ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Sublover2166 · 13 January 2015, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkerrmd

just gonna stick with mine and be happy…

I thought the Yacht Master was your son's and the Smurf was your wife's?
Did you confiscate them back?

tkerrmd · 13 January 2015, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sublover2166

I thought the Yacht Master was your son's and the Smurf was your wife's?
Did you confiscate them back?

they "technically" are theirs!! all in the family and we all mix and swap back and forth a lot!

Brushpup · 13 January 2015, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkerrmd

they "technically" are theirs!! all in the family and we all mix and swap back and forth a lot!

Well, that begs the question...who is in line to get the Platona Dr. Tom?

tkerrmd · 13 January 2015, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brushpup

Well, that begs the question...who is in line to get the Platona Dr. Tom?

that's the only one that doesn't play well with others!!

Roger1079 · 13 January 2015, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

No defect in the watches, but poor QC on the cyclops, I think.

This is my opinion as well. The advertised 2.5 times magnification that has always been identical between every Rolex the cyclops is on for as far back as I can remember. Recently though it seems that some watches randomly come with a magnification of about 2 times. I have only seen it on new GMT's and Submariners and all of the AD staff seems to be oblivious and doubting when asked about it the surprised and speechless when it is pointed out to them in their own display cases. I have yet to see it on a Datejust or DJII, DayDate or DDII, SkyDweller, Explorer II, or Yachtmaster though. The precious metal only models like the DD and SkyDweller I can understand as they do not sell as quickly, but no clue why I have not seen it on the Datejust being that it is one of the best selling models.

I think alignment of crowns, and other such OCD stuff isn't worth even thinking about however this is an obvious QC issue as Old Expat Beast said as these variances appear from watch to watch of the exact same reference. That would definitely be one of those things that would bother me as if you know what it is supposed to look like when magnified, it is a constant remider that the watch isn't quite as Rolex intended it to be, whether the watch was deemed perfectly fine by Rolex or not.

Roger1079 · 13 January 2015, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Rolex QC can be so lame sometimes. How hard is it to get it consistent with this much cash flowing in?

Anyway, thanks for the post.

Especially since it has been 100% consistent from 1953 until sometime in 2014.

JC180 · 13 January 2015, 07:46 AM

Definitely an issue and not good enough. Here are mine and as they should be.

Other recent QC issues I have encountered with Rolex recently are poorly printed and spaced lettering on Daytona dials and hands and bezels not being correctly aligned.

I really do hope they resolve these issues fast.

Roger1079 · 13 January 2015, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Smyth

The date wheel font could also be the issue. A watchmaker should be able to shed light on that in a side by side comparison of parts.

Cyclops can be found in many places.

http://www.ofrei.com/page474.html

http://www.esslinger.com/generic-rol...nd-tropic.aspx

Where Rolex gets them from (or makes them in house) is anyone's guess. They do come in all sizes and magnifications. If Rolex has changed the magnification it would be nice to know because that was one of the ways to spot a fake.

It has nothing to do with fonts as the window on the correct 2.5x magnification almost stretches to the edges of the cyclops. If it were a size issue it would be with the dial as well as the date wheel.

nc42acc · 13 January 2015, 08:32 AM

Of all the pictures I have seen the only one that appears to have an issue is the lower LV in this post. Doesn't appear to be a widespread issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sublover2166

There is clearly a magnification issue with some of these Cyclops. Surprised no comment from the powers that be. Looks like 1.5X mag on the bottom. Unacceptable.

grrr · 13 January 2015, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nc42acc

Of all the pictures I have seen the only one that appears to have an issue is the lower LV in this post. Doesn't appear to be a widespread issue.

Have you been to an AD recently? Many of the newly made GMTs or subs have a weak cyclop. Just like the LV pic.

nc42acc · 13 January 2015, 08:52 AM

Sorry I have not been perusing my local ADs but will be in Vegas next week and hope to make many comparisons to my GMT IIC. I think the variety and selection in the many shops should give me a good sampling. I will report my findings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grrr

Have you been to an AD recently? Many of the newly made GMTs or subs have a weak cyclop. Just like the LV pic.

Blubaru · 13 January 2015, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC180

Definitely an issue and not good enough. Here are mine and as they should be.

