The cyclops magnification VARIES on new Rolex's

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by busytimmy

Two thoughts.
1) If they planned it, why was the 2.5 mag stuff removed from the website months later?

2) Why are RSCs changing out the crystal for customers of new watches?

In answer to your second question, maybe Rolex recognise that some people prefer the larger mag for whatever reason and they are giving people the option to have it.

[redsubby]

You would be a fool to think Rolex would let hundreds and thousands of their watches out with "faulty cyclops" without catching them. You would be a fool to think they received a bad batch of these cyclops from their supplier and did nothing about it.
Rolex is known to return a batch of 10 ton steel because they caught some micron trace of other material in the batch. Use some common sense people.

[busytimmy]

Originally Posted by redsubby

You would be a fool to think Rolex would let hundreds and thousands of their watches out with "faulty cyclops" without catching them. You would be a fool to think they received a bad batch of these cyclops from their supplier and did nothing about it.
Rolex is known to return a batch of 10 ton steel because they caught some micron trace of other material in the batch. Use some common sense people.

Thanks for your opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[qyk1010101]

Originally Posted by redsubby

You would be a fool to think Rolex would let hundreds and thousands of their watches out with "faulty cyclops" without catching them. You would be a fool to think they received a bad batch of these cyclops from their supplier and did nothing about it.
Rolex is known to return a batch of 10 ton steel because they caught some micron trace of other material in the batch. Use some common sense people.

You would be a fool to think good companies stay good forever. The evidence is clear. Filter out what you must.

[james cole]

So I took my submariner to my AD today... he looked at it and called RSC... They said that they know about this issue but since there are so few with this detail they had never had a complaint, they offered to change the sapphire for me..

My AD says I would leave it like it is... it might be worth more... Is this really true?

And I am a bit hesitant because they could scratch my watch or let some dust inside... so what is your opinion guys?

Thanks!
JC

[redsubby]

Originally Posted by qyk1010101

You would be a fool to think good companies stay good forever. The evidence is clear. Filter out what you must.

No need to filter out nothing. I am not sure what evidence you had that is so clear but everything that everyone has are pure guesses and assuming things. If you really know the company and how they do things, add to some common sense, it will make your guesses more educated than others.
Good luck to all you 'victims'.

[TheFSword]

Originally Posted by james cole

So I took my submariner to my AD today... he looked at it and called RSC... They said that they know about this issue but since there are so few with this detail they had never had a complaint, they offered to change the sapphire for me..

My AD says I would leave it like it is... it might be worth more... Is this really true?

And I am a bit hesitant because they could scratch my watch or let some dust inside... so what is your opinion guys?

Thanks!
JC

This is what I'd tell you if I was an AD too. I mean you can find excuses to justify almost anything if you want. But since I'm not, I'd tell you to change it for the reasons already mentioned but most importantly because it obviously bothers you.

And of course it's their responsibility to make no scratches and let no dust inside - you can kidly "remind" them that you won't accept it back in a less than perfect condition.

BTW even if it is true that in a few years they might worth more blah blah, first this is a really long guess (even your AD said might) and secondly did you buy it as investment or to enjoy it?

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by james cole

So I took my submariner to my AD today... he looked at it and called RSC... They said that they know about this issue but since there are so few with this detail they had never had a complaint, they offered to change the sapphire for me..

My AD says I would leave it like it is... it might be worth more... Is this really true?

And I am a bit hesitant because they could scratch my watch or let some dust inside... so what is your opinion guys?

Thanks!
JC

No.

[WelshBoy]

Depends if you want your watch to look like a knock off copy or be recognised as a genuine Rolex. Redsubby, 2 AD's in the UK have told me in the last week that they have been instructed to send watches with the "defective' mag back for replacement. All watches in their display now once again show 2.5x magnification. There is clearly an issue yet die hard rolex supporters will always fail to recognise this, obviously have the same ethos as the company at this present moment in time. As for the watches effected being worth more, utter b****x! Chances are you'll have trouble selling it because it looks like a fake!

[busytimmy]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

No.

