DemonSlayer Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 I've spent about an hour trawling through gen pics of Datejusts. I still can't decide whether or not the mag on the cyclops is too low. I've seen some gen pics which seem to indicate its lacking magnification, yet others show that it is very close. What are your thoughts? Any input is greatly appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 The magnification looks pretty good, but the crystal lacks the clarity or sparkle you normally see from a gen crystal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbh Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 The cyclops is not the same shape. It's taller and thinner than a gen. Magnification looks about right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 The mag looks pretty good to me and from my experience the mag seems to be that way on all the new DJ and DD reps I have seen. My only complaint is the same as always: I wish they would make the font itself a bit bolder like the gens are. Most reps are usually over magged and under fonted for some reason. Keep in mind that depending on the year, there are many different font presentations. Everyone tends to want to evaluate mag in a vacuum. It is all relative. The boldness of the font changes the mag so to speak. The older watches with the open 6's and 9's were not as bold and black as they are now but I believe many of those were magnified more. Now the mag is less but the fonts are bolder. Of course the watch you show is a very modern dial so I would try and evaluate very recent serials for that. Not sure the first serial year for that dial but it is probably F, D or Z. You should also know that Rolex has supposedly used a very faint single sided and colorless AR on DJ crystals since 2003 according to my AD which makes the dates and the dials in general a bit more legible. Of course they took that even one step further on the new ceramic GMT watches by adding additional AR to the cyclops as well. Maybe they will do that on all the models in the future. Who knows. And Freddy is right, nothing quite sparkles like the gen glass for some reason. Not sure why that is. Anyway, I happen to own a gen DJ. It is an M serial from 2008. Here are a couple direct head on shots for comparison... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 I think there may be several members who have slightly older gen DJ's that are more what your watch was repped after so hopefully more will post for you to compare. I was just noticing that even DJ's a year older than mine seem to have less bold date fonts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonSlayer Posted November 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Thanks for the input guys. I should add that regarding datefont and boldness, this Datejust has everything "swiss" except the movement, the movement installed is the DG2813 "asian 21J" movement inside, and it has the stock datewheel, therefore the font is not quite accurate. I also have another Datejust in a similar setup as above, but this one has a definite stronger mag, making the date numbers appear quite different, even in shape. I'll take some pictures shortly. This mag to my eyes looked more similar to gen, and the black roman DJ being off (mag slightly low). Reading the comments above however has me feeling more confident about the cyclops on the black roman DJ, and it is indeed not a very easy thing to catch onto on the flesh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.