BLNR Date Magnification

[CHRONOLEX]

Hi all,

This may have been previously addressed (if so please direct me to that thread) but has anyone noticed the cyclops date magnification the BLNR isn't as big as the green GMTII or other Rolexes for that matter? Perhaps the cyclops is bigger or it's an illusion, but the date doesn't fill up the lens in the usual way.

Any comments?

[mannyv11]

Can you post pictures? And did you buy the watch from an AD?

[77T]

I don't recall it being any different.

[ronricks]

Seems many people with the random serial number watches have been posting this. About the 3rd or 4th post I have seen about it........

[CHRONOLEX]

Yes new from AD. I also noticed that the cyclops lens doesn't appear to be completely straight (level with the date wheel in the window). I had the chance to buy one from another AD back when they were extremely rare but backed out of the deal because I didn't like the look of the magnification. Over time I found they were all the same so I went ahead with the purchase. However, when I mentioned it to the AD, they hadn't noticed. I asked them to pull a green GMTII and they agreed it was noticeably smaller. He said he'd check with his Rolex rep on rationale but never heard back.

[Sir Larry Wildman]

I have noticed this too; mine being less magnified than my father's SubC and GMT IIc. Maybe 2.25x rather than 2.5x.

I brought this up to a customer service rep and a watch maker at RSC NY on my most recent visit. The watchmaker agreed the magnification on the BLNR isn't as strong as on most GMT IIc models of the past but could not say why. He said he's seen it on numerous BLNRs and is waiting to see the BLRO to determine if this is the new standard.

I actually think it makes the date much more clear when reading it.

[SaddleSC]

I have noticed this in a couple posts on the Sales Forum. Some BLNR magnification appears smaller than others and definitely smaller than LNs and Subs.

[Annan]

Specifications on the Rolex website states "2.5X", same as all other models.

[CHRONOLEX]

This is great feedback! I agree that it appears to be about 2.0x-2.5x and weirdly it does help somewhat in making the date more legible. Just was shocking that it didn't "blow up" the number in the way I was accustomed.

[Tseg]

Any chance the date is actually smaller and Rolex did not tell anyone?

[red1108nyc]

Looks fairly normal to me?

[viper9669]

I was told by a retailer that this is a recent occurrence, same as misaligned bezels on SubCs.
Its a factory thing.

[Snow-Dweller]

There was a recent thread that went into this in great detail.....except it was about recent SubC models. The end result was that it's not the cyclops - it's the distance between the crystal and the dial. There seems to be a serious problem in the quality control department at our favorite brand.

[14060m]

No way
It couldn't be

[CHRONOLEX]

red1108NYC - This is a great example of how the date is smaller. On a green or other Rolex model, the date would fill the cyclops. In this case it's a defined smaller white rectangle.

Group - If this is a factory defect, is there any chance for remedy?

[tkerrmd]

Never noticed a difference

[Tseg]

Originally Posted by red1108nyc

Looks fairly normal to me?

From the internet:




If there is a difference I won't lose sleep over it because it can't be much.

[Brucie D]

How about this one?:




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[trumpedaces]

I had an AD tell me the BLNR was 2x compared to the Sub being 2.5x. Weird, but you can see the difference when they're side by side..

[Tseg]

Originally Posted by trumpedaces

I had an AD tell me the BLNR was 2x compared to the Sub being 2.5x. Weird, but you can see the difference when they're side by side..

May be truth there.

From the internet:

[john_nch]

Not sure about the theory of the distance between the crystal and dial as opposed to the optics of the newly designed cyclops causing the difference in magnification. My GMT II cyclops has a higher curvature lens compared to my SubC's lens, thus producing a higher magnification than the SubC. Much prefer the smaller magnification as the date is far easier to read now especially at an angle. Also, the date bubble does not look as obtrusive on the SubC with the decreased curvature lens, cleaner look in my opinion.

[flv112]

I just noticed my DJ2's magnification seems weaker than my Sub C. Any DJ2 and SubC owners who noticed this too?

[xbox]

Magnification on my 114060 is terrible ..... can't see the date no matter how hard I look

[flv112]

Originally Posted by xbox

Magnification on my 114060 is terrible ..... can't see the date no matter how hard I look

funny!

[Sarko]

I had the same problem with my Ceramic Sub. There ware more guys here on the forum with that problem. Is the quality problem at Rolex, well known on different forums by now. I got mine glass replaced by the AD under the warranty. I will post the thread here just let me find it. It was exact the poor magnification as GMT and sub above.

[Sarko]

Here is the thread of three of us here on the forum incl. Pictures.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=352444

All three (my black sub, hulk and bluesy) of us got glass replaced under warranty for free. It is quality issue. Same problem as gtm and sub above.

[Sarko]

Originally Posted by john_nch

Not sure about the theory of the distance between the crystal and dial as opposed to the optics of the newly designed cyclops causing the difference in magnification. My GMT II cyclops has a higher curvature lens compared to my SubC's lens, thus producing a higher magnification than the SubC. Much prefer the smaller magnification as the date is far easier to read now especially at an angle. Also, the date bubble does not look as obtrusive on the SubC with the decreased curvature lens, cleaner look in my opinion.

Just like me u got the Sub with quality issue cyclops magnification. I understand u prefer like that but it is not how it should be officialy. I checked this at the AD and they admit is not right. They replaced the glass under warranty. It seems that this is a well known problem on the world wide forums of rolex.

[regnant]

My dad said BLNR is the more legible watch he has ever seen , honestly I had not paid attention to cyclops difference between two GMT MASTER II models which are BLNR and black ceramic bezel one .
I see date is clearer in comparison with my mom'd DJ but I contributed this to size difference

[Sarko]

Originally Posted by regnant

My dad said BLNR is the more legible watch he has ever seen , honestly I had not paid attention to cyclops difference between two GMT MASTER II models which are BLNR and black ceramic bezel one .
I see date is clearer in comparison with my mom'd DJ but I contributed this to size difference

It is more clear due to AR coating which Rolex put on the cyclops of new ceramic models!

[GradyPhilpott]

The date on my BLNR looks kind of small, but I haven't made a direct comparison with my DJ.

The first watch I noticed with an apparently smaller date magnification was the Explorer II (216570).

There are many factors that affect the apparent size of the date, including the thickness of the crystal and the height of the rehaut, and how far from the watch the camera is.

The old acrylic crystal models seemed to have the largest dates, although the magnification is said to be the same and the date aperture and the fonts don't seem smaller.