ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Gabe218 · 9 August 2016, 02:25 AM

I recently purchased a 2002 Sub 16610 from a reputable jewellers in Essex. Everything about it looked perfect however when comparing it to my GMT 16710
I noticed that the magnification appears a little weak. I appreciate the GMT is a different watch however I believe Rolex magnification is 2.5x as standard. Does this look a little off to anyone? Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Colin10101 · 9 August 2016, 02:31 AM

Definitely looks a little off to me. I've seen ceramic subs with magnification issues, but that issue seems new. I've never seen the same problem on a non ceramic.

Some mags are just lower than others, but I'd still get it checked out.

padi56 · 9 August 2016, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe218

I recently purchased a 2002 Sub 16610 from a reputable jewellers in Essex. Everything about it looked perfect however when comparing it to my GMT 16710
I noticed that the magnification appears a little weak. I appreciate the GMT is a different watch however I believe Rolex magnification is 2.5x as standard. Does this look a little off to anyone? Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

The magnification syndrome was not around back in 2002 when your watch was made.The subs will have a very very tiny difference over the GMT because the sub has a thicker crystal.

904VT · 9 August 2016, 02:57 AM

Perhaps it was serviced and needed a cyclops replacement some point in the past?

ronricks · 9 August 2016, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

The magnification syndrome was not around back in 2002 when your watch was made.The subs will have a very very tiny difference over the GMT because the sub has a thicker crystal.

It was likely serviced and one of the defective crystals was used as a replacement.

fskywalker · 9 August 2016, 04:12 AM

Magnification does seems less than on my S series 16610, which has its original / factory crystal and loupe:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RKTudor · 9 August 2016, 04:14 AM

Have you opened it up?

masyv6 · 9 August 2016, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronricks

It was likely serviced and one of the defective crystals was used as a replacement.

That's my guess too.

speedolex · 9 August 2016, 06:12 AM

This is my 2002 (original owner, never serviced), yours is definitely not magnifying as powerfully to my eyes.

Javier2.0t · 9 August 2016, 06:15 AM

that doesnt look good at all. I dont really nitpick with my watches, but that issue really annoys me. Just the idea that a cyclops can leave the factory looking like that means someone is not paying attention at all.

Etschell · 9 August 2016, 06:25 AM

something seems off. does it have lug holes? dont like the dial font or pearl aside from the cyclops issue. need other pictures.

is it a y serial?

DarthBane · 9 August 2016, 06:33 AM

Appears to me like it could be an aftermarket crystal and insert.

Deroya · 9 August 2016, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthBane

Appears to me like it could be an aftermarket crystal and insert.

Absolutely looks off however i agree with this, doesn't mean the watch is a rep but perhaps the crystal was replaced by non RSC.

mjclark32 · 9 August 2016, 07:16 AM

Yeah, smaller than my 16610 mag. Probably service crystal?

Gabe218 · 9 August 2016, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etschell

something seems off. does it have lug holes? dont like the dial font or pearl aside from the cyclops issue. need other pictures.

is it a y serial?

Yes it has lug holes. Y series.

Gabe218 · 9 August 2016, 07:24 AM

What would you guys do? Leave it? Get my money back? (Provided it's not a rep) I will take to an AD and add more pics tomorrow

Onikage · 9 August 2016, 07:49 AM

Looks alright to me. It's possible the crystal is an aftermarket replacement. Also the insert as has been said. If these are the only problems and it was a good price you're good as it's a cheap fix. Hell of a watch.

amg55 · 9 August 2016, 07:59 AM

Magnification factor of about 1.1. It looks odd. Why don't you just take it to a RSC and have it rectified. You know that it's gong to bug you whenever you look at it.

cht · 9 August 2016, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronricks

It was likely serviced and one of the defective crystals was used as a replacement.

This.

The crystals recently from Rolex were/are defective in a variety of sports range with weak magnification AR coated cyclops, which yours appears to have.

Look for the laser etched crown (LEC) crystal in the 6 oclock region.

If it is Rolex crystal, RSC should replace it at no cost. If it's aftermarket, then they will charge you for a new crystal.

9 August 2016, 02:31 AM	#2
Colin10101 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Real Name: Colin Location: Toronto Watch: 16710 Posts: 1,336	Definitely looks a little off to me. I've seen ceramic subs with magnification issues, but that issue seems new. I've never seen the same problem on a non ceramic. Some mags are just lower than others, but I'd still get it checked out. __________________ Rolex GMT-Master II 16710 "Z" Serial COKE Montblanc 1858 Iced Sea *BLACK*

9 August 2016, 04:12 AM	#6
fskywalker 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Real Name: Francisco Location: San Juan, PR Watch: Is Ticking ! Posts: 25,160	Concerned about new Sub 16610 Magnification does seems less than on my S series 16610, which has its original / factory crystal and loupe: Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk __________________ Francisco ♛ 16610 / 116264 Ω 168.022 / 2535.80.00 / 310.30.42.50.01.002 / 210.90.42.20.01.001 Zenith 02.480.405 2FA security enabled

9 August 2016, 06:25 AM	#11
Etschell "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: FL Watch: platinum sub Posts: 15,884	something seems off. does it have lug holes? dont like the dial font or pearl aside from the cyclops issue. need other pictures. is it a y serial? __________________ If you wind it, they will run. 25 or 6 to 4.

9 August 2016, 07:16 AM	#14
mjclark32 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: MJC Location: PHL USA Watch: IWC, Rolex, AP Posts: 29,232	Yeah, smaller than my 16610 mag. Probably service crystal? __________________

9 August 2016, 07:49 AM	#17
Onikage "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: England Watch: 16710, 16628 Posts: 7,757	Looks alright to me. It's possible the crystal is an aftermarket replacement. Also the insert as has been said. If these are the only problems and it was a good price you're good as it's a cheap fix. Hell of a watch. __________________ GMT II 16710 TRADITIONAL ( D- Serial #) ROLEXFANBOY P-Club Member #4

9 August 2016, 02:57 AM	#4
904VT "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2016 Location: USA Watch: All Rolex Posts: 7,024	Perhaps it was serviced and needed a cyclops replacement some point in the past?

9 August 2016, 04:14 AM	#7
RKTudor "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Real Name: Rick Location: Emmaus, PA Watch: Tudor 79090 blue Posts: 298	Have you opened it up?

9 August 2016, 06:12 AM	#9
speedolex Banned Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: NYC Posts: 1,231	This is my 2002 (original owner, never serviced), yours is definitely not magnifying as powerfully to my eyes.

9 August 2016, 06:15 AM	#10
Javier2.0t "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: NYC Watch: 114060 Posts: 223	that doesnt look good at all. I dont really nitpick with my watches, but that issue really annoys me. Just the idea that a cyclops can leave the factory looking like that means someone is not paying attention at all.

9 August 2016, 06:33 AM	#12
DarthBane "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Toronto Posts: 108	Appears to me like it could be an aftermarket crystal and insert.

9 August 2016, 07:24 AM	#16
Gabe218 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Real Name: Gabe Location: United Kingdom Watch: 16610lv Kermit Posts: 77	What would you guys do? Leave it? Get my money back? (Provided it's not a rep) I will take to an AD and add more pics tomorrow

9 August 2016, 07:59 AM	#18
amg55 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Real Name: Me Location: Australia Watch: Daytona 116500LN Posts: 677	Magnification factor of about 1.1. It looks odd. Why don't you just take it to a RSC and have it rectified. You know that it's gong to bug you whenever you look at it.

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