The cyclops magnification VARIES on new Rolex's

[AkshayArgade]

Originally Posted by skeen

I feel like we need to start a "small mag club"...if there's no issue :)

yes i agree, your rolex has small mag too?

[skeen]

Originally Posted by AkshayArgade

yes i agree, your rolex has small mag too?

Yes, my GMT is alongside my Sub in the original post. I am considering whether or not to take it in.

At this point, I just don't know one way or the other. I've seen so many small mags in windows now...I'm wondering if this is just the new mag.

It's clear however that Rolex will change it, if you ask. But apparently...will not admit to a fault. So, in limbo.

[Mak2013]

Its a supplier issue. They outsource that part of the watch. However QC at Rolex should have picked it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mak2013]

Originally Posted by skeen

And this is why I feel like I'm in the twilight zone! What on earth is going on? I am perfectly happy to accept this is the new mag...perfectly happy. But what Rolex are saying, doing, and showing all contradict one another - randomly.

If you are happy then why are you so worried.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AS1]

The inconsistency is what is so absurd. These are watches with movements made to incredibly detailed specifications, and yet somehow with this most visible of features they cannot follow a specification.

Frankly I agree with the OP bringing this up again, yes there have been other topics on this, but I would rather read a topic about an issue relating to the production and specifications of Rolexes than the [ ]th "Your Rolex and your [ ]" random thread that is just an excuse to post a photo of a watch with whatever item.

[skeen]

Originally Posted by Mak2013

If you are happy then why are you so worried.

You're twisting my words. I am happy to accept it's the new mag is what I said. But apparently...it's not. Or it is. Or it isn't.

[soundserious]

Obviously different batches of crystals, the datewheels are standardized. There is an obvious difference and for me I'd like to examine the mag before picking a watch. Not sure if there is any "fault" though. It's nice of them to swap out if there's a concern.

[Mak2013]

This is the newest release. This is the new normal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Minimalist]

Originally Posted by AS1

The inconsistency is what is so absurd. These are watches with movements made to incredibly detailed specifications, and yet somehow with this most visible of features they cannot follow a specification.

Frankly I agree with the OP bringing this up again, yes there have been other topics on this, but I would rather read a topic about an issue relating to the production and specifications of Rolexes than the [ ]th "Your Rolex and your [ ]" random thread that is just an excuse to post a photo of a watch with whatever item.

+1 nicely said, couldn't agree more!

[AS1]

Originally Posted by Mak2013

This is the newest release. This is the new normal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except it's not, because somewhere on here there is a comparison of 2 of these models, each with different mags.

[skeen]

Originally Posted by AS1

The inconsistency is what is so absurd. These are watches with movements made to incredibly detailed specifications, and yet somehow with this most visible of features they cannot follow a specification.

It's outright bizarre. Because I look at my Sub every day, it just jumps out at you how small the mag is.

This small mag must exist in the tens of thousands or more across the world in AD's & boutiques...and how many thousands of Rolex employees are there? All these eyeballs and absolutely nothing mentioned?

And then people on this forum literally saying, "What's the big deal?" Just bizarre.

[AkshayArgade]

I have decided to live with it, am not going to take it in to the AD, but I am surely going to question them next time at their boutique.
I am just too paranoid to think something worse would happen if they try to fix the problem and a bigger problem crops up.

[skeen]

Originally Posted by Mak2013

This is the newest release. This is the new normal

Oh yeh? Cos this is from Rolex's website. So now what?

[soundserious]

Alarming because one of the classic "tells" of a fake watch is a low mag cyclops.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Mak2013

This is the newest release. This is the new normal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is this your watch?

It's only been a month since Basel.

[skeen]

And non product photog from ablogtowatch: http://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-ya...ramic-watches/

[AkshayArgade]

Originally Posted by skeen

Oh yeh? Cos this is from Rolex's website. So now what?

Amazing mistake from Rolex

[Mak2013]

Originally Posted by skeen

Oh yeh? Cos this is from Rolex's website. So now what?

