ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

c.capt · 7 February 2015, 02:35 PM

Al, here's a head-on comparison shot I just took of the Hulk on my wrist. The white-on-green makes it a bit easier to distinguish. You should be able to tell that the date window reaches out almost to the edges of the cyclops.

Al1969 · 7 February 2015, 02:45 PM

Here's a closer pic of the BLNR.

CHRONOLEX · 7 February 2015, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarryT

I know this might sound a strange thing to write, but are we sure that the date numbers themselves aren't smaller?
My BLNR cyclops does seem under-powered, but when I squint underneath the cyclops, I can't honestly say that it is NOT 2.5x, as the actual date number itself seems very small.
http://www.rolexforums.com/attachmen...1&d=1423246579

Your mag looks normal to me. My BLNR is about half that size. Yours looks awesome.

john_nch · 7 February 2015, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al1969

Oh boy! I hope they're up to specs now. They replaced the crystal on both watches and I'm happy to say they did not return to me with any 'parting' gifts such as dents, nicks, or anything else. I received back a travel pouch for each and a customer service feedback card.

Mag looks good. Curious, did they include a polish with your watches?

Al1969 · 7 February 2015, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_nch

Mag looks good. Curious, did they include a polish with your watches?

Thanks. No they didn't. I specifically told them not to polish them. In their words 'ultrasonic and steam cleaned'.

c.capt · 7 February 2015, 03:26 PM

I'd say it looks ok Al!

Al1969 · 7 February 2015, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c.capt

I'd say it looks ok Al!

Thanks guys! I'm happy to have them back.

LarryJoo · 9 February 2015, 09:14 AM

I'm fairly sure I have the reduced magnification and it's my own fault for not looking closer. The DateJustII was/is my first and I trusted Rolex implicitly so like a dummy I looked at styling more than looking for defects. I don't live anywhere near a service center and the whole thing has me bummed out. I went to the closest AD when I bought it that dealer is 100 miles away. I may just sell it and take the hit..lesson learned..shame on me for trusting :(

GB-man · 9 February 2015, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryJoo

I'm fairly sure I have the reduced magnification and it's my own fault for not looking closer. The DateJustII was/is my first and I trusted Rolex implicitly so like a dummy I looked at styling more than looking for defects. I don't live anywhere near a service center and the whole thing has me bummed out. I went to the closest AD when I bought it that dealer is 100 miles away. I may just sell it and take the hit..lesson learned..shame on me for trusting :(

Just call rsc and send it in. Or ship it to your AD. It's under warranty

edgware14 · 9 February 2015, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryJoo

I may just sell it and take the hit..lesson learned..shame on me for trusting :(

Sell it and take the hit?

Jesus Christ

AS1 · 9 February 2015, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryJoo

I'm fairly sure I have the reduced magnification and it's my own fault for not looking closer. The DateJustII was/is my first and I trusted Rolex implicitly so like a dummy I looked at styling more than looking for defects. I don't live anywhere near a service center and the whole thing has me bummed out. I went to the closest AD when I bought it that dealer is 100 miles away. I may just sell it and take the hit..lesson learned..shame on me for trusting :(

Please don't do that - Rolex should fix this.

Danex · 9 February 2015, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryJoo

I'm fairly sure I have the reduced magnification and it's my own fault for not looking closer. The DateJustII was/is my first and I trusted Rolex implicitly so like a dummy I looked at styling more than looking for defects. I don't live anywhere near a service center and the whole thing has me bummed out. I went to the closest AD when I bought it that dealer is 100 miles away. I may just sell it and take the hit..lesson learned..shame on me for trusting :(

Call your AD. If they are like my AD, they want you to be happy. Please report back on what happens.

Srhdad · 9 February 2015, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryJoo

I'm fairly sure I have the reduced magnification and it's my own fault for not looking closer. The DateJustII was/is my first and I trusted Rolex implicitly so like a dummy I looked at styling more than looking for defects. I don't live anywhere near a service center and the whole thing has me bummed out. I went to the closest AD when I bought it that dealer is 100 miles away. I may just sell it and take the hit..lesson learned..shame on me for trusting :(

Wow.

LarryJoo · 9 February 2015, 10:09 AM

I purchased it in Knoxville,Tenn and the store has a rep of being top notch. They are closed Sun and Mon so would be after that before I could get ahold of anyone.
I'm just really disappointed. I could understand a mechanical issue, things break but this is cosmetic and makes me leery of their QC..

c.capt · 9 February 2015, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryJoo

I purchased it in Knoxville,Tenn and the store has a rep of being top notch. They are closed Sun and Mon so would be after that before I could get ahold of anyone.
I'm just really disappointed. I could understand a mechanical issue, things break but this is cosmetic and makes me leery of their QC..

Is this the DJII that you posted a pic of before? I thought it looked fine.

Al1969 · 9 February 2015, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB-man

Just call rsc and send it in. Or ship it to your AD. It's under warranty

I agree. If it's under warranty why not do it.