Other recent QC issues I have encountered with Rolex recently are poorly printed and spaced lettering on Daytona dials and hands and bezels not being correctly aligned.

I really do hope they resolve these issues fast.

That's the correct 2.5x magnification?

JC180 · 13 January 2015, 10:34 AM

Yes I believe so.

Blubaru · 13 January 2015, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC180

Yes I believe so.

Well, that's what mine looks like. I'll just assume all is perfect

Ruud Van Driver · 13 January 2015, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

First who said it was qualify control issue, it could be simply down to different gaskets used.Or different cyclops date wheel fonts,glue used on cyclops many variables. And what difference is from the so called 2.50 norm,well not a lot that's for sure.

It's not 'so called' 2.5 x magnification, it is advertised thus on the official Rolex website.

That said, looking at my LVc which I'm wearing right now, from peering under the Cyclops and then looking through it, it seems to me that the magnification is just fine. I'm beginning to wonder if it is indeed the font on the date wheel on mine.

Ruud Van Driver · 13 January 2015, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkerrmd

just gonna stick with mine and be happy…

The 'magnification' looks smaller on the YM than it does on the other two

Minimalist · 13 January 2015, 11:37 PM

Just so that I am looking at this correctly, if the number '1' on the date wheel is say 1mm in height, through the cyclops it should 2.5mm tall...and if that is true then definately an issue is about, cos it surely doesn't look as big as it should....especially some of the models I've seen. And then it wouldn't make a difference what text is on the date wheel because it should be magnified 2.5x in any case.

Watch Professor · 14 January 2015, 12:11 AM

I "see" this as a very serious issue. I need the 2.5 magnification to see the date with my old eyes. A 1.5 would be unacceptable. Forunately, my Sub Date (16610) and my GMT IIC are correct.

Leodagan · 14 January 2015, 12:17 AM

In the future those watches with less magnification will be collectors..

Brushpup · 14 January 2015, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkerrmd

that's the only one that doesn't play well with others!!

I thought as much.

otisc · 14 January 2015, 12:58 AM

Here are two Hulks that have been offered for sale in this forum over the past year, both by trusted sellers. The angle on the one on the left is ever so slightly tilted back, but I think the overall difference is still pretty clear. Guess which was listed as a brand new 2014 model?

ralpie · 14 January 2015, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tri-Tip

Is it possible that the Cyclops are the same but the date wheel is different?

This blew my mind.

DJExplorer · 14 January 2015, 04:53 AM

Does anyone have a spec sheet for the dial and date window cut out sizes?
If we know the date window width then it would be an easy calculation to see if in fact it is the stated 2.5x magnification.
From what is seen in AD's and others SubC & GMTc, if the upper and lower widths of the date window fill out the width of the straight edges of the cyclops, then this appears to be the more recognized 2.5x mag. We will only know for sure if the size of the date window aperture is known.
Here is a GMT today that has noticeable smaller mag in an AD.
Compared to the sub next to it, it's night and day. (Sorry no pic of the ref sub)
The AD was having his rolex guy in this afternoon and was going to ask him about the apparent difference.
I'll call the AD tomorrow and see if anyone will admit or give reason.

LazyDaniel · 14 January 2015, 04:56 AM

It's funny because sometimes we look at the cyclops magnification to see if a rolex is real or not. Now we can't even tell...

ocabj · 14 January 2015, 05:11 AM

My 2013 BLNR on the left, the new (2014) BLRO on the right.

Minimalist · 14 January 2015, 05:18 AM

There's clearly a massive difference in those!

DJExplorer · 14 January 2015, 05:28 AM

That is the best picture to sum it up!
BLNR and BLRO. Rolex have to acknowledge this sometime or another.
They are stating figures with physical inconsistencies.

ronburgundy · 14 January 2015, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

The 'magnification' looks smaller on the YM than it does on the other two

It's just the angle. It's good.

ronburgundy · 14 January 2015, 06:00 AM

I do understand being concerned when it comes to spotting fakes. Some fakes get pretty close, but never just right, and this could blur the lines a bit when seeing watches online, but it is nothing to be too obsessed about since authentic pieces can be proved as such.
I definitely think there is a difference in some of the Cyclops, particularly quite a few Sky Dwellers that I've seen. I personally wouldn't buy one that didn't look right, however, best to leave those for the non-WIS.

cht · 14 January 2015, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ocabj

My 2013 BLNR on the left, the new (2014) BLRO on the right.

