ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

lzz73 · 13 July 2015, 01:01 AM

Yesterday I decided to check out a new Bluesy, which I've always though looks fabulous. The date happened to be set to 4 and it looked waaaay too small through the cyclops. I happened to have my BLNR on and set it to 4, showed the associate, and there was no comparison when side by side - the Bluesy 4 was signifiacntly smaller. I figured with two 40mm watches the comparison would be valid.

The associate seemed quite puzzled and taken aback by it (but didn't disagree because it was obvious). Acted like they'd never heard of the issue.

Anyhow, my question is, how are the AD's reacting to this? If I'm going to plunk down $$ on a piece I want it to be "right." Can the AD send a "bad" one back to Rolex and have them remedy it? I've read some of the other posts on this issue and even the member who had the crystal replaced under warranty, but boy, who wants to resort to that if you can avoid it.

This whole issue seems puzzling to me - thoughts?

RichM · 13 July 2015, 01:20 AM

Unless the price is right, in DC you should be able to find another one.

The same thing happened to me a couple of weeks ago. There they were, two watches side by side, one a Sub the other a GMT. For the first time I got to see it in person. There was quite a difference between the magnification of these two watches but yet the salesperson played dumb. You see it here on the Forum but with pictures taken at different angles and depths it's really hard to image until you see it in the flesh.

Be thankful you caught it. I would tell them you'll buy it if they send it out and fix it first. If not, I'd move on.

Tseg · 13 July 2015, 03:04 AM

I'd ask them to source another or you locate another AD. Why have a watch from the factory cracked open before its even worn? While most of the time the "repair" will be flawless, it is not worth the effort and risk and 30 day turn-around time if you've not bought the watch.

Mis3 · 13 July 2015, 04:12 AM

I saw a few posts on this low mag issue amd while it was confirmed that some watches have the low mag syclops, I don't recall if Rolex would fix it under warranty. Can someone please confirm?

cht · 13 July 2015, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mis3

I saw a few posts on this low mag issue amd while it was confirmed that some watches have the low mag syclops, I don't recall if Rolex would fix it under warranty. Can someone please confirm?

Fortunately, many members here have gotten the crystal replaced at no charge through RSC.

The unfortunately is now you have a $7k watch you ust bought and can't wear it for a month!

DateJustEnough · 13 July 2015, 04:36 AM

Quote:

The unfortunately is now you have a $7k watch you ust bought and can't wear it for a month!

I agree, that def is the bad part......

GradyPhilpott · 13 July 2015, 04:45 AM

Ask the AD is he's able to get you one with the larger magnification.

You might as well let him do the work, if he's willing, and other ADs and Rolex would work with him.

GradyPhilpott · 13 July 2015, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cht

The unfortunately is now you have a $7k watch you ust bought and can't wear it for a month!

Three times I've paid up front half the retail price of watches I wanted my AD to order. I don't really see that as a problem, or even full price, when you consider that you will get exactly what you want.

Qtip.416 · 13 July 2015, 05:18 AM

I wasn't aware of the magnification until someone recently pointed it out to me on the forums. It is an issue and I've read threads of people getting a new crystal put in by RSC under warranty. I'd rather buy it with the proper magnification than to bring it home, notice it and have it serviced.

Here is my BLNR beside an explorer II.

Sublover2166 · 13 July 2015, 05:36 AM

The low mag is completely unacceptable in my book. I would not purposely buy a watch with that bogus Cyclops. Keep looking and find a good one, there are many out there.

Submariner2015 · 13 July 2015, 05:49 AM

Rolex has removed the 2.5x language...thus, unless it says 2.5x in the official rolex booklet for that particular watch, a mag is just a mag now--"right" is dictated by your own personal taste.

As far as whether Rolex has blundered a batch of mags--this is the answer everyone wants to know officially...

lzz73 · 13 July 2015, 05:58 AM

That was another question I had, is where is the x2.5 in "the literature." It seems to be common knowledge but I couldn't find it in any specs I looked at.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Soulspawn · 13 July 2015, 06:56 AM

Apparently is used to say 2.5x MAG on their website. But they removed it from there.

Tseg · 13 July 2015, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulspawn

Apparently is used to say 2.5x MAG on their website. But they removed it from there.

