ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
25 September 2015, 03:42 PM | #241 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: uk
Posts: 1,215
|
this could be bigger than the Volkswagen emissions story.
|
25 September 2015, 11:05 PM | #242 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 29
|
Well VW admitted the issue was there but Rolex just removed the text from their website and moved on making money!! Watches aren't regulated by the government like emissions are. Otherwise!! Recall! Only thing left is a giant class action law suit. Would like to hear Rolex law makers explain why they removed the x2.5 text from their website OR explain why this is the new norm and why they never let customers know.
|
26 September 2015, 01:48 AM | #243 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Real Name: Jay
Location: NY Metropolitan
Watch: Many
Posts: 741
|
Before and after. RSC NYC took care of the non-issue to please me ;) Not the best of angles on the before photo but there was a problem!!!
Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk |
26 September 2015, 02:10 AM | #244 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 7,025
|
I get that Rolex sometimes doesn't inform the AD network of what's going on but it is somewhat odd that the service centers wouldn't know the story. So either Geneva is withholding the answer from them or they are under strict orders to play ignorant.
Since it has been stated by a service center that officially it is not a defect it appears Rolex has intentionally lowered the magnification. I can only surmise that Rolex is doing the replacements on those that complain in the interest of customer service. If this is the case I'd suggest if you have the issue you get it taken care of sooner rather than later while the still have stock of the 2.5x crystals. Perhaps someone in design or engineering decided it would be an improvement by increasing readability at more angles. But based on owner feedback on TRF I would suspect that person's job is hanging by a thread right now.
__________________
Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints. |
26 September 2015, 08:04 AM | #245 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: Chris
Location: San antonio, TX
Watch: 116610LV
Posts: 2,143
|
Quote:
It would make no sense that Rolex would tell the AD's about a screw up they knew nothing about then tell them to play ignorant. Just because a service center told ONE person it is not a defect does not make this true... Why would they LOWER their magnification??? That defeats the purpose of having a cyclops... If it was intentional, which makes no sense, then why wouldn't they do this ALL at the same time instead of trickling it out over the course of at least 5 years? I don't understand why people can't accept the fact Rolex is not perfect, that they are driven by profit margins, it is cheaper to replace the few percent that people complain about of this error then to recall thousands of watches that people do not even notice a problem with... and the days of persuit of perfection are over... It is an over priced luxury item built by company that is in business to make the most profit it can, nothing more....enjoy it. mods, can we please make a sticky for all cyclops related stuff? |
|
26 September 2015, 09:16 AM | #246 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Real Name: Tom
Location: World Traveler
Watch: GMT Master II BLNR
Posts: 1,583
|
There are threads on the web about Rolex magnification issues going back to 2004. I owned my BLNR for 6 months until I realized I had a magnification issue... only because I became a watch geek and started reading this forum. I think the "issue" is only for forum members.
But I'm glad I've had it corrected... downside is my movement has been a bit less stable over the past 3 months since getting it back vs. the first 15 months. |
26 September 2015, 02:06 PM | #247 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 7,025
|
Quote:
Lower magnification doesn't defeat the purpose unless it is reduced to zero. It has been mentioned on TRF by members who have the lower mag cyclops that it does allow for reading at more angles rather than only straight on like the higher mag lenses. It is conceivable to me that Rolex considered this an improvement and simply misjudged the consumer reaction. And I'm not sure I agree they are trickling out. I've not heard much new models hitting the stores with the old 2.5 magnification. It is reasonable that while the new lense is rolled out they still have stock of the old ones at the factory that aren't going to get trashed. I have a hard time believing it's a mistake for the simple reason that once Rolex knew there was a problem with a shipment of cyclops lenses from the supplier, they could and would simply return them to the manufacturer, even if some had entered the market before the defect was discovered. And yes, I can understand them not recalling any since it is not a safety issue nor affects the proper functioning of the movement. I find it hard to believe that Rolex let a few leak out then realizing the error decided instead to play dumb and go with the mistake lense from here on in. Obviously if they are defective then the supplier sent them out of spec lenses. Rolex decides to just eat it? Doubtful.
__________________
Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints. |
|
26 September 2015, 02:43 PM | #248 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Real Name: Chopped Liver
Location: S. Wales Valleys
Watch: Mickey Mouse
Posts: 9,926
|
Quote:
Also, if memory serves, a few people on here have mentioned that they find the lower magnification easier to read, period. Personally, I prefer the original purported 2.5x but whatever Rolex do, it should be consistent across the reference, if not the range.
