ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Blue Shadow · 10 August 2010, 05:27 AM

I just purchased my DJ Saturday from a very reputable jeweler. The SN begins with a "U", which I referenced as a 1997 model year. My brother noticed that the magnification looked a little small, but the jeweler assured us it is correct. We compared it to 2 other Rolex models they had on display and it matched one, but did look smaller than the other one. Opinions please?

Fozzy · 10 August 2010, 05:40 AM

Any head on shots?

mjm800 · 10 August 2010, 05:41 AM

I don't know about 1997 models but from that angle the mag looks small the numbers should jump out at you.

Noonan · 10 August 2010, 05:42 AM

It does look a bit small in those pics. A head-on pic would be helpful.

Maxseven · 10 August 2010, 05:43 AM

I'm comparing it to other shots from the web, and it is difficult to tell - you will need a head-on shot as Fozzy suggests.

Why not take it to another AD and have them authenticate?

Blue Shadow · 10 August 2010, 05:45 AM

Thanks....I will take a head-on shot tonight and post it up.

imono · 10 August 2010, 06:02 AM

Here is my sold 1994 DJ. Style/Model 16233.
There is a huge difference in yours.

fly4food84 · 10 August 2010, 06:32 AM

The number doesn't look bold enough.

Gerardus · 10 August 2010, 06:34 AM

It appears a little small imho

LordNinja · 10 August 2010, 06:35 AM

Agree, seems.. smaller? My TT Datejust from 86' even looks larger. Hmmm, again, head on would be super.

pcst · 10 August 2010, 06:48 AM

Looking at my DJ, the date displayed on mine looks far bigger than yours.

tifosi · 10 August 2010, 06:52 AM

Looks a little small to me...compared to my Sub Date.

Ed Rooney · 10 August 2010, 06:53 AM

Doesn't look right.

imono · 10 August 2010, 06:59 AM

I think more likely due to a generic lens than a stock lens.

jms_w · 10 August 2010, 07:39 AM

Definitely too small. Maybe aftermarket crystal that's not thick enough. Rest of watch looks great.

sturgeon123456 · 10 August 2010, 07:47 AM

I am no expert, all I can say is that on all my Rolexes that have a cyclops.....the magnification of the date almost fills the whole cyclops window when viewed straight on at a normal viewing distance. The pictures you provided are too off center for me to comment on your watch, I am merely letting you know how the cyclops on my Rollies looks.

jcherskine · 10 August 2010, 08:13 AM

I had the same concern myself with my 87 TTDJ, but everything was ok, and it has just come back from a Rolex AD service.
Camera angle may be making the numbers look smaller.
Head on shot of cyclops necessary to give true judgement.

Blue Shadow · 10 August 2010, 09:24 AM

Head on shot:

mjm800 · 10 August 2010, 09:25 AM

Not good I gather the watch is OK but you have a repalcement non-Rolex crystal.

freefly · 10 August 2010, 09:36 AM

Might be worthwhile to post pics of the clasp, and any markings/numbers on it, the bracelet, and end links.

ROGERB · 10 August 2010, 10:10 AM

Agree on possible aftermarket crystal... have seen legit DJ's with non Rolex crystals look a touch less magnified..
R

Blue Shadow · 10 August 2010, 10:10 AM

imono · 10 August 2010, 10:23 AM

Well, the bracelet and clasp are correct.
The caseback looks a little funny. Or is it my eyes? Or the camera angle?

sturgeon123456 · 10 August 2010, 11:57 AM

The cyclops does not seem to provide the typical Rolex magnification.

slcbbrown · 10 August 2010, 11:57 AM

Often when a Rolex goes to a non-AD for service the crystal is replaced with an after market version. One of the tell tales of a second rate after market crystal is the poor magnification. On the plastic crystal watches, the crystals were cheap enough that there wasn't a big enticement to use non-Rolex crystals. On sapphire crystal watches the cost savings can really matter.

This looks like the wrong magnification. Just replace the crystal.

Blue Shadow · 10 August 2010, 12:02 PM

Thanks very much everyone for your expertise! I will call the jeweler tomorrow and request they replace the crystal with a Rolex one. Hopefully it won't be an issue since I just purchased it Saturday.

Flyjet601 · 10 August 2010, 12:08 PM

A 16220 T series from 1997. all original. I had the blue dial exactly like you but I had it changed to white.....easier for my poor eyes to see.

