Gen Sub Date Mag Inconsistencies

[HauteHippie]

Is it just me or does the date mag strength actually vary on modern subs.....

Gen sub #1 (2004, F serial, SELs, no lug holes):

Gen sub #2 (2000, P serial, SELs, lug holes):

And to throw more fuel to the fire... Gen sub #3 (2005, F serial, SELs, no lug holes):

[lionsandtigers]

definatly look different, the top one looks more like the mage on the 1680...odd, maybe it's just the angle?

[gioarmani]

Some of the older models did have bigger dates than the new, and it could also be the lens they're shot with. If you're shooting macro, you've probably got a wide angle which tends to expand & exaggerate angles that don't naturally appear, in order to "cram" more of the entire view (including the peripheral) into the shot, thus making the date-mag appear smaller. The opposite effect will happen if you were to shoot telephoto from a distance, and zoom in on the object to make it appear as if you were actually closer when taking the picture. The lens takes everything that would normally be in the frame and compacts it--"smashing" it together, if you will--making the images that are farther back appear larger than normal and the images closer to the camera appear slightly smaller than normal. Similar to the proverbial image we've seen ad nauseam of a "huge" sun/moon that appears to be sitting on the immediate horizon next to the animal in view; this technique is also a great way to make your girls appear thinner when shooting them.

[alt.watch.obsessive]

I am of the opinion that the last few serials have lower powered mags than before. For reps I would still error slightly on the large side.

[HauteHippie]

I am of the opinion that the last few serials have lower powered mags than before. For reps I would still error slightly on the large side.

Well the one with the large date mag in my pics is an F serial without lugholes. The smaller date mag is a P serial with lug holes. I've got a date magnifier that looks almost exactly like the P serial picture, and I'm going to have it installed on my TW Best classic.

[alligoat]

The single digit dates always appear larger the the twenties. You see this when you look at the unmagnified date wheels. They're slightly larger because they can fill up the whole date window. The teens are also larger than the twenties because of the spacing. The one in the teens allows more room for the second digit and hence the overall date looks larger.

Last week we saw where rehaut was less on a 16800, which would also affect date mag, but on the 16610's, the best deal is going to be to compare the same dates and then as Goi says, you're probably goimg to have to take into account camera lens, etc

And of course, date mag on the 1680 is still greater than the 16610's because of the height of the crystal from the dial.

[HauteHippie]

The single digit dates always appear larger the the twenties. You see this when you look at the unmagnified date wheels. They're slightly larger because they can fill up the whole date window. The teens are also larger than the twenties because of the spacing. The one in the teens allows more room for the second digit and hence the overall date looks larger.

It's not the numerals I'm looking at... Just look at the white date window. On one watch it almost fills the magnifier, while on others there is alot more of the black dial visible in the magnifier.

[alligoat]

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a slight variation from year to year. It's not unheard of for Rolex to mix things up from time to time. But I probably would go back to Gio's answer where variations in camera angles and lenses accounts for most of the differences.

[HauteHippie]

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a slight variation from year to year. It's not unheard of for Rolex to mix things up from time to time. But I probably would go back to Gio's answer where variations in camera angles and lenses accounts for most of the differences.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised either, except for the fact that two of the watches above which show the variation have the same serial (albeit produced in consecutive years). I'm not so sure I can chalk it up to lenses because wide angle lenses don't tend to exagerate things in the middle of the frame. In any event I think it's interesting.

[tonyp1]

I was at the official rolex dealer a couple of weeks ago. Although I’ve been there many times for servicing I never really paid much attention to the new ones as I was not in the market for one. Last time I did ask to see a new gmt and sure enough the mag is less powerful Id say 2.0 my 1680 and probably all plastic crystal watches are 2.5 if not a little more they fill the entire magnifier up.

[gioarmani]

The last two pics you've posted are more accurate for most of the gens I've seen or owned:

I think the too-big date window is a problem a lot of the reps have, trying to blindly follow the old wives tale that "the date window is supposed to completely fill the cyclops eye". But truth be told, sadly, the gens do vary slightly from piece to piece.

When it's ridiculously over-sized, it's just as much of a dead give-away as a ridiculously shallow rehaut.