GB-man · 9 February 2015, 02:07 PM

I really think the cyclops and crystal in general falls into a category of replaceable parts. If the dial was messed up or the movements or case, I would be worried. I bought a blnr knowing damn well the cyclops wasn't at 2.5 two weeks ago.

What I did know was that the price was good, due to forex, and it was like me turning down a gt3 porsche because I didn't like the tires! (Shoutout to Paul lol)

AkshayArgade · 22 April 2015, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryJoo

I have had my watch for about a month and I knew nothing of the weak magnification issue until I found this board. I trusted Rolex and didn't think to look for that. I would like to go to my AD but due to health issues I cant leave the house right now. I would like to compare others to mine but since I can't do that for a time I wonder if you folks would be good enough to give me your opinion?
I realize it is difficult from the one picture but any help would be appreciated!!
thanks in advance and I didn't mean to take the thread off topic.

Larry

Hi Larry, I think yours is normal. I have a new 2015 Dj with a weak magnification

AkshayArgade · 22 April 2015, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oooteedee

I don't understand everyones confusion on this topic...

Rolex's own website still states, on all watches that have a cyclops, that the magnification is 2.5x - example below taken from rolex.com today.

If it's not 2.5x on your watch, it's not correct and should be changed.

If they've actually reduced the magnification, they've not done it officially and their marketing includes false advertising and they should refund you for your watch or install a 2.5x magnification crystal - end of debate!

I checked their website today- 2.5x has been removed

AkshayArgade · 22 April 2015, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

The magnification doesn't seem to be the same as on my DJ 116200, but there have been variations of apparent magnification through the years, even though Rolex has always used the 2.5x cyclops.

Whatever the magnification is on my BLNR it is sufficient when I'm wearing my glasses and completely illegible if I'm not wearing glasses, just like my DJ.

These are the best pictures that I have available.

Wow thats different mag there

otisc · 22 April 2015, 03:18 PM

I took the following screenshot from the Rolex official page a few month ago as part of a discussion on this issue:

Here is the image on the Rolex website as it appears this week:

I think we can now safely say that Rolex has officially addressed this issue.

regnant · 22 April 2015, 08:04 PM

Great catch,whether is magnifies the date two and half times as much whether it doesn't. I don't care it's one of the most distinctive features of Rolex Oyster Series.
However, I respect when people critisize Rolex for weak and anemic magnifiying cyclops, when you pay for a Rolex your expectations are higher than low end brands regardless of production numbers

skeen · 22 April 2015, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by otisc

I think we can now safely say that Rolex has officially addressed this issue.

Absolutely we cannot. Considering Rolex seems to still be producing watches with the large mag. The only thing this indicates so far is that Rolex are covering up a really big batch of small mags.

Unless from this point forward, Rolex's will be produced with the small mag. Then I will be wrong. But I don't believe this to be the case.

Loevhagen · 22 April 2015, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeen

But I don't believe this to be the case.

Why do you believe so?

Jim Smyth · 22 April 2015, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeen

Absolutely we cannot. Considering Rolex seems to still be producing watches with the large mag. The only thing this indicates so far is that Rolex are covering up a really big batch of small mags.

Unless from this point forward, Rolex's will be produced with the small mag. Then I will be wrong. But I don't believe this to be the case.

Do you actually believe that a company like Rolex is going to take out a big add and say to the world they had a few million watches that slipped through with less than 2.5X magnification if that is in fact what happened?

Or is it safe to assume Rolex knows exactly what has happened ( I think there own web pages shows this with the 2.5X now missing ) and makes a case by case determination on each watch. Then replaces the lens/cyclops on watches with the less than 2.5X magnification to make a fraction of the watch owners that are effected Happy?

I know which theory I would pick!

skeen · 22 April 2015, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Smyth

Or is it safe to assume Rolex knows exactly what has happened ( I think there own web pages shows this with the 2.5X now missing ) and makes a case by case determination on each watch. Then replaces the lens/cyclops on watches with the less than 2.5X magnification to make a fraction of the watch owners that are effected Happy?

I know which theory I would pick!

Well - your theory is wrong. Multiple people have reported issues with getting Rolex to admit that there's an issue in the first place. In fact, I'm not sure anyone has yet had experience with Rolex themselves saying it was a fault.

Furthermore, if what you're saying is true - Rolex has horrific customer service. Each watch is registered. Rolex could easily contact potentially affected customers. It's called a recall.

powerfunk · 22 April 2015, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeen

Well - your theory is wrong. Multiple people have reported issues with getting Rolex to admit that there's an issue in the first place...Rolex could easily contact potentially affected customers. It's called a recall.

You think Rolex wants to make headlines with a giant recall when they can easily just play dumb and replace a couple crystals here and there when one of us nerds complains? I don't think any of us can conclusively say anyone else's "theory is wrong" on this. Who knows what the hell Rolex is up to.

azguy · 22 April 2015, 11:26 PM

probably 98 out of 100 don't even know the cyclops is called and refer to it as the date "thingy". You guys are crazy that you think Rolex even cares what this site and the .001% of the people in the world are WIS' even think...

