Lower Mag Date Magnifier Preference?

[Wacko]

Maybe it was just Rolex trying a new design that would show less distortion at different angles than the 2.5 in an effort to clean up the look. The 2.5 can look cartoony at times, but the smaller mag just doesn't look right to me. Also since the magnification is from the convex lens thickness, has anybody noticed if they are thinner?

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by FTX I

+



+



+



=

You forgot the "Huh"....

So here....

"Huh"


But I can help!

So I went to buy the BLNO that my AD had come in....said it was just for me...whatever...

It was FACTORY FRESH....with the 1.5x mag.

I compared it to a sub they had for awhile. 2.5X

A bunch of other references came in @ 1.5x...

SO....is 1.5x the new norm? Does ANYBODY like it better? Why would ROLEX do this if everybody hates it?

Why is Rolex continuing to use defective mag lenses? To use up that supply, rather than discard them?

Do YOU really think Rolex would do that?

I refused to purchase the watch with the 1.5x mag and send it to RSC to hopefully get it rectified...

I hope that the 1.5x is not the new norm, but it seems to be. Again...why would ROLEX continue to use underspec parts???

If I find one with a 2.5x, then cool.

So hopefully that helps clears up the confusion and can dilute the mean and nasty venom that some members of this forum have towards me...

[xjeeunitx]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

You forgot the "Huh"....

So here....

"Huh"

Weirdo.

[Sublover2166]

Originally Posted by style88

You know that that they don't state the +2.5 power anymore in the website right?

If they had intentionally remove the 2.5x statement on their website, perhaps it is true that 2.5x may not be a norm going forward.

I think they purposely removed the 2.5x on their site as a "cover your arse" move. They obviously are aware they have a mag issue and don't want to be liable for false advertising. IMHO

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by xjeeunitx

Weirdo.

Not very nice

[xjeeunitx]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

You forgot the "Huh"....

So here....

"Huh"


But I can help!

So I went to buy the BLNO that my AD had come in....said it was just for me...whatever...

It was FACTORY FRESH....with the 1.5x mag.

I compared it to a sub they had for awhile. 2.5X

A bunch of other references came in @ 1.5x...

SO....is 1.5x the new norm?

Why is Rolex continuing to use defective mag lenses? To use up that supply, rather than discard them?

Do YOU really think Rolex would do that?

I refused to purchase the watch with the 1.5x mag and send it to RSC to hopefully get it rectified...

I hope that the 1.5x is not the new norm, but it seems to be. Again...why would ROLEX continue to use underspec parts???

If I find one with a 2.5x, then cool.

So hopefully that helps clears up the confusion and can dilute the mean and nasty venom that some members of this forum have towards me...

No one has any vendetta against you. We just notice when certain members constantly make rude comments that has no value to the forum whatsoever. I don't know if you know... but most of your posts are quite negative.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by xjeeunitx

No one has any vendetta against you. We just notice when certain members constantly make rude comments that has no value to the forum whatsoever. I don't know if you know... but most of your posts are quite negative.

You're the one calling me names and you say I'm negative?

[xjeeunitx]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

You're the one calling me names and you say I'm negative?

But... it's true...

[Ravager135]

^^^This guy is still going at it?

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

^^^This guy is still going at it?

So you like the 1.5x magnifier?

[nick c]

Originally Posted by xjeeunitx

No one has any vendetta against you. We just notice when certain members constantly make rude comments that has no value to the forum whatsoever. I don't know if you know... but most of your posts are quite negative.

And the same goes for Panerai forum

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by nick c

And the same goes for Panerai forum

I just got an new Panerai..this weekend...

It doesn't even have a magnifier...

And I didn't trade a Rolex for it...

[powerfunk]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

So hopefully that helps clears up the confusion and can dilute the mean and nasty venom that some members of this forum have towards me...

Ugh, stop it. That whole post is intentionally condescending, not to mention flawed. You can't just put a couple smilies and passive-aggressively say "I hope that clears it up" and act like you're the good guy here. Not fooling me. I'd block you but, unfortunately, that function doesn't seem to work very well in Tapatalk which is what I mainly use.

[nick c]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

I just got an new Panerai..this weekend...

It doesn't even have a magnifier...

And I didn't trade a Rolex for it...

We should drink for that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcVC...esktop:cheers:

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by nick c

We should drink for that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcVC...esktop:cheers:

Yeah..I'll put some pics in the Panerai forum later...