You have to accept the fact that Rolex is a mass produced watch.
These crystal are made in millions

Obviously a QC issue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AkshayArgade]

Originally Posted by soundserious

Alarming because one of the classic "tells" of a fake watch is a low mag cyclops.

agreed

[skeen]

Originally Posted by Mak2013

You have to accept the fact that Rolex is a mass produced watch.
These crystal are made in millions

Obviously a QC issue

And no problemo if this is confirmed to be the case. But why did Rolex then remove the "2.5x" from their materials? One does not cover up a QC issue...

[Mak2013]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Is this your watch?



It's only been a month since Basel.

No, its a sample at baselworld.
My AD is the guy wearing it on this pic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[locutus49]

This is indeed a mystery. I would not buy a watch unless I was happy with the cyclops magnification, but that is me. Others don't seem to notice or care. To me it would be a big deal.

There is a national (American) radio show called Coast to Coast AM where aliens, UFOs, and other mysteries are discussed. Maybe I'll call into the show and see if they heard of any conspiracy. (search for it on youtube).

[Mak2013]

Originally Posted by skeen

And no problemo if this is confirmed to be the case. But why did Rolex then remove the "2.5x" from their materials? One does not cover up a QC issue...

2.5x cyclop is one of defining design details of a Rolex. Its something that they should not mess with.

To put a fork in this conversation, I think your best bet is to call Rolex Geneva.
No one here knows exactly what is going on. Some speculate its intentional, some speculate its QC issue. Nobody knows.
Its pointless to go on and talk about it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jim Smyth]

Originally Posted by skeen

But we haven't!! That's the point. Please, tell me then - what's the conclusion. Tell me. Give me one conclusion that does not contradict any of the facts I listed. Please.

Why dont you write Rolex and tell us what they have to say about it.

[CHRONOLEX]

I have a large Rolex collection and my BLNR bought new from AD in Aug 2013 had the issue. In fact as I've stated on here several times, I had the chance to buy from two other ADs before my actual purchase and it was because of the small mag that I didn't buy the others. I thought it was defective. But then when I saw it for the third time I just figured it was a design change and bought it.

Despite loving the watch colors and design, I really wasn't happy with it. I tried to convince myself it was fine and better not to mess with the factory condition and some people even tried the "this flaw will make the watch more valuable some day" rationale on me with no success. Later I started seeing versions of my watch with the correct mag and I was about to trade it in for original cost for a new BLRO in December but couldn't justify the change. Was I really about to spend net $20k+ for the cyclops issue? I couldn't do it.

So I asked one of my ADs to send it back for warranty change. He did and it came back to me wrapped in green tissue paper (no pouch) in the same condition (plus a few free scratches and a ton of fingerprints) with the message that it was within spec and nothing could be done. So I forced myself to wear it every day to try to get over it but it still bothered me. I thought about selling it to a preowned dealer and waiting to find a new one but would have lost $2k in that trade. So I just waited.

I travel to NYC a lot so finally I decided to wear it on my next trip and visit the RSC in person to explain my concern. I went in there and waited and when it was my turn, the lady came out and listened to me explain the issue. At first she claimed she'd never heard of this issue before and then I explained I was gifted my first Rolex at 14 (by my mom to quiet me down) and have been obsessed with the brand and a loyal customer and collector since then. I said I'm very sensitive about my relationship with your brand so please don't say or do anything to jeopardize my passionate loyalty to Rolex. She said she appreciated that and took it back.

I waited 20 min and she came out. She said their technical manager had looked at it and said it was fine. I said that person may think it's fine but I know there is at best a consistency issue and at worst a major QC problem and I'm not happy. So how could they make me happy. She said she understood. I said I'm so frustrated I would just like to work out some sort of sale back to you guys or maybe I'll just leave it and walk out. I said this has gone way beyond a silly watch to us questioning each other's credibility and that's just too much for me. So then she took it back once again.

To conclude my story, on the third visit from the manager she said they would escalate the issue and I was free to leave my watch and she'd call me. I agreed but said I can see how you guys could mess with me by changing it to one that you know is even smaller and she said they would never do that. I said it better not come back in worse shape than its in now and she assured me it wouldn't. But she also wanted me to be very clear that the watch was fine and in spec and there wasn't a problem with it and if they do make a change they're going to call it a change at customer's option because to call it a repair wouldn't be true because, again, it wasn't broken. I said will I have to pay for this and she said no. That was on a Thursday because they're closed on Fridays.