Your date does appear a bit small, as stated....might be an aftermarket crystal.
Here is mine for comparison.

If ti turns out to be aftermarket, Im sure the jeweler will make it right for you.

Flyjet601 · 10 August 2010, 12:19 PM

I just noticed something else.......here is a pic of the old dial, Rolex HK gave it to me when I had it changed.
Same as yours but if you notice on mine, the SWISS MADE has the T before and after. Indicating I believe a Tritium markers beside each hour marker, which is correct for the 1997 model. I believe tritium was still used. Yours does not have it.
To me that indicates a newer dial. Probably a service dial.
Maybe some of the experts can correct anything I have said

Blue Shadow · 10 August 2010, 12:27 PM

Great info Larry....thanks!

Art161 · 10 August 2010, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyjet601

I just noticed something else.......here is a pic of the old dial, Rolex HK gave it to me when I had it changed.
Same as yours but if you notice on mine, the SWISS MADE has the T before and after. Indicating I believe a Tritium markers beside each hour marker, which is correct for the 1997 model. I believe tritium was still used. Yours does not have it.
To me that indicates a newer dial. Probably a service dial.
Maybe some of the experts can correct anything I have said

OP's watch does not seem to have lume hands or markers, so that would account for no "T." Whether that indicates a service dial, I don't know.

10 August 2010, 05:27 AM	#1
Blue Shadow "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Real Name: Tyler Location: Orlando Watch: Datejust 16234 Posts: 158	Is the magnification correct? I just purchased my DJ Saturday from a very reputable jeweler. The SN begins with a "U", which I referenced as a 1997 model year. My brother noticed that the magnification looked a little small, but the jeweler assured us it is correct. We compared it to 2 other Rolex models they had on display and it matched one, but did look smaller than the other one. Opinions please?

10 August 2010, 05:41 AM	#3
mjm800 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: USA Posts: 1,950	I don't know about 1997 models but from that angle the mag looks small the numbers should jump out at you. __________________

10 August 2010, 05:43 AM	#5
Maxseven "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Real Name: Joe Location: Bloomfield, MI Watch: Submariner Posts: 467	I'm comparing it to other shots from the web, and it is difficult to tell - you will need a head-on shot as Fozzy suggests. Why not take it to another AD and have them authenticate? __________________ Hooper: Watch it! Damn it, Martin! This is compressed air! Martin: Well what the hell kind of a knot was that! Hooper: You pulled the wrong one! You screw around with these tanks and they're going to blow up!

10 August 2010, 06:02 AM	#7
imono "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: USA Posts: 3,241	Here is my sold 1994 DJ. Style/Model 16233. There is a huge difference in yours. Attached Images

10 August 2010, 06:34 AM	#9
Gerardus "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Real Name: Gerardus Location: often in the air Watch: ♕ Posts: 12,142	It appears a little small imho __________________ ♕126610 ♕126333 ♕116300

10 August 2010, 05:40 AM	#2
Fozzy "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: UK Watch: 16610LV Posts: 132	Any head on shots?

10 August 2010, 05:42 AM	#4
Noonan Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: US Watch: 3570.50 Posts: 2,156	It does look a bit small in those pics. A head-on pic would be helpful.

10 August 2010, 05:45 AM	#6
Blue Shadow "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Real Name: Tyler Location: Orlando Watch: Datejust 16234 Posts: 158	Thanks....I will take a head-on shot tonight and post it up.

10 August 2010, 06:32 AM	#8
fly4food84 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: MS Watch: I like Rolexes Posts: 359	The number doesn't look bold enough.

10 August 2010, 06:35 AM	#10
LordNinja "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Real Name: Chris Location: Boston Watch: 116610,116233,OsQz Posts: 1,109	Agree, seems.. smaller? My TT Datejust from 86' even looks larger. Hmmm, again, head on would be super.

10 August 2010, 06:48 AM	#11
pcst "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: seattle, WA Posts: 97	Looking at my DJ, the date displayed on mine looks far bigger than yours.

10 August 2010, 06:52 AM	#12
tifosi "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Russ Location: Southern NJ Posts: 5,760	Looks a little small to me...compared to my Sub Date. __________________ Russ

10 August 2010, 06:53 AM	#13
Ed Rooney "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Annapolis, MD Watch: Sea-Dweller 16600 Posts: 5,081	Doesn't look right.

10 August 2010, 06:59 AM	#14
imono "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: USA Posts: 3,241	I think more likely due to a generic lens than a stock lens.

