Switch to larger Cyclops ?

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by zakattack62

I'm respectfully referring to the face of the watch...crown excluded. By your account the cyclops makes the watch unbalanced twice as much with both the cyclops and crown on the right side of the watch.

Perhaps, but now it's just a matter of degrees - how much asymmetry is too much for a person's eye? Asymmetry in design doesn't bother me. It's rather appealing actually, draws interest.

In any event, even the face of the watch all by itself would not be symmetrical. There would still be a date window at three o'clock and an hour index at 9. A Rolex crown near twelve and not at 6, a black bezel on the top half and blue on the bottom, etc.

[polaris72]

Yay

[eonflux]

Originally Posted by FritzW

http://www.rolexforums.com/attachmen...1&d=1457400862

Originally Posted by FritzW

I'm 51. That's mainly why Im considering it.

Yeah, that looks a bit small.
And may increasingly bother you, especially if you keep following this forum and see other watches with greater mag cyclops!

[PrinceT]

I would definitely switch it! It's too mall makes it look weird


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brettpaul]

It's pretty small - personally, I'd get it fixed.

[Camel]

Do it !

[Zack21]

I would get it fixed now while it is under warranty.

[V1Rotate]

Love the cyclops. It looks like a gem or dollop of water. Rolex DNA all the way.

[Spartacus]

If it's not absurdly off, I would keep it and just take care of it when a real
Service is needed.

OP did you buy this new from AD and not notice it
Or over the phone ?

[Gary.]

Forgive my ignorance but why are there two magnifications and how did the incorrect one end up on the watch?

[RichM]

Originally Posted by Gary.

Forgive my ignorance but why are there two magnifications and how did the incorrect one end up on the watch?

There shouldn't be two different magnifactions. They should all magnify the date by 2 1/2 times. Rolex removed the magnifaction detail from their literature sometime last year.

If you go into any AD and look closely at the watches you will see the differences in magnifaction between watches. Some are really small, others not so much. They seem to be all over the place.

Why it's happening, no one but Rolex knows, and they ain't saying.

If your watch does have a small magnifaction issue, you can send your watch to your nearest RSC and they change the crystal. I just had it done last month to my new YM.

Most wouldn't even notice the difference looking at just one watch. It's when you take two watches side by side and compare, then it becomes quite obvious.

Hope this helps.

[AlexMachine]

Originally Posted by sco

I'd get it corrected. I love the cyclops after hating them for years.

Same here, hated them before but... My 45 years old eyes need that to see the date.
Fix it i´d say.

[Racerdj]

Fix it and then you will not regret doing so in the future.

[KBM]

How about switching to a sans cyclops crystal, since you're willing to have it swapped?

[FritzW]

Originally Posted by kauebm

How about switching to a sans cyclops crystal, since you're willing to have it swapped?

Because I got a watch with a date so I can tell whar date it is on any give day. Without a cyclops the date is useless. There are few watches out there including all Rolexs the have practical dates for people who don't have the eyes of a 20 yr old.

[Gary.]

Ah, thanks for the explanation.
Weird.

Originally Posted by Rich Mickol

There shouldn't be two different magnifactions. They should all magnify the date by 2 1/2 times. Rolex removed the magnifaction detail from their literature sometime last year.

If you go into any AD and look closely at the watches you will see the differences in magnifaction between watches. Some are really small, others not so much. They seem to be all over the place.

Why it's happening, no one but Rolex knows, and they ain't saying.

If your watch does have a small magnifaction issue, you can send your watch to your nearest RSC and they change the crystal. I just had it done last month to my new YM.

Most wouldn't even notice the difference looking at just one watch. It's when you take two watches side by side and compare, then it becomes quite obvious.

Hope this helps.

[KBM]

Originally Posted by FritzW

Because I got a watch with a date so I can tell whar date it is on any give day. Without a cyclops the date is useless. There are few watches out there including all Rolexs the have practical dates for people who don't have the eyes of a 20 yr old.

If that's how you feel, you don't need a poll at all, go ahead and change the crystal so you can have the largest possible magnification. Good luck.

