The cyclops magnification VARIES on new Rolex's

[Tseg]

Originally Posted by handsfull

Are you arguing that it has more than one purpose or only one? 'Readability' and magnification go hand in hand, otherwise everyone with reading glasses are all wrong - LOL.

While they go hand-in-hand, a highly magnified object distorts more and gets the numeral edges cut off from more severe angles, so I would argue that bigger is not always better related to readability in a confined space.

More so, I'm just trying to highlight that after hundreds of posts no one has taken a practical comparison... and conclusions may not change... I'm just stating this line of reasoning has yet to be explored ad nauseum like all the other angles in the debate.

[rolepam312]

Originally Posted by Britexpat76

How is it a QC issue??

I think its glaringly obvious the cyclops has been changed and its nothing to do with QC!

You either work for Rolex or have no clue or are in some serious denial .. It's clear Rolex is trying to pull this mag issue over everyone , such arrogance yet you defend them??

[Britexpat76]

Originally Posted by rolepam312

You either work for Rolex or have no clue or are in some serious denial .. It's clear Rolex is trying to pull this mag issue over everyone , such arrogance yet you defend them??

Believe me I don't work for Rolex and I certainly have a clue, more so than you I would almost guarantee. Good day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tseg]

Conclusions may not change but has it been demonstrated that a large mag cyclops is more readable in all situations? I know the the numerals are bigger head-on, but is it also easier to read from an angle? Does light get magnified across all the numerals equally or better? etc... I personally don't know because I do not have a large-mag date, so am asking the questions. The only answer I have complete confidence with is that a small mag date is much easier to read than a no-mag date.

[handsfull]

Originally Posted by Tseg

While they go hand-in-hand, a highly magnified object distorts more and gets the numeral edges cut off from more severe angles, so I would argue that bigger is not always better related to readability in a confined space.

More so, I'm just trying to highlight that after hundreds of posts no one has taken a practical comparison... and conclusions may not change... I'm just stating this line of reasoning has yet to be explored ad nauseum like all the other angles in the debate.

[Loevhagen]

This thread has sadly turned into a standup show.

[john_nch]

I have raised some of the benefits of the small mag cyclops previously as well. I guess I have learned to live and come to terms with it as I don't really want to send it in to RSC and risk them scratching the case and then possibly doing a hack job to polish it out, without knowing for certain what is supposed to be the correct cyclops.

My observations are the smaller mag gives:

- a modern look not as much convexity in lens less protrusion
- allows more light in sometimes appears as a spotlight
- better readability from angles less distortion
- date appears like the 6&9 hour markers giving the symmetry of a no date sub

Also, I can't understand why people still insist on using the cyclops to verify authenticity when it is outsourced and not even made inhouse?

[Britexpat76]

Originally Posted by john_nch

I have raised some of the benefits of the small mag cyclops previously as well. I guess I have learned to live and come to terms with it as I don't really want to send it in to RSC and risk them scratching the case and then possibly doing a hack job to polish it out, without knowing for certain what is supposed to be the correct cyclops.



My observations are the smaller mag gives:



- a modern look not as much convexity in lens less protrusion

- allows more light in sometimes appears as a spotlight

- better readability from angles less distortion

- date appears like the 6&9 hour markers giving the symmetry of a no date sub



Also, I can't understand why people still insist on using the cyclops to verify authenticity when it is outsourced and not even made inhouse?

Another one of the good posts. Unfortunately you can't reason with the pitchfork brigade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[skeen]

I agree that the small mag in and of itself has certain benefits. However, all I care about is the intended mag. Even if I preferred the small mag personally, I would want to accept nothing less than the intended design.

[cht]

Originally Posted by Britexpat76

Tell me, how are Rolex putting profits before perfection by changing the cyclops? Do you have information that the new lower mag cyclops costs less money? Do you think if a supplier sent a bad batch to Rolex they would use them or send them back?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by skeen

They're saving money by not doing a recall - obviously......

Yes.

Obviously there was a QC eff up....and the way they are handling this situation puts their profits before their brand equity and heritage.



Impossible standards huh?

From their website...

Rolex-made in Switzerland /switz • er • land /: 1. Conceived, designed, manufactured and tested by Rolex in Switzerland.
2. The only way to ensure every part, every element and every assembly meets our own impossible standards.

[handsfull]

Originally Posted by Britexpat76

Another one of the good posts. Unfortunately you can't reason with the pitchfork brigade.

I love how you default yourself as always being correct and everyone else is goofy. Your a real gem. LOL

[Britexpat76]

Originally Posted by handsfull

I love how you default yourself as always being correct and everyone else is goofy. Your a real gem. LOL

No I default as having an open mind. Some people are putting forward valid arguments as to why the mag has been changed. Others just assuming a company the size, heritage and reputation of Rolex will use an obvious different cyclops, realise its wrong and think it will be alright........Lets not send them back..........we can wing this boys type attitude. That is unbelievable as there are way too many of these in all materials not just SS that seems to pop up on here

[JRolex]

Originally Posted by otisc

I'm not sure either of those two are exactly on the nose, but something close to that, yes. I think the same thing when I see a woman in line clutching an obviously fake Louis Vuitton bag. I think they are trying desperately to be something they are not. I find people who buy and show off their counterfeits to be total poseurs. If that person is in a sales position, of course I doubt everything they say - they are trying to portray success where there is none. If they wore a Steinhart homage, at least they are being real.