$35k and it looks fake at first glance?

I'd be bummed

14 January 2015, 12:11 AM	#108
Watch Professor "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Real Name: Myron Location: New York Watch: GMT IIC; Sub Date Posts: 3,166	I "see" this as a very serious issue. I need the 2.5 magnification to see the date with my old eyes. A 1.5 would be unacceptable. Forunately, my Sub Date (16610) and my GMT IIC are correct. __________________

14 January 2015, 04:53 AM	#113
DJExplorer "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: GA Posts: 403	Does anyone have a spec sheet for the dial and date window cut out sizes? If we know the date window width then it would be an easy calculation to see if in fact it is the stated 2.5x magnification. From what is seen in AD's and others SubC & GMTc, if the upper and lower widths of the date window fill out the width of the straight edges of the cyclops, then this appears to be the more recognized 2.5x mag. We will only know for sure if the size of the date window aperture is known. Here is a GMT today that has noticeable smaller mag in an AD. Compared to the sub next to it, it's night and day. (Sorry no pic of the ref sub) The AD was having his rolex guy in this afternoon and was going to ask him about the apparent difference. I'll call the AD tomorrow and see if anyone will admit or give reason. Attached Images

14 January 2015, 05:11 AM	#115
ocabj "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Real Name: Jonathan Ocab Location: Riverside, CA Watch: 116710BLNR Posts: 279	My 2013 BLNR on the left, the new (2014) BLRO on the right. __________________ They took my rings, they took my Rolex. I looked at the brotha said, "Damn, what's next?"

14 January 2015, 06:00 AM	#119
ronburgundy "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Real Name: Rob Location: Texas Watch: BLNR Posts: 364	I do understand being concerned when it comes to spotting fakes. Some fakes get pretty close, but never just right, and this could blur the lines a bit when seeing watches online, but it is nothing to be too obsessed about since authentic pieces can be proved as such. I definitely think there is a difference in some of the Cyclops, particularly quite a few Sky Dwellers that I've seen. I personally wouldn't buy one that didn't look right, however, best to leave those for the non-WIS. __________________ On IG: robertrussell

13 January 2015, 07:46 AM	#97
JC180 "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Real Name: Jacob Location: UK Watch: BLNR, BLRO, LV, SD Posts: 355	Definitely an issue and not good enough. Here are mine and as they should be. Other recent QC issues I have encountered with Rolex recently are poorly printed and spaced lettering on Daytona dials and hands and bezels not being correctly aligned. I really do hope they resolve these issues fast.

13 January 2015, 10:34 AM	#103
JC180 "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Real Name: Jacob Location: UK Watch: BLNR, BLRO, LV, SD Posts: 355	Yes I believe so.

13 January 2015, 11:37 PM	#107
Minimalist "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: London Posts: 1,221	Just so that I am looking at this correctly, if the number '1' on the date wheel is say 1mm in height, through the cyclops it should 2.5mm tall...and if that is true then definately an issue is about, cos it surely doesn't look as big as it should....especially some of the models I've seen. And then it wouldn't make a difference what text is on the date wheel because it should be magnified 2.5x in any case.

14 January 2015, 12:17 AM	#109
Leodagan "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: belgium Posts: 229	In the future those watches with less magnification will be collectors..

14 January 2015, 12:58 AM	#111
otisc "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Austin, TX Watch: 116610LV HULK Posts: 639	Here are two Hulks that have been offered for sale in this forum over the past year, both by trusted sellers. The angle on the one on the left is ever so slightly tilted back, but I think the overall difference is still pretty clear. Guess which was listed as a brand new 2014 model?

14 January 2015, 04:56 AM	#114
LazyDaniel "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Real Name: Daniel Location: New York City Watch: 116500LN Posts: 166	It's funny because sometimes we look at the cyclops magnification to see if a rolex is real or not. Now we can't even tell...

14 January 2015, 05:18 AM	#116
Minimalist "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: London Posts: 1,221	There's clearly a massive difference in those!

14 January 2015, 05:28 AM	#117
DJExplorer "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: GA Posts: 403	That is the best picture to sum it up! BLNR and BLRO. Rolex have to acknowledge this sometime or another. They are stating figures with physical inconsistencies.

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