[sitka39]

Do whatever you think pleases you, with that being said, I prefer my watches cyclops-free.

[FritzW]

I'm dropping off today to send to Dallas. They were ever so much more pleasant the NYC RSC.

[travisb]

Good decision. Hopefully a quick turnaround.

[tjjma]

Fix it. The AR coating with "correct" mag on the modern cyclops is

[chloebear]

I never realized there were different size date magnifiers. Does anyone know the size of the magnifier on the Submariner or the Explorer 2 (42 mm version)?

[blowfish89]

Originally Posted by zakattack62

I can't fathom how anyone would buy a Rolex with a cyclops even though I know it's part of the Rolex DNA. They look awful, make the watch look unbalanced and they give the appearance that the watch is flawed because of a chip. No date watch all day for me.

I need the date, but I don't need the cyclops so off it goes.

[zakattack62]

You're grasping at straws my friend. You must be a lawyer! Of course the face is not 100 percent perfectly balanced and symmetrical but that cyclops IMHO really throws things off balance in a bad way. However, we are all entitled to our opinions so no one is really right. Will your friend from Kuwait respond again with the "YAY"? lol

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by zakattack62

You're grasping at straws my friend. You must be a lawyer! Of course the face is not 100 percent perfectly balanced and symmetrical but that cyclops IMHO really throws things off balance in a bad way. However, we are all entitled to our opinions so no one is really right. Will your friend from Kuwait respond again with the "YAY"? lol

It helps others follow the thread if you use the quote button, like this. And the "Yay" from Kuwait was commenting on the original post.

[Watch This]

Originally Posted by zakattack62

You're grasping at straws my friend. You must be a lawyer! Of course the face is not 100 percent perfectly balanced and symmetrical but that cyclops IMHO really throws things off balance in a bad way. However, we are all entitled to our opinions so no one is really right. Will your friend from Kuwait respond again with the "YAY"? lol

The OP simply asked about changing out the date mag on HIS watch which he felt was perhaps small. He did not ask anyone's opinion about date v. non-date or the "balance" of the watch design. Lawyer insults are also unnecessary and add nothing. There are many of us here.

To the OP.... the date looks a bit small but I have seen worse. I would change it out and enjoy that beautiful timepiece.

[Bluside]

If the watch is under warranty, is it best to have your AD send it out? What if they don't agree with you that the cyclops is low mag?

[Dr. Prunesquallor]

Originally Posted by eonflux

Yeah, that looks a bit small.

And may increasingly bother you, especially if you keep following this forum and see other watches with greater mag cyclops!

So are the pics you show considered correct? Just got a new BLNR (first Rolex) and that's what mine looks like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RichM]

Originally Posted by Bluside

If the watch is under warranty, is it best to have your AD send it out? What if they don't agree with you that the cyclops is low mag?

It happened to me in January. I sent my YM in and they told me they would not change the crystal. The magnifaction was "within specs". I said there was a time when I knew what the spec was (2-1/2) but since you removed it from your literature, what is the new spec? They couldn't answer my question. I got put on the phone with a supervisor. That supervisor was the same woman who helped me out back in 2004 with a issue I was having with my OP. So after some BS'ing, she agreed to change the crystal. This was the RSC NYC.

Got the watch back 6 weeks later.

[Bluside]

Originally Posted by Rich Mickol

It happened to me in January. I sent my YM in and they told me they would not change the crystal. The magnifaction was "within specs". I said there was a time when I knew what the spec was (2-1/2) but since you removed it from your literature, what is the new spec? They couldn't answer my question. I got put on the phone with a supervisor. That supervisor was the same woman who helped me out back in 2004 with a issue I was having with my OP. So after some BS'ing, she agreed to change the crystal. This was the RSC NYC.

Got the watch back 6 weeks later.

Thanks for the response. Interesting. Since Rolex no longer lists the cyclops at 2.5x, it seems kind of hard to insist they make it that way.

My BLNR sure looks like it is lower than 2.5x, but I'm not sure it bothers me. It really only does when I read these kind of threads. Oh, the dilemma.