you look at the examples on this forum (small magnifications) you clearly can see that some of the cyclops are hardly magnifing x1,5, let alone x2,5. Even with thinner font it should be bigger/larger.

[Blingtone]

I've been following Ruud's post since day one and subsequently reading all the other related posts, particularly as I've been looking to aquire a blue dial YM and have looked at and handled 8 pieces so far (at various outlets in and around London) - only 2 of the 8 have had anywhere near the mag I have on my 50th LV sub.
Significantly in my experience it's the older models (2011/12?) where font and mag look right - but with 13's, 14's & 15's I've seen 2 different fonts and varying degrees of mag, it would help if all the pics were showing the same date, but I really think it's the cyclops not the datewheels - IMO it shouldn't be happening with a firm of this stature and I have to say it's really put me off buying so far.
Thanks for the updates Ruud

[SUBversive]

Originally Posted by sturgeon123456

This is bull

The date window is clearly taking up more room in one than the other.

Rolex changed suppliers or the quality control from the supplier is poor and even a fraction of a mm of material missing could result in less magnification.

Just poor qc from rolex.

Changed suppliers?

[Racerdj]

Thanks for providing another piece of information of this continuing saga.

[SeaDweller50]

Thanks for the update Ruud.

[Vincent65]

looks like the crystal/cyclops to me - not the font size or style.

[busytimmy]

Originally Posted by vincent65

looks like the crystal/cyclops to me - not the font size or style.

+1