P Series Sub Date Window vs F Series? Different Size?

[MartinF79]

Hi All -

I recently acquired an F series (2004) Black Sub. Just had it authenticated at a AD. Everything checked out.

My concern is... I also own a P Series (2000) SS/18K Gold Blue Dial Sub ... and when I put them side-by-side... the date in the window of the P series seems to be larger (i.e. greater magnification) and fills the date window signifcantly more than the F series.

See F Series watch below....

Should I be concerned at all that the original lens has been swapped out for an after market?

Black F Series Sub.jpeg

[MartinF79]

Anyone???

[padi56]

It could be just simply the font difference on the TT, the cyclops is just stuck on all the Rolex crystals,you say its been authenticated so why worry and its a F serial and P serial.

[MartinF79]

Originally Posted by padi56

It could be just simply the font difference on the TT, the cyclops is just stuck on all the Rolex crystals,you say its been authenticated so why worry and its a F serial and P serial.

The TT date window (P Series) actually fills the magnifyer completely... where as the F series does not. More curious to hear if this is what others have seen and whether this is actually the case (i.e. that Rolex made a change in the maginifcation over those years).

[Tools]

Originally Posted by MartinF79

The TT date window (P Series) actually fills the magnifyer completely... where as the F series does not. More curious to hear if this is what others have seen and whether this is actually the case (i.e. that Rolex made a change in the maginifcation over those years).

the Rolex cyclops is what it is.. they didn't change it..

However, magnification is different for various models, seating, gasket thickness used and distance of the dial from the backside of the crystal all figure in to the viewers perspective.. If the crystal is pressed on deeper or shallower all play a bit in perspective.

Perhaps you are over analyzing this..

[MartinF79]

Well ... just so none of you think I'm crazy... see below... The TT definetely has a larger date than the SS.

Rolex 1 and 2.jpeg

[montpyt]

I did the same thing with my random serial Sub-C LN, when I still had it, and my father in laws G serial Sub-C LV and the magnification looked greater in my LN. It's nothing to worry about.

[MartinF79]

Originally Posted by montpyt

I did the same thing with my random serial Sub-C LN, when I still had it, and my father in laws G serial Sub-C LV and the magnification looked greater in my LN. It's nothing to worry about.

Thanks montpyt... Just want to make sure everything is in check...

[topjimmi]

Heres what happened to me... a while back I purchased a pre owned 16610 from an AD ( F serial, coincidentally). The cyclops had been removed and the AD said that the original owner had it removed because he preferred that particular look. I wanted the cyclops so the AD put one on. Not sure if it was genuine Rolex or aftermarket (they said it was genuine), but the magnification just didnt look right. It was too small. After a few days, i went back to the AD and stated my concerns. To their credit, they ordered a new crystal, with the cyclops already attached, and installed it free of charge. It made all the difference and the watch looked the way it was supposed to. 100% better.

Other than the magnification being off on the first one, I wouldnt have been able to tell anything was amiss. The work was good and it looked factory installed. It just didnt look big enough.

Not saying this is the case with yours, just food for thought. But it seems like quite a few people remove the cyclops now a days to get that cleaner look.

Looking at your side by side photo, the SS does look smaller IMO.

[MartinF79]

This is my fear (ie that the crystal and/or cyclops isn't OEM). How would one know for sure. I've had an AD authenticate the watch, but they may not have paid any attention to the crystal (only the movement)...

Originally Posted by topjimmi

Heres what happened to me... a while back I purchased a pre owned 16610 from an AD ( F serial, coincidentally). The cyclops had been removed and the AD said that the original owner had it removed because he preferred that particular look. I wanted the cyclops so the AD put one on. Not sure if it was genuine Rolex or aftermarket (they said it was genuine), but the magnification just didnt look right. It was too small. After a few days, i went back to the AD and stated my concerns. To their credit, they ordered a new crystal, with the cyclops already attached, and installed it free of charge. It made all the difference and the watch looked the way it was supposed to. 100% better.

Other than the magnification being off on the first one, I wouldnt have been able to tell anything was amiss. The work was good and it looked factory installed. It just didnt look big enough.

Not saying this is the case with yours, just food for thought. But it seems like quite a few people remove the cyclops now a days to get that cleaner look.

Looking at your side by side photo, the SS does look smaller IMO.