Respectfully, you don't know that. If this small cyclop issue is only temporary, perhaps the small amount of watches affected will be worth more to collectors in the future. There certainly is precedent for this sort of thing.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by busytimmy

Respectfully, you don't know that. If this small cyclop issue is only temporary, perhaps the small amount of watches affected will be worth more to collectors in the future. There certainly is precedent for this sort of thing.

He said "Is this really true". So I said no. It might be a possibility (though I doubt it), but at this stage it is not "really true" that it might be worth more. It's just speculation, probably laced with some shirking by the AD.

[WelshBoy]

If there's 2 watches side by side and one looks like a fake, no one is going to pay more for it. People will purchase a watch with the correct 2.5x magnification.

[Sarko]

Originally Posted by otisc

Here is the problem: When I Google "How to Spot a Fake Rolex?" My results first bring up two videos, the first one features a Rolex AD who talked about how hard it is to replicate the 2.5x mag of the cyclops and that it is a great way to spot a fake if it isn't the full mag. The second video features the star of Pawn Stars saying how many fakes he's seen over the years and then goes on to say check the cyclops to make sure it is the full magnification or else it is a fake!

The third result is an article called "Top Ten Ways to Spot a Fake Rolex". You can guess what #3 is: Insufficient Cyclops Magnification and two paragraphs including the line "On all Rolex models the magnification is 2.5X so the date really jumps out at you. On fake Rolex watches the magnification is often much lower at 1.5X so the date looks small and more difficult to see. This is a huge tell tale sign of a fake Rolex."

I could go on and on, but suffice to say that pretty much every search result mentions the cyclops issue, often extensively.

And that is the problem: Rolex has stopped making watches that look like Rolexes. They look like fakes. People DO look at your watch and DO judge you by it. I know I've seen some people with fake Rolex, and I judge them. When you see a salesman come up to you with a Rolex that has ticking Quartz movement and a phony Rolex logo on the dial, you make a judgment. If people who consider themselves educated on and are aware of this cyclops tell on fakes are looking at your real Rolex and judging you poorly, this is a huge problem for the brand. I don't want to walk into a luxury goods dealer or a five-star restaurant and have the salesman/maitre d' give me the reverse of what I'm talking about above -- seeing the tiny cyclops, thinking I'm fronting a fake. Forget it.

I wonder how many people who don't think it's a problem at all would mind if someone snuck in to their houses overnight and replaced their crystals with the new cyclops. Are you telling me you would just look at your watches new sub-par magnification and just shrug and not care? I doubt it.

I do understand your point about magnification beeing one of the tell's of an fake Rolex watch. And I had my crystal also replaced but I did it since the small mag was just too ugly and the EPIC cyclops was one of the reasons why I like Rolex.

Reading your comment it seems to me that you wear your Rolex in order to get aproved by other people (maybe I am wrong). If you know that your watch is real, why would you bother what a luxury goods dealer or a waiter think about your watch? I wear my watch for my own enjoyment, not to impress others aorund me. And judging people by their watch? Why would you do that. Not everybody is in to watches.. I know allot of wealthy people who don't even care about watches and they have money to buy a whole AD store. That's just ignorant.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Sarko

I do understand your point about magnification beeing one of the tell's of an fake Rolex watch. And I had my crystal also replaced but I did it since the small mag was just too ugly and the EPIC cyclops was one of the reasons why I like Rolex.

Reading your comment it seems to me that you wear your Rolex in order to get aproved by other people (maybe I am wrong). If you know that your watch is real, why would you bother what a luxury goods dealer or a waiter think about your watch? I wear my watch for my own enjoyment, not to impress others aorund me. And judging people by their watch? Why would you do that. Not everybody is in to watches.. I know allot of wealthy people who don't even care about watches and they have money to buy a whole AD store. That's just ignorant.

Have to agree 100% but remember many today dont wear a watch they just wear the brand.

[WelshBoy]

And many love the brand and wear the watch because it's a beautiful timepiece, but want their hard earned money to be spent on a watch that reflects this!

[qyk1010101]

Brought my watch with the small mag to the RSC. They mentioned that rolex has changed the mag/date font on certain models. They took out a few new watches of the same model as mine (LV) and the mag was indeed small.

The staff however did offer to change the crystal for me for free.

[Britexpat76]

Originally Posted by qyk1010101

Brought my watch with the small mag to the RSC. They mentioned that rolex has changed the mag/date font on certain models. They took out a few new watches of the same model as mine (LV) and the mag was indeed small.