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

You forgot the "Huh"....

So here....

"Huh"


But I can help!

So I went to buy the BLNO that my AD had come in....said it was just for me...whatever...

It was FACTORY FRESH....with the 1.5x mag.

I compared it to a sub they had for awhile. 2.5X

A bunch of other references came in @ 1.5x...

SO....is 1.5x the new norm? Does ANYBODY like it better? Why would ROLEX do this if everybody hates it?

Why is Rolex continuing to use defective mag lenses? To use up that supply, rather than discard them?

Do YOU really think Rolex would do that?

I refused to purchase the watch with the 1.5x mag and send it to RSC to hopefully get it rectified...

I hope that the 1.5x is not the new norm, but it seems to be. Again...why would ROLEX continue to use underspec parts???

If I find one with a 2.5x, then cool.

So hopefully that helps clears up the confusion and can dilute the mean and nasty venom that some members of this forum have towards me...

No you can't. Your posts make no sense and your attitude is not welcome.

[Ravager135]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

So you like the 1.5x magnifier?

Actually referring to you. Your posts are thinly veiled and antagonistic. I'm a tad more direct. Just give it up. You don't know anything about Rolex that anyone else is incapable of finding out on their own. No one knows what the deal is with the magnification. Some don't mind, some do. You haven't figured anything out, you're just being provocative.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

Actually referring to you. Your posts are thinly veiled and antagonistic. I'm a tad more direct. Just give it up. You don't know anything about Rolex that anyone else is incapable of finding out on their own. No one knows what the deal is with the magnification. Some don't mind, some do. You haven't figured anything out, you're just being provocative.

I really don't care for the 1.5x at all...

It looked terrible on the BLNO...

It's no secret that I'm a Rolex fan, but this mag issue is very odd...even I will question it.

[Ravager135]

Never said you did. I'm questioning your assertion that you presume to know what Rolex intends to do going forward based on anecdote. We are not on the same side of an argument, you're changing the conversation. In this instance, I'm ending it.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

Never said you did. I'm questioning your assertion that you presume to know what Rolex intends to do going forward based on anecdote. We are not on the same side of an argument, you're changing the conversation. In this instance, I'm ending it.

So why do you think the 1.5x mag exists?

[handsfull]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

So why do you think the 1.5x mag exists?

[redsubby]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

Never said you did. I'm questioning your assertion that you presume to know what Rolex intends to do going forward based on anecdote. We are not on the same side of an argument, you're changing the conversation. In this instance, I'm ending it.

It's funny how some people think their argument is correct and others are wrong. It's like those think they know Rolex is just using up a bad batch of cyclops and anything else is incorrect. Just dumb.
I really hope Rolex would come out and say welcome to the new norm so everybody can shut the xxxx up and move the xxxx on. Sick and tired of hearing this issue.

[WelshBoy]

And I wish they'd come out and say sorry we f****d up, it's going back to normal, it was a QC issue. They won't, but it will go back to normal. As your not affected you don't want to read about it Redsubby, there are an awful lot of people that are affected and want to share their point of view. It's clear from the title what the thread is about, so don't open it and don't read it! Im more bored with people like you whinging that people want to discuss it because it's important to them. If everyone dismissed a topic that wasn't of interest to them then there'd be no forum.

[Freshly206]

Ya it's disconcerting. It's one of the most obvious blemishes a new Rolex could have. I'm not quite sure how the quality control people could miss such an obvious defect. On the other hand how do they even make a cyclopes that doesn't work? Lol

I was wondering if having one of those actually would be worth more money in the future because they are rare. Similar to other collectables that a defective model run actually increases value. I wonder how many people walked away with a Rolex with the defect.

[Freshly206]

So when I was looking at watches at the Rolex store in SF before I purchased my Submariner, I was looking at a green sub Hulk and noticed the cyclopes didn't magnify the date.



I asked the rep and he told me that quite a few Rolex's come into the store from the Rolex factory like that and that it was a big problem that he deals with regularly. He told me a story about a guy who ordered a GMT "Batman" from the factory. When it finally came in a few months later he had to send it back to the factory because the cyclopes magnifier wasn't working

[marzzz]

My brand-new today BLNR looks perfect- the date is centered and huge, so I am estimating based on prior info here that it is 2.5x

[padi56]

This thread has run its course and now being magnified well out of proportion so before any moderation might be needed and a few infraction points given its now closed.