10 August 2010, 07:39 AM	#15
jms_w "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: East Coast Watch: 116710LN Posts: 557	Definitely too small. Maybe aftermarket crystal that's not thick enough. Rest of watch looks great. __________________ 116520\|116610LV\|116710LN\|16613\|16233 244 232.30.42\|3222.80 A2332212 CFX-200\|Riseman\|GW-M5610

10 August 2010, 07:47 AM	#16
sturgeon123456 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 2,551	I am no expert, all I can say is that on all my Rolexes that have a cyclops.....the magnification of the date almost fills the whole cyclops window when viewed straight on at a normal viewing distance. The pictures you provided are too off center for me to comment on your watch, I am merely letting you know how the cyclops on my Rollies looks.

10 August 2010, 08:13 AM	#17
jcherskine "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: John Location: Scotland Watch: DJII 116300 Posts: 1,970	I had the same concern myself with my 87 TTDJ, but everything was ok, and it has just come back from a Rolex AD service. Camera angle may be making the numbers look smaller. Head on shot of cyclops necessary to give true judgement.

10 August 2010, 09:24 AM	#18
Blue Shadow "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Real Name: Tyler Location: Orlando Watch: Datejust 16234 Posts: 158	Head on shot:

10 August 2010, 09:25 AM	#19
mjm800 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: USA Posts: 1,950	Not good I gather the watch is OK but you have a repalcement non-Rolex crystal. __________________

10 August 2010, 09:36 AM	#20
freefly "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: Eric Location: AZ Watch: 4&5-digit Sub/GMTs Posts: 1,974	Might be worthwhile to post pics of the clasp, and any markings/numbers on it, the bracelet, and end links.

10 August 2010, 10:10 AM	#21
ROGERB "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Real Name: Roger Location: WHITE ROCK BC Watch: 89 16610, 57 7914, Posts: 897	Agree on possible aftermarket crystal... have seen legit DJ's with non Rolex crystals look a touch less magnified.. R

10 August 2010, 10:23 AM	#23
imono "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: USA Posts: 3,241	Well, the bracelet and clasp are correct. The caseback looks a little funny. Or is it my eyes? Or the camera angle?

10 August 2010, 11:57 AM	#24
sturgeon123456 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 2,551	The cyclops does not seem to provide the typical Rolex magnification.

10 August 2010, 11:57 AM	#25
slcbbrown "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Real Name: steve Location: dallas area Watch: 50's TT t-bird Posts: 3,689	Often when a Rolex goes to a non-AD for service the crystal is replaced with an after market version. One of the tell tales of a second rate after market crystal is the poor magnification. On the plastic crystal watches, the crystals were cheap enough that there wasn't a big enticement to use non-Rolex crystals. On sapphire crystal watches the cost savings can really matter. This looks like the wrong magnification. Just replace the crystal.

10 August 2010, 12:02 PM	#26
Blue Shadow "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Real Name: Tyler Location: Orlando Watch: Datejust 16234 Posts: 158	Thanks very much everyone for your expertise! I will call the jeweler tomorrow and request they replace the crystal with a Rolex one. Hopefully it won't be an issue since I just purchased it Saturday.

10 August 2010, 12:08 PM	#27
Flyjet601 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Hong Kong Watch: All of them Posts: 2,789	Here is mine A 16220 T series from 1997. all original. I had the blue dial exactly like you but I had it changed to white.....easier for my poor eyes to see. Your date does appear a bit small, as stated....might be an aftermarket crystal. Here is mine for comparison. If ti turns out to be aftermarket, Im sure the jeweler will make it right for you. Attached Images __________________ I used to be indecisive, now I'm not sure

10 August 2010, 12:19 PM	#28
Flyjet601 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Hong Kong Watch: All of them Posts: 2,789	I just noticed something else.......here is a pic of the old dial, Rolex HK gave it to me when I had it changed. Same as yours but if you notice on mine, the SWISS MADE has the T before and after. Indicating I believe a Tritium markers beside each hour marker, which is correct for the 1997 model. I believe tritium was still used. Yours does not have it. To me that indicates a newer dial. Probably a service dial. Maybe some of the experts can correct anything I have said Attached Images __________________ I used to be indecisive, now I'm not sure

10 August 2010, 12:27 PM	#29
Blue Shadow "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Real Name: Tyler Location: Orlando Watch: Datejust 16234 Posts: 158	Great info Larry....thanks!

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