The staff however did offer to change the crystal for me for free.

Thats interesting, and backs what some are saying. It has changed and AD's will change the cyclops to keep customers happy.

[Britexpat76]

Originally Posted by Sarko

I do understand your point about magnification beeing one of the tell's of an fake Rolex watch. And I had my crystal also replaced but I did it since the small mag was just too ugly and the EPIC cyclops was one of the reasons why I like Rolex.

Reading your comment it seems to me that you wear your Rolex in order to get aproved by other people (maybe I am wrong). If you know that your watch is real, why would you bother what a luxury goods dealer or a waiter think about your watch? I wear my watch for my own enjoyment, not to impress others aorund me. And judging people by their watch? Why would you do that. Not everybody is in to watches.. I know allot of wealthy people who don't even care about watches and they have money to buy a whole AD store. That's just ignorant.

Good post. It also seems to me that people are more worried about their peers thinking their watch is fake than actually whether or not they can still see the date. Its also worrying how many people seem to assume that by having a large mag the watch is not fake

[Onikage]

I really couldn't care less what people think. 'off mag' is not a desirable feature, however you look at it. It's standard for inexpensive homages like Davosa, Invicta etc. Even they wouldn't allow variation in mag for the exact same model. Rolex should be setting the high standard. They're not ICE watches. It's shoddy!

[Sarko]

Originally Posted by Britexpat76

Good post. It also seems to me that people are more worried about their peers thinking their watch is fake than actually whether or not they can still see the date. Its also worrying how many people seem to assume that by having a large mag the watch is not fake

Exactly, if you own Rolex watches and know your stuff it is not that hard to spot a fake watch. I saw some good replica with decent magnification, but the look and feel of the watch is just off, aswell as the weight. And yes, there are some pretty good fakes which can fool you by using OEM parts on it (franken fakes), but still if you know your stuff you will see it.

The thing is that now days many owners dont buy watches for watches but buy expensive brands just to show off how wealthy they are while they dont know anything about it. It is a choice of course.

I love watches and I buy watches for my own enjoyment. What someone things about my watch is not relevant to me. Sometimes when I am asked if my watch is real... I replay, it is fake and move on. BTW, a real WIS will see what you have. I do not mind that other people will think is fake... it makes me feel more safe not to get robbed.

[WelshBoy]

quk1010..... They will of course say that as they will not accept responsibility that there is a major issue. They hope that you'll go away and not insist that the crystal is changed. There is absolutely no difference in the date font, if you look under the cyclops by placing the two identical watches on a flat surface it is clearly the same. They are now asking AD's in the UK to return effected watches. It's your decision as to whether you keep the small mag as is or get it changed of course. But give it a few months and there will be no more of these "defective" cyclops I'm AD's and in my opinion that's a good thing.

[BlueHeron]

I just don't like the cyclops, won't ever by a Rolex with one

[sco]

Originally Posted by BlueHeron

I just don't like the cyclops, won't ever by a Rolex with one

Not sure this is helpful here, but thanks for the opinion!

I personally would not be happy with a "small" mag cyclops..

[qyk1010101]

would you guys accept low mag if that is the way forward? and if RSC only replaces crystals with low mag?

[ronricks]

Originally Posted by qyk1010101

would you guys accept low mag if that is the way forward? and if RSC only replaces crystals with low mag?

No. I would just buy G serial and backwards pre owned that have the correct Magnification. Simple as that. By chance I did buy one with the small magnification I would get it replaced as others on here have already done.

[Greenp]

Originally Posted by otisc

Here is the problem: When I Google "How to Spot a Fake Rolex?" My results first bring up two videos, the first one features a Rolex AD who talked about how hard it is to replicate the 2.5x mag of the cyclops and that it is a great way to spot a fake if it isn't the full mag. The second video features the star of Pawn Stars saying how many fakes he's seen over the years and then goes on to say check the cyclops to make sure it is the full magnification or else it is a fake!

