LVC Cyclops magnification

[FlyingSpacer]

I have searched this to death and read all of the threads about this. Just seeing everyone's thoughts on my LVC. The cyclops magnification on my particular watch doesn't seem as powerful as some of the other Subs/GMTs/etc. As there have been a few people discussing it recently, I was just wondering people's thoughts on my watch. I can't decide if I go to an RSC (a bit of a distance away) if it's a QA issue from the factory, or is it maybe the direction Rolex are going in with the cyclops?

[sco]

Well, it is less magnified than mine. It is supposed to be... or has been 2.5 times magnification. From that picture, it does not look like 2.5 times. With all of that said, according to this website, some of the new WG Pepsi GMT's have been less magnified and they are brand new, so it may be a new style going forward.

Here's a shot of mine for comparison. Either way your watch is a beauty, enjoy it!

[otisc]

Wow, that is usually one of the first things you see in a fake - 1x magnification.

What is the origin of your watch? Possible the crystal was replaced? Possible you were duped (some fakes are really good)? If you got it from an AD, I'd be asking a lot of questions about this.

[FlyingSpacer]

Yep, I got it brand new from a big AD. It had been in the safe since its arrival from Geneva.

[Kyu]

That's weird

Here is a pic of mine, just so it happens that I'm wearing mine today
Urs doesn't look zoomed at all

Try using ur hand in the magnification to compare also



Edit: haha actually looks similar to mine
Maybe it was the picture

[BMAN8]

The magnification on your LVC is definitely less than my SubC.

[captkevin]

My LVC is the same its a tad smaller than my 116613

[mike]

Best I can do,

[playmore009]

Here is my GMT II.

[playmore009]

How about this?

[RollieVerde]

I think you're fine, but (Shawn's excellent image aside) you can't tell too well through a photograph as the lens in the camera can make all the difference. I think to ease your mind you should journey to the AD and compare it to other sub dates they have in stock. Then, if there's a problem, go from there.

[FlyingSpacer]

Thanks everyone for the thoughts and pics. It's been driving me mad, but I guess you can't really tell till you have two side by side. And even then, we've seen a few differences on the board recently!

[CHRONOLEX]

Yours looks the same as my new BLNR. In fact, when the BLNR first came out, I turned down an early chance to buy because the date was disappointingly magnified. I became very interested in this phenomenon and sought out a few other examples, including on eBay. Ultimately I ended up buying at one of my local ADs aware of the difference. It still kind of bugs me but from the recent BLRO examples and your own piece, I can't fathom that Rolex would knowingly market and sell such coveted models with a known and obvious flaw such as this. Wish I knew something more definitive.

[FlyingSpacer]

I wonder if it's the most recent batch of cyclops they have, maybe something they've changed to, or a batch problem? It appears that the most recently produced watches seem to be more likely to have the reduced magnification.

[anothernewphone]

My old ceramic LV for reference:

[sunnyd]

Your cyclops magnification does look weaker than mine. Not sure if that's a Rolex inconsistency or if there's something wrong.

[skprd13]

All I know is that my LVC is my favorite watch! The dial is amazing!

[Dvenus11]

it looks correct to me

[viper9669]

Originally Posted by FlyingSpacer

I wonder if it's the most recent batch of cyclops they have, maybe something they've changed to, or a batch problem? It appears that the most recently produced watches seem to be more likely to have the reduced magnification.

Yes, agree. We are so used to the regular magnification, this occurence of reduced date mag makes me wonder why Rolex went ahead with the production.

[tkerrmd]

Same thing with some BLROs in Canada

My BLRO and sub seem the same, I wouldn't worry about your LV but if you can get to an AD to compare?

[subtona]

looks off to me in that pic…. take a couple of more from different distances please.

[kenn18]

The magnification looks weaker than usual. Is there a LEC on the crystal at the 6* clock mark?

[mitchy]

its not just Sub LV or BLNRs that seem to have lower magnification, ive noticed it on a lot of models comming from rolex factory over the last few months.. perhaps a change in Spahire crystal suppliers or addition of another layer of AR under the cyclops has done this??
either way if you have purchased it from an AD then you know its a Gen.
i also dont know if the RSC will change it because of mag issues, especially if thats the way they are all leaving the factory that way...

let us know what happens either way..

[Ruud Van Driver]

Here's mine, purchased brand new two weeks ago (I appreciate the photograph angle of mine is not the most helpful). When comparing the images posted thus far, yours does seem off. If only for peace of mind, if it were me I'd go back to my AD and ask to compare with another Sub.

Might even be worth emailing your photograph to Rolex head office with copies of supporting documentation (serial number card, purchase receipt, etc.) and see what they say.

Good luck.

[FlyingSpacer]

Again, thanks everyone for your thoughts. It has the LEC on the crystal, and I'm certain its gen, it's just the knowledge of having something that may have a defect when it cost so much. I'll pop into an AD tomorrow and see what they think. I can't easily go back to where I purchased it, but if needs be after the ADs tomorrow, I can pop it to an RSC. Again, thanks everyone for your thoughts. I just wanted to get other's thoughts. Below is another pic, taken at a distance of about a foot :-)

[travisb]

It's less magnified than the norm. I've noticed this on more than one occasion at ADs recently. Just compare it to some of the other models in your ADs showcase.
If it bothers you they should take care of it.

[Sarko]

I had the same problem and got my glass replaced for free by the AD.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...=352444&page=3

It seems that allot of recent GMTII and SUBS have this issue. This could be a new thing from rolex or just bad batch of glass. In the thread above you can see 3 watches including mine.

[steveclocks]

Originally Posted by tkerrmd

Same thing with some BLROs in Canada

My BLRO and sub seem the same, I wouldn't worry about your LV but if you can get to an AD to compare?

wonderful photo to compare both Tom !!!! thanks for sharing man

[padi56]

Originally Posted by RollieVerde

I think you're fine, but (Shawn's excellent image aside) you can't tell too well through a photograph as the lens in the camera can make all the difference. I think to ease your mind you should journey to the AD and compare it to other sub dates they have in stock. Then, if there's a problem, go from there.

Exactly that and nothing more, some guys just worry to much about there watches instead of just wearing them.

[Nycturbovr6]

I went to Rsc ny recently and in the display window I noticed the same issue with two watches they had side by side. I would def go and just ask them.