Different magnification between 116610 LV & 116710BLNR?

[2th Dr]

Is it just me, or is the magnification higher on the sub? Both were bought from reputable sellers and ARE authentic, so no issue there.
20130825_200724 (1024x768).jpg

[Rags]

Hmmm the subs magnification does look to be a bit larger.

[Nsingh]

Same issue on my ceramic sub and blnr. I had a datejust ii as well that I flipped and it also had different magnification on the cyclops. I guess each rolex is unique!

[2th Dr]

I thought they were all supposed to be 2.5X.

[dardeca]

I don't think that is anything intentional. I've seen different magnification levels on identical model watches. The cyclops is made separate from the crystal and is simply applied with glue. I think the different magnification levels come from the tolerance levels in how the curvature of the cyclops is cut.

BTW - that's a great looking pair. Pretty much my perfect duo!

[2th Dr]

Originally Posted by dardeca

I don't think that is anything intentional. I've seen different magnification levels on identical model watches. The cyclops is made separate from the crystal and is simply applied with glue. I think the different magnification levels come from the tolerance levels in how the curvature of the cyclops is cut.

BTW - that's a great looking pair. Pretty much my perfect duo!

Not that you had any part in it!

[AK797]

Do they both have AR on the Cyclops, bit hard to tell.

[2th Dr]

Originally Posted by AK797

Do they both have AR on the Cyclops, bit hard to tell.

Yep!

[mkmk]

Are the saphire crystals different thicknesses? That would put the cyclops further away and thus cause a "larger" magnificatiion.

[2th Dr]

Originally Posted by mkmk

Are the saphire crystals different thicknesses? That would put the cyclops further away and thus cause a "larger" magnificatiion.

Ohhhh, good point!Hopefully someone can answer that. Makes sense to me!

[SohAIS]

Very good point and make sense.

Originally Posted by mkmk

Are the saphire crystals different thicknesses? That would put the cyclops further away and thus cause a "larger" magnificatiion.

[tasopappas1]

Believe the subs crystal and case back are both thicker than the GMT

[A.Sharp]

Interesting

[Rashid.bk]

You'll be glad to know this was discussed previously. The crystal on the Sub is thicker and this may be the reason. The cases are different as well, the GMT2c case is slightly thicker. The case backs are thicker too with Sub having a thicker case back. The latter two have no bearing on the date magnification.
I do agree with Padi's comment relating to this issue.

http://rolexforums.com/showthread.ph...c+date+cyclops

[Magic-Matt]

I think it may also have something to do with how far away the crystal actually is from the dial/date disk. If you think of when putting a magnifying glass over some text: the further (proportionally) you pull it away, the bigger the text becomes. Of course theres a limit before it goes out of focus. So, just an idea but may also contribute...

[Cc1966]

I've been told that mag can differ due to the depth that the crystal was pressed (for those models).

[2th Dr]

Originally Posted by tasopappas1

Believe the subs crystal and case back are both thicker than the GMT

I remember reading that here several years ago. I just wasn't sure it was significant enough to visibly change the magnification. I guess it is! Thanks for the responses guys!

[mailman]

Originally Posted by 2th DR

Is it just me, or is the magnification higher on the sub? Both were bought from reputable sellers and ARE authentic, so no issue there.
Attachment 419080

That's a very nice pair you have there Mark

[gr33n]

I read that the crystal thickness is the same.

I do not know if the distance between date and crystal is important between those two models, but i think that the difference is a FONT difference, that's all.

Rolex do use differents fonts for date, more or less thick.

[2th Dr]

Originally Posted by mailman

That's a very nice pair you have there Mark

Thank you!

[DJJon]

My wife took my picture the other day with her iPhone on vacation from across the dinner table and you can literally see there are digits for the date in the picture (can't really read the date '26' but you can see it is 2 distinct digits). So that's serious magnification !

[acr]

I can't find the source right now but I do remember reading clearly that the GMT's cyclops will have less magnification since the GMT has a marginally thinner case than the Sub and thus placing the crystal/cyclops closer to the dia/date wheel. I've owned 2 subs and 3 GMTs and all of the GMTs have had slightly less magnification when compared to the Subs.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by acr

I can't find the source right now but I do remember reading clearly that the GMT's cyclops will have less magnification since the GMT has a marginally thinner case than the Sub and thus placing the crystal/cyclops closer to the dia/date wheel. I've owned 2 subs and 3 GMTs and all of the GMTs have had slightly less magnification when compared to the Subs.

Don't know about regular GMTs but the GMT2 ceramic has a thicker case than the Sub ceramic, it's a fact. It has been measured here before.
The Sub however has a thicker crystal and case back. I wish people would be clear about what they refer to.
The OP is speaking about modern Rolexes and in the case of these two that is the situation. The case that holds the movement is thicker on the GMT2 Ceramic.
The crystal and case back are thicker on the Submariner Ceramic.
The thicker crystal on the Submariner is likely the culprit not the case.

[blackout]

You got the rare senior citizen version of the LVC....