The third result is an article called "Top Ten Ways to Spot a Fake Rolex". You can guess what #3 is: Insufficient Cyclops Magnification and two paragraphs including the line "On all Rolex models the magnification is 2.5X so the date really jumps out at you. On fake Rolex watches the magnification is often much lower at 1.5X so the date looks small and more difficult to see. This is a huge tell tale sign of a fake Rolex."

I could go on and on, but suffice to say that pretty much every search result mentions the cyclops issue, often extensively.

And that is the problem: Rolex has stopped making watches that look like Rolexes. They look like fakes. People DO look at your watch and DO judge you by it. I know I've seen some people with fake Rolex, and I judge them. When you see a salesman come up to you with a Rolex that has ticking Quartz movement and a phony Rolex logo on the dial, you make a judgment. If people who consider themselves educated on and are aware of this cyclops tell on fakes are looking at your real Rolex and judging you poorly, this is a huge problem for the brand. I don't want to walk into a luxury goods dealer or a five-star restaurant and have the salesman/maitre d' give me the reverse of what I'm talking about above -- seeing the tiny cyclops, thinking I'm fronting a fake. Forget it.
.

Maybe its a conspiracy by Rolex to make people buy watches only from ADs to ensure that they are real. :)

[Greenp]

Originally Posted by redsubby

You would be a fool to think Rolex would let hundreds and thousands of their watches out with "faulty cyclops" without catching them. You would be a fool to think they received a bad batch of these cyclops from their supplier and did nothing about it.
Rolex is known to return a batch of 10 ton steel because they caught some micron trace of other material in the batch. Use some common sense people.

How come there are so many variations of dials? Aren't there things like thin font/thick font, Swiss, Swiss T etc. Maybe somethings they don't care about or just slips through. The cyclops is cosmetic whereas the steel is structural.

[handsfull]

One thing we all can agree on, and I've seen with my own two eyes = the cyclops aren't consistent. What degree of magnification we can argue endlessly, but why argue? It's clear they aren't the same (even on the same watch with the same year serial). PERIOD.

The cyclops has one purpose and that is to MAGNIFY the date. If it doesn't magnify it/magnify it properly, it's a faulty part. More importantly, why even install it??

What defines properly? Good question. 2.5x is what Rolex 'had' on there website, now it's removed from the site. No need for it anyhow, as I'd rather use the 'standard' Rolex created in the past 25+ years I've been witness to. I've never seen any Rolex with a cyclops even similar to the lower mag (faulty) ones Ive seen in person the past year.

If Rolex is choosing to change the standard they have kept for decades (and I highly doubt this), it certainly warrants notification. If Rolex indeed errored in the installation of faulty cyclops....they should have a dealer network recall/or have AD's inspect their stock with the assistance of a watchmaker.

Correcting 'individual' requests for crystal replacements because the customer 'caught' the fault isn't integrity - in fact, it's the opposite. My kids knew the definition not long after they could speak. Integrity: doing the RIGHT thing when no one is looking.

[Tseg]

Originally Posted by handsfull

The cyclops has one purpose and that is to MAGNIFY the date. If it doesn't magnify it/magnify it properly, it's a faulty part. More importantly, why even install it??

I would argue the cyclops has one purpose: To improve the readability of the date.

I know others argue its purpose is to make it look like a Rolex, but I personally care more about the functionality of my watch than proving to myself daily that it is a Rolex, and I certainly could care less about proving to others it is a Rolex... I have the AD paperwork for that if that need ever arose.

With a small mag:

• magnifies the date (albeit, not to everyone's expectations)
• funnels light to the date
• the anti-reflective coating under the mag further enhances readability
• increases viewing angles

Why does no one comment on the readability of the small mag date? I double checked again last night and took some pictures today to verify the readability of the date is greatly enhanced vs. a no-mag watch from feet away (I'm near-sited and checked without wearing my glasses) in dim lighting conditions.

With all the Rolex tool watch discussion why does no one want to comment on the functionality of the small mag date? I have to admit, with all the discussion I'm almost second-guessing whether to take it in to get the crystal replaced, but from a functionality perspective it does what it is supposed to do, and in my opinion, would argue there is better visibility from more obtuse angles than a large mag. Does this 'functional aspect' have no relevance here?

[handsfull]

Originally Posted by Tseg

I would argue the cyclops has one purpose: To improve the readability of the date.

I know others argue.....

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.