Small mag -- need verification of authenticity

[lfspurr]

Hey all, I got this (16234 DateJust from 1996) in yesterday (from Radcliffe - a reputable AD) and I am absolutely in love. I posted a pic over at /r/watches, and several users raised a question about its authenticity due to the smaller magnification. Here are some photos (one on my wrist, rest taken by the AD).

I was surprised that its authenticity would be questioned buying from such a well known dealer. I would think to trust the AD, but what do you guys think?

https://imgur.com/a/YAD1fdX

[JayB]

Please don't take this the wrong way but I don't believe anyone will be happy to download a zip file from a low post, new member.

Try uploading to somewhere like www.imgbb.com

[lfspurr]

No worries, I appreciate it. But my post count is too low to post links unfortunately... :(

I have also tried compressing the files, but I cannot get them small enough for the attachment service on here to accept it.

Any suggestions?

[4BostonB]

You should be able to attach the pictures directly.

[tmo8320]

Originally Posted by lfspurr

No worries, I appreciate it. But my post count is too low to post links unfortunately... :(



I have also tried compressing the files, but I cannot get them small enough for the attachment service on here to accept it.



Any suggestions?

Keep posting. I think you need 10 or 20 posts before the system will let you post pictures. It wasn’t too bad when I joined. If you are active and respectful (not spammy)...it’ll happen within a day or two, max.

Cheers and welcome onboard!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lfspurr]

Great, thanks! I'll just wait till I have 10 posts, then post the link :)

[Spoonage]

Without seeing pics and not being an expert... I know there was a "low mag" concern several years ago and my wife's 36mm DJ has one (she actually likes it better like that) that we bought new from my AD. I am not aware of that concern from the time period of your watch (again I am not an expert) so wait for the more knowledgable to chime in.

[lfspurr]

Originally Posted by Spoonage

Without seeing pics and not being an expert... I know there was a "low mag" concern several years ago and my wife's 36mm DJ has one (she actually likes it better like that) that we bought new from my AD. I am not aware of that concern from the time period of your watch (again I am not an expert) so wait for the more knowledgable to chime in.

OK, that is good to know. I am thinking its more than likely just normal variation, but I want to make sure nothing is wrong :)

[lfspurr]

Photos are up in the OP!

[toxicavenger]

Not uncommon.

[HogwldFLTR]

It looks pretty normal to me. Nice DJ!!!

[kauffee]

Nice looking watch. Mag does look low. Another possibility is that while the watch is genuine, the crystal could be aftermarket.

[lfspurr]

Talked to the AD, they had it serviced through RSC and the crystal has been replaced with a new OEM one, so unless they are lying (which I don’t think Radcliffe would ever do), it’s just another example of the low mag issue on the Rolex crystals. They also did personally verify that every part of the watch (lugs, dial, movement, crystal, etc) is authentic.

[kauffee]

Awesome. Enjoy it.

[Navarino]

Originally Posted by lfspurr

Talked to the AD, they had it serviced through RSC and the crystal has been replaced with a new OEM one, so unless they are lying (which I don’t think Radcliffe would ever do), it’s just another example of the low mag issue on the Rolex crystals. They also did personally verify that every part of the watch (lugs, dial, movement, crystal, etc) is authentic.

I have seen this before. I wouldn't worry about the authenticity.

Great looking DJ btw! Congrats!

[ienjoyrice2]

It does look small, but if it doesnt bother you, enjoy it!

[lfspurr]

Yeah, I actually prefer the small mag to be honest!