And here's the thing - you may find the above reprehensible or elitist or whatever - but it is a real thought shared by many. God only knows how many people look at the cheesy salesman's fake Rolex and make a judgment call on him. I don't want people making that judgment call on me because Rolex has forgotten what "The Rolex Way" is all about. This tiny cyclops they are peddling is ridiculous. And I'm not talking about aesthetics -- I'm talking about two copies of the same reference showing different cyclops right next to each other in an AD's case. Ridiculous. Rolex is doing serious, serious damage to their brand.

Best reply I've heard in a while. I feel like it needs to be repeated.

[soundserious]

I would not buy a low mag watch, whether new or secondhand. I'm feeling bad for sellers on the classifieds frankly.

[CHRONOLEX]

This thread has gotten nasty and that's unfortunate. It feels like a lot of perfectionistic people (like me) want others to justify to them why their mag is small. No one really knows but we can all agree it's clearly not proper bc Rolex has been changing them out. That only leaves QC problem or bad batch. Doesn't really matter. It's clearly not intentional. I'm in the same camp. I am a die hard Rolex loyalist and my small mag issue on BLNR really upset me. I stared at it every day and found ways to bring it up in conversations with total strangers. So I get it. But I can tell you that if you take it to the RSC and make a medium to large deal about it, they'll replace it for you. They replaced mine. I talked to them yesterday and they said mag was dramatically larger on my redo and I'll have it back by end of week or early next week.

I would suggest that for those of you who are seeking solace in this now very combative thread, you just decide to take action and replace it or decide as have some others that you like the small mag for whatever reason. Visual symmetry, ease of reading, etc. Life is too short to dwell on this any longer. My two cents.

[Loevhagen]

For those who praise Rolex - the same people would not understand why there is different magnification. For the rest of us, living in a real world and understanding the mechanics of it - we understand why this happened. It is just a glitch - with professional act (editing homepage info). Politics has never been a nice view from the inside.

[qyk1010101]

Originally Posted by CHRONOLEX

No one really knows but we can all agree it's clearly not proper bc Rolex has been changing them out.

The RSC showed me 2 brand new LVs with small mag. They offered to swap the crystal on mine but if that were an acknowledgement that it is not proper, why will they continue to sell the "defective" watches?

I really don't know what to think at this point. As much as I'd prefer one with a large mag, my watch is relatively new and I am quite adverse to them cracking it open. Especially since the issue is not related to performance.

[CHRONOLEX]

Originally Posted by qyk1010101

The RSC showed me 2 brand new LVs with small mag. They offered to swap the crystal on mine but if that were an acknowledgement that it is not proper, why will they continue to sell the "defective" watches?

I really don't know what to think at this point. As much as I'd prefer one with a large mag, my watch is relatively new and I am quite adverse to them cracking it open. Especially since the issue is not related to performance.

I think they sold them bc theyre mass produced goods and it prob wasnt until they started assembling with the watches that they discovered this. Bc they couldn't hold their assembly process and/or couldn't ultimately sell them as new after disassembling the complete watches, they just sold them.

[tucsonrick]

Originally Posted by Britexpat76

No I default as having an open mind. Some people are putting forward valid arguments as to why the mag has been changed. Others just assuming a company the size, heritage and reputation of Rolex will use an obvious different cyclops, realise its wrong and think it will be alright........Lets not send them back..........we can wing this boys type attitude. That is unbelievable as there are way too many of these in all materials not just SS that seems to pop up on here

If they don't want any mag, take the cyclops off. What else is if for?

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by qyk1010101

The RSC showed me 2 brand new LVs with small mag. They offered to swap the crystal on mine but if that were an acknowledgement that it is not proper, why will they continue to sell the "defective" watches?

I really don't know what to think at this point. As much as I'd prefer one with a large mag, my watch is relatively new and I am quite adverse to them cracking it open. Especially since the issue is not related to performance.

I wouldn't worry about them changing the crystal. They made the watch to begin with for gosh sakes and even if something did happen who's in a better position to take care of it than the Rolex Service Center?

The only thing is I probably wouldn't want a service LEC on my brand new watch when I didn't break the crystal myself.

[CHRONOLEX]

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

The only thing is I probably wouldn't want a service LEC on my brand new watch when I didn't break the crystal myself.

I had that same concern but the LEC is already so small, it would be impossible to see the S.

[Old Expat Beast]

Service crystals don't have the S on them any more, just the regular lec, I believe.

[Watch This]

I have a new BLNR. The mag is correct. The font seems somewhat more narrow. I find the debate amusing. There seems little doubt many pieces were released with incorrect magnification. Rolex has undertaken replacements which I doubt they would do were there not a problem. A brand that sells perfection is not going to openly admit imperfection. If you have a piece that you're not happy with, fix it. No big deal.

It's not gloom and doom for the brand. Hardly. I do not understand however those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious problem or similarly, those who would make excuses for a significant imperfection in a very expensive watch. Rolex let some pieces slip through the cracks. Some here seem to expect a public apology. Not happening.

[BLACKHORSE 6]

Originally Posted by SMD

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? If we cannot answer the question definitively then it is worthy of discussion ad infinitum.

How can there be a "conclusion" if the only people that have the answer aren't speaking?

Someone knows their history. The "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" question was a major theological debate in the medieval world. Just like the Rolex magnification question, I doubt we'll ever know.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Service crystals don't have the S on them any more, just the regular lec, I believe.

Yeah, that's what I thought too, but I just had the sapphire on my son's 16610 replaced and I believe it has the "S" LEC. I need to dig out my loupe and check for sure.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Loevhagen

This thread has sadly turned into a standup show.

Agree and time to close it before it gets blown out of all proportion of magnitude.