WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
As some of you might have heard, there seems to be an issue with the date magnification of the cyclops. Rolex seems to have inconsistent magnifications across some current models and even among the same model line.

The latter rules out the hypothesis that the crystal is closer to the dial on some models, and a mix of magnifications in the same production time frame also indicates that Rolex did not suddenly switch to a different cyclops shape or thickness.

If you go to an AD, chances are that you will see a few watches with less than the usual 2.5x magnification. The BLNR seems to be affected quite a bit, but I've also seen LV Subs that have an incredibly small magnification, whilst some others are perfectly fine.

This is especially troubling, as the lack of magnification on the watch is the first give away for a fake. Some people had their crystals replaced by the RSC, so Rolex must be aware of the variation. It does not seem something one should have to be careful about when buying a watch that should pass strict QC.

I am wondering whether some people on WUS here had any issues with insufficient mag and care to share photos of their date watches, or have a clue regarding the likely cause of this issue...

Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,149 Posts
This is the first that I am reading about an issue of magnification with the cyclops. Is it more common with current generations that prior ones? My only Rolex with a cyclops is the 16710 GMT - and magnification is per Rolex specifications.

But, yes, you are correct, insufficient magnification is, amongst others tell-tale signs, one of the ways to identify a fake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
My question is, where are you getting those images from?

How can you be sure that those watches that exhibit smaller than usual magnification are A) OEM Rolex crystals, and B) Not fakes to begin with?

Just a little more backstory might help us as a whole understand the situation a little better. Who are you? Are you a dealer witnessing these inconsistent magnifications, or are these friends of yours?

Did you just type "rolex cyclops" into google?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,149 Posts
My question is, where are you getting those images from?

How can you be sure that those watches that exhibit smaller than usual magnification are A) OEM Rolex crystals, and B) Not fakes to begin with?

Just a little more backstory might help us as a whole understand the situation a little better. Who are you? Are you a dealer witnessing these inconsistent magnifications, or are these friends of yours?

Did you just type "rolex cyclops" into google?
I agree. Pictures seem like a collection of Goggle's (not so) finest....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kraut.Burner

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I went to two AD's here in Melbourne Aus looking for an ExpII. ONe dealer had a low magnification on display. The other dealer had a correct mag one. I bought the correct one. When you see them in real life it is quite obvious that there is an issue. My question is why don't the AD's with faulty ones send them back? They seem quite happy to sell them, and then have the crystals replaced under warranty if the customer complains. Anyway, here is my polar with the correct 2.5 mag. :D
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Did you just type "rolex cyclops" into google?
These are from Rolex forums, cut out for your convenience. The watches shown are authentic because if I would not spot the fake, hundreds others on the forums would have. I simply try to bring this discussion to WUS, to find out how that mistake could actually happen. That you think I found random fakes there is my entire point. They are not, and that's a rubbish QC and production mistake of Rolex.

ONe dealer had a low magnification on display. The other dealer had a correct mag one.
Thank you. This is the second bit, I've seen it with my own eyes at an AD.

So let us move on from doubting the evidence, there is no doubt that this variation exists, and since Rolex must know of it (returns to the RSC), it remains a mystery how it can happen in the first place and why they did not make an effort to pull incorrect cyclops watches from their current distribution channels.
 

·
Moderator
Rolex / Tudor
Joined
·
14,636 Posts
I can vouch for the OP. Several members on TRF have had their crystals replaced free of charge due to incorrect magnification. This is a well-known issue that exists on several 6-digit Rolex models......not all of the watches, but some for sure.

I don't believe I have seen it on a discontinued 5-digit model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I can vouch for the OP. Several members on TRF have had their crystals replaced free of charge due to incorrect magnification. This is a well-known issue that exists on several 6-digit Rolex models......not all of the watches, but some for sure.

I don't believe I have seen it on a discontinued 5-digit model.
Good information, thank you - 6 digit models then. I was not aware that it is such a well known issue, it really took me by surprise.

Rolex probably just glued another cyclops onto the existing crystal, it's probably a quick and easy fix that does not require replacing the entire crystal.

Still wondering how such a standardised component can have this variation. Or are there in fact different thickness cyclopses mounted on different watches, depending on the thickness of the crystal seals and therefore distance to the dial surface? Maybe the wrong ones ended up on them?

Previously, when I would see someone with a Rolex that did not have the correct magnification, I would punch them in the face, burn down their house and ridicule them in front of their family - now what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Welp'. That's why we learn to love these forums. Did not believe this could actually be a problem. I stand corrected.

Makes me wonder if this can be attributed to the culture of "like tool watches" where they (Rolex) are producing watches for those who seek only brand recognition, and pay little attention to the goods they produce. Albeit a small amount compared to what they produce, but it still makes you wonder..... After such investments into quality control, do they actually look at these things?


Btw... Anyone want to trade a Z 16610 for a 16600.... hehe. Couldn't resist.

No but seriously.

Edit: 69th post.... Bow chicka wah wah!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,144 Posts
Good information, thank you - 6 digit models then. I was not aware that it is such a well known issue, it really took me by surprise.
Although becoming a well known issue (over on TRF) it isn't that recent. I believe people first started noticing it when the BLRO came out, and then it started appearing mostly on the BLNRs and SubLVs from around that time.

Although Rolex will replace the crystal, I hope they're also fixing the entire issue quickly. Their quality control is quite good, so this is a major slip up as far as I'm concerned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
There's a huge bunch of variables that come with these pictures from various sources, you don't know what the focal length of the lens is and how close the subject is in relation to the lens. These distortions cannot net you an accurate idea of size and measurements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
There's a huge bunch of variables that come with these pictures from various sources, you don't know what the focal length of the lens is and how close the subject is in relation to the lens. These distortions cannot net you an accurate idea of size and measurements.
If you read through the entire thread, you will notice that the fault is not in the images or my interpretation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
There's a huge bunch of variables that come with these pictures from various sources, you don't know what the focal length of the lens is and how close the subject is in relation to the lens. These distortions cannot net you an accurate idea of size and measurements.
I am sorry but this does not make any sense to me as the focal length does not change on the specific watch. For a particular picture the cyclops and date wheel are using the same ralitive focal length.

What I see is the percentage of date wheel shown in the individual cyclops area. It is clear from the pictures that there is a differance in total date wheel size within the cyclops itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,546 Posts
I was convinced I had a diminutive mag because I've read so many threads about it. But after looking at the collage of samples I feel better about mine. That picture of the before/after cyclops correction does not make a case to get the 'fix' done, as to me the difference is quite marginal.



However from a different angle it does look a bit weak.



I think I'm done worrying about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Tseg, yours appears to be less than 2.5x as well.

If you are still undecided, you may find that your AD can fix it for you, free of charge, in a couple days. Others seemed to have that kind of experience according to TRF.

If it was my watch, I'd change it. If I have such a prominent feature on my dial, it better work to specs on a $10k item. The fact that it may be unjustly discounted as a fake is just another factor.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top