... Removed from their website just months ago after having been there since the beginning of time... or at least the beginning of the Internet.. or at least since Rolex has had a website.

lzz73 · 13 July 2015, 07:40 AM

Very interesting...and just happens to coincide (roughly) with the discussion among enthusiasts of low magnification.

Old Expat Beast · 13 July 2015, 08:50 AM

Rolex has (or at least had until recently) been claiming x2.5 mag for the cyclops since it was first introduced in the mid-1950s.

Emerald4194 · 14 July 2015, 03:08 AM

I just took mine into the AD, as I realized the mag was low - a number of the sales associates looked at the difference and did not dispute it at all - one associate was wearing the same Sub C116610LN and agreed, so they sent it in for a replacement. I am in DC also and several of the AD associates said they have never heard of this issue and didn't seem to care that about half of their watches on display had low mag. Guess they just want to move product and don't care that a number of their watches are not up to par per Rolex standards. I have heard of some ADs sending these back, but not the one I went to. Concerning to say the least.

watchwatcher · 14 July 2015, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emerald4194

Guess they just want to move product and don't care that a number of their watches are not up to par per Rolex standards.

That's the issue....Rolex has removed the 2.5 language and not publicly admitted that there is a low magnification issue. They appear to be fixing some on an individual basis, but no official statement.

So we the consumers don't know what's going on.

Tseg · 14 July 2015, 03:21 AM

It is not unheard of when a mis-production occurs that the manufacturer intentionally duplicates the error en masse to eliminate desire for collectibility of that mistake. It's happened with postal stamp production several times from the learning of the accidental inverted airplane stamp. Perhaps Rolex is flooding the market with bad mags intentionally so these cannot be a collectable?

lzz73 · 14 July 2015, 03:40 AM

In addition to the underlying principal that it should be correct when you buy it, a practical issue for the buyer is resale. I mean, the first thing you always hear in "Rolex Counterfeit 101" is that fakes typically have incorrect (low) mag. So, then are you trying to "prove" you have a real one while explaining that Rolex got it wrong at the factory?

ronricks · 14 July 2015, 03:53 AM

My local AD said they were aware of the issue and will either:

send the watch back to Rolex for a crystal replacement or source another watch. In their case this problem is across all models and seems to be with the random serial numbers.

13 July 2015, 01:01 AM	#1
lzz73 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Billings, MT Watch: 228238 Posts: 437	TT Sub Low Mag Yesterday I decided to check out a new Bluesy, which I've always though looks fabulous. The date happened to be set to 4 and it looked waaaay too small through the cyclops. I happened to have my BLNR on and set it to 4, showed the associate, and there was no comparison when side by side - the Bluesy 4 was signifiacntly smaller. I figured with two 40mm watches the comparison would be valid. The associate seemed quite puzzled and taken aback by it (but didn't disagree because it was obvious). Acted like they'd never heard of the issue. Anyhow, my question is, how are the AD's reacting to this? If I'm going to plunk down $$ on a piece I want it to be "right." Can the AD send a "bad" one back to Rolex and have them remedy it? I've read some of the other posts on this issue and even the member who had the crystal replaced under warranty, but boy, who wants to resort to that if you can avoid it. This whole issue seems puzzling to me - thoughts?

13 July 2015, 01:20 AM	#2
RichM 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Real Name: Richie Location: "Nowhere Man" Watch: out now,take care! Posts: 29,611	Unless the price is right, in DC you should be able to find another one. The same thing happened to me a couple of weeks ago. There they were, two watches side by side, one a Sub the other a GMT. For the first time I got to see it in person. There was quite a difference between the magnification of these two watches but yet the salesperson played dumb. You see it here on the Forum but with pictures taken at different angles and depths it's really hard to image until you see it in the flesh. Be thankful you caught it. I would tell them you'll buy it if they send it out and fix it first. If not, I'd move on. __________________ "I love to work at nothing all day" TRF #139960

13 July 2015, 04:45 AM	#7
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK050 Posts: 34,447	Ask the AD is he's able to get you one with the larger magnification. You might as well let him do the work, if he's willing, and other ADs and Rolex would work with him. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

13 July 2015, 06:56 AM	#13
Soulspawn "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Real Name: Wen Location: Western Australia Posts: 117	Apparently is used to say 2.5x MAG on their website. But they removed it from there. __________________ Cheers, Wen

13 July 2015, 03:04 AM	#3
Tseg "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Real Name: Tom Location: World Traveler Watch: GMT Master II BLNR Posts: 1,583	I'd ask them to source another or you locate another AD. Why have a watch from the factory cracked open before its even worn? While most of the time the "repair" will be flawless, it is not worth the effort and risk and 30 day turn-around time if you've not bought the watch.