Jim Smyth · 22 April 2015, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeen

Well - your theory is wrong. Multiple people have reported issues with getting Rolex to admit that there's an issue in the first place. In fact, I'm not sure anyone has yet had experience with Rolex themselves saying it was a fault.

Furthermore, if what you're saying is true - Rolex has horrific customer service. Each watch is registered. Rolex could easily contact potentially affected customers. It's called a recall.

Let us know what you come up with then when Rolex gets back to ya.

Britexpat76 · 23 April 2015, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerfunk

You think Rolex wants to make headlines with a giant recall when they can easily just play dumb and replace a couple crystals here and there when one of us nerds complains? I don't think any of us can conclusively say anyone else's "theory is wrong" on this. Who knows what the hell Rolex is up to.

Probably the best post on this matter.

7 February 2015, 02:35 PM	#121
c.capt "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Chicago, IL Watch: Hulk Sub Posts: 683	Al, here's a head-on comparison shot I just took of the Hulk on my wrist. The white-on-green makes it a bit easier to distinguish. You should be able to tell that the date window reaches out almost to the edges of the cyclops. Attached Images __________________ BALL EHC Airborne · EHC Black \| EBEL 1911 BTR Chrono \| GLASHÜTTE ORIGINAL Senator Navigator Panodate IWC Aquatimer 2000 \| OMEGA SMPc · SM PO 8500 · Speedmaster Apollo XI 35th · Speedmaster GSOTM ROLEX Datejust · Datejust II · Explorer II · Sea Dweller Ceramic 4000 · Submariner LVc \| TUDOR Black Shield

7 February 2015, 02:45 PM	#122
Al1969 2025 TitaniumYM Pledge Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: New Jersey Posts: 6,656	Here's a closer pic of the BLNR. Attached Images __________________ WG SUB-116719 GMT MASTER II 126719

7 February 2015, 03:26 PM	#126
c.capt "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Chicago, IL Watch: Hulk Sub Posts: 683	I'd say it looks ok Al! __________________ BALL EHC Airborne · EHC Black \| EBEL 1911 BTR Chrono \| GLASHÜTTE ORIGINAL Senator Navigator Panodate IWC Aquatimer 2000 \| OMEGA SMPc · SM PO 8500 · Speedmaster Apollo XI 35th · Speedmaster GSOTM ROLEX Datejust · Datejust II · Explorer II · Sea Dweller Ceramic 4000 · Submariner LVc \| TUDOR Black Shield

22 April 2015, 08:04 PM	#142
regnant "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Close to Rolex AD Posts: 3,474	Great catch,whether is magnifies the date two and half times as much whether it doesn't. I don't care it's one of the most distinctive features of Rolex Oyster Series. However, I respect when people critisize Rolex for weak and anemic magnifiying cyclops, when you pay for a Rolex your expectations are higher than low end brands regardless of production numbers __________________

9 February 2015, 09:14 AM	#128
LarryJoo "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: USA Posts: 16	I'm fairly sure I have the reduced magnification and it's my own fault for not looking closer. The DateJustII was/is my first and I trusted Rolex implicitly so like a dummy I looked at styling more than looking for defects. I don't live anywhere near a service center and the whole thing has me bummed out. I went to the closest AD when I bought it that dealer is 100 miles away. I may just sell it and take the hit..lesson learned..shame on me for trusting :(

9 February 2015, 10:09 AM	#134
LarryJoo "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: USA Posts: 16	I purchased it in Knoxville,Tenn and the store has a rep of being top notch. They are closed Sun and Mon so would be after that before I could get ahold of anyone. I'm just really disappointed. I could understand a mechanical issue, things break but this is cosmetic and makes me leery of their QC..

9 February 2015, 02:07 PM	#137
GB-man 2025 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: USA Watch: addiction issues Posts: 37,634	I really think the cyclops and crystal in general falls into a category of replaceable parts. If the dial was messed up or the movements or case, I would be worried. I bought a blnr knowing damn well the cyclops wasn't at 2.5 two weeks ago. What I did know was that the price was good, due to forex, and it was like me turning down a gt3 porsche because I didn't like the tires! (Shoutout to Paul lol)

22 April 2015, 03:18 PM	#141
otisc "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Austin, TX Watch: 116610LV HULK Posts: 639	I took the following screenshot from the Rolex official page a few month ago as part of a discussion on this issue: Here is the image on the Rolex website as it appears this week: I think we can now safely say that Rolex has officially addressed this issue.

22 April 2015, 11:26 PM	#148
azguy Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Real Name: ------- Location: ------- Watch: --------- Posts: 12,609	probably 98 out of 100 don't even know the cyclops is called and refer to it as the date "thingy". You guys are crazy that you think Rolex even cares what this site and the .001% of the people in the world are WIS' even think...

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)