Cyclops Replacement Complete on my BLNR

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Too expensive, and damaging to the brand image.

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.

[handsfull]

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.

[JRT]

Congrats! It is a great and happy ending for you.

[mash_taylor]

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.

[hornchurch]

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..

[Tseg]

Originally Posted by mash_taylor

Must be two different suppliers.

^^^^^^^^ 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.

[travisb]

Big improvement. Great watch!

[Steve36Efc]

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.

[VinnieVegas]

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!

[Steel28]

Looks perfect now! Glad everything worked out for you.

[Ruud Van Driver]

Looks great. Glad it worked out for you

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Tseg

To be candid, I think the smaller mag cyclops was easier to read in a wider variety of conditions.

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.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Rookie52

The side profile pictures are very interesting! I'm not sure how these are manufactured but they are clearly different. Looks like two completely different molds.

Does anyone have any info on this specifically?

Ps. Happy you're happy with the fix!

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.

[RichM]

Originally Posted by padi56

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.

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.

[eonflux]

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.

[eonflux]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

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.

Just curious about the process, wouldn't the cutting and polishing processes be at least somewhat automated, so that there would be consistency? Or some type of method implemented to produce consistent thicknesses and curvatures?

[Tseg]

Originally Posted by padi56

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.

I agree with your point. For 6 months I was content, unknowing I had an "issue" until I read about it in the forums. My new date is "in your face" when looked at head on but truly is less functional.

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.

[Tseg]

Originally Posted by Speed

Can you do a side by side with the 28th?

Finally back home to provide more comparative before/after pictures. Case closed.

Before:


After:


Before:


After:

[SWISSAHOLICS]

Very nice....enjoy!

[eonflux]

Originally Posted by Tseg

Finally back home to provide more comparative before/after pictures. Case closed.

Before:


After:


Before:


After:

Really appreciate the follow-up pics!

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.

[Qtip.416]

+1

Originally Posted by eonflux

Really appreciate the follow-up pics!

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.

[Etschell]

has rolex actually commented on this matter?

[AS1]

Originally Posted by Etschell

has rolex actually commented on this matter?

No and highly doubt they ever will...

[doubleinfive]

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...

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by doubleinfive

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...

just keep the crystal and swap in one with better mag.

[D4RW1N]

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.