13 July 2015, 04:12 AM	#4
Mis3 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Canada Posts: 357	I saw a few posts on this low mag issue amd while it was confirmed that some watches have the low mag syclops, I don't recall if Rolex would fix it under warranty. Can someone please confirm?

13 July 2015, 05:18 AM	#9
Qtip.416 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Toronto, Canada Watch: 1675/1016/5513 Posts: 105	I wasn't aware of the magnification until someone recently pointed it out to me on the forums. It is an issue and I've read threads of people getting a new crystal put in by RSC under warranty. I'd rather buy it with the proper magnification than to bring it home, notice it and have it serviced. Here is my BLNR beside an explorer II.

13 July 2015, 05:36 AM	#10
Sublover2166 Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Real Name: John Location: Manassas,Virginia Watch: Ol'Bluesy & Hulk Posts: 2,871	The low mag is completely unacceptable in my book. I would not purposely buy a watch with that bogus Cyclops. Keep looking and find a good one, there are many out there.

13 July 2015, 05:49 AM	#11
Submariner2015 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2015 Location: USA Watch: SubC Date Posts: 325	Rolex has removed the 2.5x language...thus, unless it says 2.5x in the official rolex booklet for that particular watch, a mag is just a mag now--"right" is dictated by your own personal taste. As far as whether Rolex has blundered a batch of mags--this is the answer everyone wants to know officially...

13 July 2015, 05:58 AM	#12
lzz73 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Billings, MT Watch: 228238 Posts: 437	That was another question I had, is where is the x2.5 in "the literature." It seems to be common knowledge but I couldn't find it in any specs I looked at. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

13 July 2015, 07:40 AM	#15
lzz73 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Billings, MT Watch: 228238 Posts: 437	Very interesting...and just happens to coincide (roughly) with the discussion among enthusiasts of low magnification.

13 July 2015, 08:50 AM	#16
Old Expat Beast TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Adam Location: Far East Watch: Golden Tuna Posts: 28,793	Rolex has (or at least had until recently) been claiming x2.5 mag for the cyclops since it was first introduced in the mid-1950s.

14 July 2015, 03:08 AM	#17
Emerald4194 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Mid alantic Watch: SubC BLNR Exp 1016 Posts: 174	I just took mine into the AD, as I realized the mag was low - a number of the sales associates looked at the difference and did not dispute it at all - one associate was wearing the same Sub C116610LN and agreed, so they sent it in for a replacement. I am in DC also and several of the AD associates said they have never heard of this issue and didn't seem to care that about half of their watches on display had low mag. Guess they just want to move product and don't care that a number of their watches are not up to par per Rolex standards. I have heard of some ADs sending these back, but not the one I went to. Concerning to say the least.

14 July 2015, 03:21 AM	#19
Tseg "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Real Name: Tom Location: World Traveler Watch: GMT Master II BLNR Posts: 1,583	It is not unheard of when a mis-production occurs that the manufacturer intentionally duplicates the error en masse to eliminate desire for collectibility of that mistake. It's happened with postal stamp production several times from the learning of the accidental inverted airplane stamp. Perhaps Rolex is flooding the market with bad mags intentionally so these cannot be a collectable?

14 July 2015, 03:40 AM	#20
lzz73 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Billings, MT Watch: 228238 Posts: 437	In addition to the underlying principal that it should be correct when you buy it, a practical issue for the buyer is resale. I mean, the first thing you always hear in "Rolex Counterfeit 101" is that fakes typically have incorrect (low) mag. So, then are you trying to "prove" you have a real one while explaining that Rolex got it wrong at the factory?

14 July 2015, 03:53 AM	#21
ronricks 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: ATL Watch: 126610LV Posts: 2,746	My local AD said they were aware of the issue and will either: send the watch back to Rolex for a crystal replacement or source another watch. In their case this problem is across all models and seems to be with the random serial numbers.

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