Why do Rolex reps still not all have 2.5x

[Lindseyctrimble1]

One of the easiest ways to tell a rolex is a rep is by the cyclops. So my question is why do factories still use the 1.5x magnifier cyclops??? Is it cheaper because it's seems like just a tiny element that makes a huge difference IMO.

Pic crappy canal special I bought to fool around with before trying to mod my own watches.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SUMIKITO]

Bad magnification.......

BECAUSE it is cheaper to put a low mag Cyclops on a dirt cheap watch like a Canal St. Special !! Every little part counts !!! Viva "El Cheapo" !! :facepalm:

 

[Lindseyctrimble1]

BECAUSE it is cheaper to put a low mag Cyclops on a dirt cheap watch like a Canal St. Special !! Every little part counts !!! Viva "El Cheapo" !! :facepalm:

Yeah I guess the question is how much does a 1.5x cost compared to. 2.5x Like dollars or pennies???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[redrising]

Yeah I guess the question is how much does a 1.5x cost compared to. 2.5x Like dollars or pennies???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you are mass producing something, every pennies count.

 

[cwazy1]

That's a really poor rep. The new noob and bp reps are pretty good in terms of mag

 

[arcadia]

If you are mass producing something, every pennies count.

A tricky sentence, here we have. :yoda:


:hehehe:

 

[tschirklo]

i have this problem with datejust 2's for about 200$...

 

[electric]

They do it to spite us.

 

[Lindseyctrimble1]

They do it to spite us.

Lol exactly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mydnytrydr]

.........you're lucky it's not a quartz..:hehehe:

 

[Luthier]

I can't complain... X2,5 on my DD.

 

[Agrajag]

Is it to do with the material of whatever the cyclops is made from? Do they use sapphire for the cyclops?
Sapphire has a higher refractive index and I seem to remember from physics lessons that this means it will magnify more. So if they don't use sapphire or something with the same RI, then for the same shape of cyclops the magnification will be less. Maybe?

Could be talking out of my :spank: though.

 

[Lindseyctrimble1]

Is it to do with the material of whatever the cyclops is made from? Do they use sapphire for the cyclops?
Sapphire has a higher refractive index and I seem to remember from physics lessons that this means it will magnify more. So if they don't use sapphire or something with the same RI, then for the same shape of cyclops the magnification will be less. Maybe?

Could be talking out of my :spank: though.

Idk but that answer is def good enough for me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Luthier]

Magnification doesn't depend on material, but on sphere radius.

 

[Confidente]

Magnification doesn't depend on material, but on sphere radius.

Is it spherical or parabolic?

 

[SSTEEL]

There's loads of reps with the correct 2.5x cyclops.

 

[Agrajag]

Magnification doesn't depend on material, but on sphere radius.

I think it depends on both, which is why I said 'for the same shape of cyclops'.
If the cyclops is the same shape, so as not to look odd, then the only other variable in the magnification is material (refractive index) isn't it?

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/lenses/lensvariations/

So my guess is that they use a material with a lower RI than on gen cyclopses.

 

[prb]

Because a lot of people dont know enough to notice or dont care, and because the industry is hyper-competitive so factories will cut EVERY corner they can at EVERY chance to undercut the competition

 

[Lindseyctrimble1]

There's loads of reps with the correct 2.5x cyclops.

Yeah I guess I mean even crappy ones I have some good reps with 2.5x but I guess I was wondering why some cheapy ones don't. Was it a cost thing or was it a way to differentiate between the quality levels available. As to create a minor league and major league of reps


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Luthier]

Cheapies in most cases are made at 2nd class factories, they, probably, don't have correct information on magnification of the cyclop. Just a wild guess.