ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

colemanitis · 2 October 2007, 01:38 PM

Has anyone else noticed the inconsistent cyclops magnification between Rolex models? Subs seem to be magnified more than the other models. The magnification on the GMTs is noticeably weaker, even on the brand new GMTs. Maybe it's just me?

BiG JeEzY · 2 October 2007, 01:52 PM

Well...I have never compared two different Oyster models with date side by side and noticed any major difference.

However, in all the catalogs that I have looked through, all the Oyster models have a consistent magnification of the date.

Maybe there is the possibility that the thickness of the crystal may not be the same on all the models.

Both my GMT and Explorer II seem to be consistent with their magnification. It was just a little hard to compare them because the date font on my older GMT is different.

roadcarver · 2 October 2007, 02:26 PM

That's true Jeff... it seems on sub date models, the date font is much more pronounced.

Flyjet601 · 2 October 2007, 05:57 PM

I agree, but on the new GMT, that is by far the best date magnification I have seen on any model. With the AR coating, makes it look even better and brighter(if that makes sense).

colemanitis · 2 October 2007, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyjet601

I agree, but on the new GMT, that is by far the best date magnification I have seen on any model. With the AR coating, makes it look even better and brighter(if that makes sense).

It's certainly the clearest, but I wouldn't call it the best. The date mag on the new GMT may be the weakest of all Rolex models. I prefer a more magnified date.

blackeagle · 3 October 2007, 12:28 AM

I have worn GMTs for over 20 years and their date is as clear to me as my son in laws sub. Of course I keep my eye glasses on !

Andad · 2 October 2007, 06:33 PM

The crystal thickness makes no difference. The distance from the top of the crystal to the face of the datewheel is the key. IMO.

BiG JeEzY · 2 October 2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directioneng

The crystal thickness makes no difference. The distance from the top of the crystal to the face of the datewheel is the key. IMO.

Im sorry to argue to your opinion but if that is the case, then how come Rolex does not have a cyclops on the Sea Dweller model?? I think if what you said was true, Rolex would not have any problems adding a cyclops on the SD to magnify the date. However, the cyclops is not there due to issues with achieving the proper magnification. Again Im sorry I dont want to sound like Im being rude, I was just curious.

mike · 2 October 2007, 09:00 PM

The 1680 is the king!

2 October 2007, 01:38 PM	#1
colemanitis "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Real Name: Jeff Location: Florida Watch: PAM 1090 Posts: 3,723	Cyclops magnification inconsistency Has anyone else noticed the inconsistent cyclops magnification between Rolex models? Subs seem to be magnified more than the other models. The magnification on the GMTs is noticeably weaker, even on the brand new GMTs. Maybe it's just me? __________________ Member #471

2 October 2007, 01:52 PM	#2
BiG JeEzY "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Jerome Location: N. California Watch: GMT I/EXP II/DJ Posts: 3,351	Well...I have never compared two different Oyster models with date side by side and noticed any major difference. However, in all the catalogs that I have looked through, all the Oyster models have a consistent magnification of the date. Maybe there is the possibility that the thickness of the crystal may not be the same on all the models. Both my GMT and Explorer II seem to be consistent with their magnification. It was just a little hard to compare them because the date font on my older GMT is different. __________________ -Rolex Explorer II Black dial 16570 (circa 2001) -Rolex GMT Master I Pepsi 1675 (circa 1978) -Rolex Datejust TT Champagne 16233 (circa 1991) -Vintage Longines Automatic La Grande Classique -Vintage Seiko 6138 Automatic Chronograph with "Kakume" Dial

2 October 2007, 02:26 PM	#3
roadcarver "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Real Name: Vernon Location: C-a-n-a-d-a Watch: 16600 Posts: 5,641	That's true Jeff... it seems on sub date models, the date font is much more pronounced. __________________ I'm just a cook...

2 October 2007, 05:57 PM	#4
Flyjet601 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Hong Kong Watch: All of them Posts: 2,789	I agree, but on the new GMT, that is by far the best date magnification I have seen on any model. With the AR coating, makes it look even better and brighter(if that makes sense). __________________ I used to be indecisive, now I'm not sure

2 October 2007, 06:33 PM	#7
Andad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Eddie Location: Australia Watch: A few. Posts: 37,505	The crystal thickness makes no difference. The distance from the top of the crystal to the face of the datewheel is the key. IMO. __________________ E

3 October 2007, 12:28 AM	#6
blackeagle Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: virginia Posts: 109	I have worn GMTs for over 20 years and their date is as clear to me as my son in laws sub. Of course I keep my eye glasses on !

2 October 2007, 09:00 PM	#9
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	The 1680 is the king!

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