On the following Wed she called me and said they agreed the mag was small and it could be better and they were going to work on it including doing a factory crystal replacement and I would get another call in a few weeks. It's now been a couple of weeks and heard nothing. I will call back at the one month mark. Sorry for the long story but wanted to provide the info.

[Jim Smyth]

Originally Posted by skeen

This is circumstantial, but one model I saw it consistently on was the TT GMT II. If I had bought any of the 5 I saw yesterday, they would all have had a small mag.

My 116713 has the small mag window. I didnt realize it till reading about it on this forum a year or so ago now. Does it bother me, a little bit but not enough to do anything about it. I am older and can still see it so its good enough for me. Personally I have bigger issues to worry about than a mag issue.

[arinsd]

Great points being made.

I agree that there needs to be a set spefication. One of the best points made is a lot of info you read says to look at the cyclops as a way to distinguish a fake.

[locutus49]

People who don't use paragraph breaks are usually ranters. You may want to edit your dense paragraph to break it into smaller chunks so people will take you seriously. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by CHRONOLEX

I have a large Rolex collection and my BLNR bought new from AD in Aug 2013 had the issue. In fact as I've stated on here several times, I had the chance to buy from two other ADs before my actual purchase and it was because of the small mag that I didn't buy the others. I thought it was defective. But then when I saw it for the third time I just figured it was a design change and bought it. Despite loving the watch colors and design, I really wasn't happy with it. I tried to convince myself it was fine and better not to mess with the factory condition and some people even tried the "this flaw will make the watch more valuable some day" rationale on me with no success. Later I started seeing versions of my watch with the correct mag and I was about to trade it in for original cost for a new BLRO in December but couldn't justify the change. Was I really about to spend net $20k+ for the cyclops issue? I couldn't do it. So I asked one of my ADs to send it back for warranty change. He did and it came back to me wrapped in green tissue paper (no pouch) in the same condition (plus a few free scratches and a ton of fingerprints) with the message that it was within spec and nothing could be done. So I forced myself to wear it every day to try to get over it but it still bothered me. I thought about selling it to a preowned dealer and waiting to find a new one but would have lost $2k in that trade. So I just waited. I travel to NYC a lot so finally I decided to wear it on my next trip and visit the RSC in person to explain my concern. I went in there and waited and when it was my turn, the lady came out and listened to me explain the issue. At first she claimed she'd never heard of this issue before and then I explained I was gifted my first Rolex at 14 (by my mom to quiet me down) and have been obsessed with the brand and a loyal customer and collector since then. I said I'm very sensitive about my relationship with your brand so please don't say or do anything to jeopardize my passionate loyalty to Rolex. She said she appreciated that and took it back. I waited 20 min and she came out. She said their technical manager had looked at it and said it was fine. I said that person may think it's fine but I know there is at best a consistency issue and at worst a major QC problem and I'm not happy. So how could they make me happy. She said she understood. I said I'm so frustrated I would just like to work out some sort of sale back to you guys or maybe I'll just leave it and walk out. I said this has gone way beyond a silly watch to us questioning each other's credibility and that's just too much for me. So then she took it back once again. To conclude my story, on the third visit from the manager she said they would escalate the issue and I was free to leave my watch and she'd call me. I agreed but said I can see how you guys could mess with me by changing it to one that you know is even smaller and she said they would never do that. I said it better not come back in worse shape than its in now and she assured me it wouldn't. But she also wanted me to be very clear that the watch was fine and in spec and there wasn't a problem with it and if they do make a change they're going to call it a change at customer's option because to call it a repair wouldn't be true because, again, it wasn't broken. I said will I have to pay for this and she said no. That was on a Thursday because they're closed on Fridays. On the following Wed she called me and said they agreed the mag was small and it could be better and they were going to work on it including doing a factory crystal replacement and I would get another call in a few weeks. It's now been a couple of weeks and heard nothing. I will call back at the one month mark. Sorry for the long story but wanted to provide the info.

[CHRONOLEX]

Sorry I'm typing in a tiny box on my iPhone and didn't realize how long it was.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by CHRONOLEX

Sorry I'm typing in a tiny box on my iPhone and didn't realize how long it was.

Don't worry it's fine. I read and hope you get a positive answer.