__________________
116520 Black, 116610 LVc, 116660 D-Blue, 116610 LNc, 116622 Blue, PAM359, PAM689, PAM737 "Why should you allow an AD to shake you down, just so you can buy a watch" - Grady Philpott Card carrying member of TRF's Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons
|
|
26 September 2015, 06:38 PM | #249 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: california
Watch: 116610LV/SD4000
Posts: 209
|
I just picked up a BLNR. Such a beautiful watch, and I noticed instantly the Cyclopes on the BLNR was so much bigger than my HULK I got four months ago. It really doesn't bother me much. But totally noticeable.
|
26 September 2015, 09:51 PM | #250 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 13
|
Quote:
Your whole argument is crushed by the fact that two blnrs sit right next to each other, received at the same time by the AD, and one has a noticeably lower mag. Second, the cyclops' own stated purpose is to magnify the date; how does making it readable at different angles help at all, the watch is on your wrist which is easily adjusted angle-wise to give a straight on view. There was clearly an issue, even if what you are saying is true, then they still screwed up and are using older larger mag cyclops on some pieces. Either way they are dropping the ball, and the fact that they changed the website after the fact and are replacing cyclops for people who are not happy means at least to me, they probably just had a bad batch of cyclops and want to simply fix those watches for people that notice rather than do a public recall. 2.5 times mag is important, people who know watches will look on first blush like a low mag watch is a fake...it's the easiest thing to look at. |
|
27 September 2015, 06:01 AM | #251 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: Chris
Location: San antonio, TX
Watch: 116610LV
Posts: 2,143
|
Quote:
There is NO consistency with the LOWER mag crytals...they are ALL OVER THE PLACE. Some are like 1.5, some like 2, there was an Explorer II with almost NO magnification. The majority of all watches at AD's have the 2.5x magnification. If they were NOT DEFECTIVE, and they were supposed to be weak magnification, why is Rolex REPLACING them??? They would just say, no, your watch is fine, it's the new inconsistent style we've been rolling out over the years. You're free to believe whatever you want though! I'm done drinking the koolaide and can accept Rolex is NOT perfect, they are driven by profits. Its cheaper to replace the few defective ones that people complain about then to try and analyze the quantity of how many have this defect...they make a million watches a year, think how much it'd cost just for them to figure out how many watches in current AD's are defective! Can't we just enjoy the watches...they're a nice watch, nothing more. |
|
27 September 2015, 11:29 AM | #252 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 7,025
|
__________________
Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints. |
27 September 2015, 04:22 PM | #253 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: Chris
Location: San antonio, TX
Watch: 116610LV
Posts: 2,143
|
|
28 September 2015, 01:55 AM | #254 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 7,025
|
You may indeed be right as I'm not married to the notion it was a purposeful change. I just can't get past the idea then that Rolex, at some point fully aware there was a defect with a shipment of lenses, didn't send them back to the manufacturer but instead decided to change the whole story, amend the specs and drop the 2.5x from the marketing literature, and go with the lower mag going forward - all because the supplier sent them a bad batch of lenses.
But who knows? Even if Rolex does revert back to the 2.5x spec lenses we'll never be told if they purposely changed the specs again because of feedback from customers or just used the defective units to fill production while they waited for the supplier to come up with proper ones again.
__________________
Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints. |
3 February 2016, 09:48 PM | #255 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: serbia
Posts: 1
|
I don't like cyclops
Cyclops are annoying each time i wipe glass on my rolex gmt master 2 the dirt gets around the cyclops making it hard to wipe the dirt around the cyclops,is there any glass for my rolex that doesn't have cyclops
|
3 February 2016, 10:56 PM | #256 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sunrise,FL
Posts: 6,562
|
You can install the non date 114060 ceramic sapphire crystal.
|
3 February 2016, 11:13 PM | #257 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: ATL
Watch: 126610LV
Posts: 2,752
|
If there wasn't an issue Rolex wouldn't be replacing the crystals which then results in a larger magnification.
It has been documented on here many times by photo evidence. If it wasn't an issue the replacement crystals would have the same magnification as the original and we can clearly see that isn't happening. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.