James2020
Active Member
- 1/6/20
- 422
- 175
- 43
There are a lot of factors that come into play when you start messing with crystal heights, date magnification being one of the most important. Factories tend to try to optimize the appearance for a particular model. So things can get totally unacceptable when reducing the height as much as I did on that GMF. I've also seen more than a few examples of that on the ARF 116710 LN. People installing Prof or gen crystals are ending up with 2.0 mag looking dates. So a 3.0 mag cyclops might be the answer. I don't have experience with doing that but I have had cyclops changes for other reasons and I can tell you that even the pros are not perfect at gluing a new cyclops on. It's pretty tricky business and can end up a little messy especially if AR is involved. I wouldn't do it again unless the crystal came from the factory with the 3.0 mag cyclops installed.
Shucks, I haven’t considered the reduction in cyclops mag... Now I’m thinking twice whether to change the xtal with thinner gasket. Maybe I will take the middle route and change the xtal with original gasket.
i just compared my batgirl against your photo and my xtal looks lower. Maybe it’s psychological (to tell myself not to touch the xtal...LOL ) or maybe the recent batches have a thinner gasket...