Battle of the Cyclopses

[RobbieG]

Hey guys listen, I'm not trying to sell anything here as I don't really care given I'm not in on the GMT thing anyway - just trying to help with what I have heard. By all means take it at face value. As we all know Rolex can be cryptic about stuff like this and it may be years beofre we know the truth. But I'll defer to the Chief for starters here being the AR expert.

But when I look at photos like these two taken head on in natural light and I see the clarity of the date like this and the fact that a super shiny dial like this doesn't just disappear into the crystal I have absolutely no trouble believing there is some kind of colorless AR on it. This watch is an early M serial.

I have seen a million defintely non-AR'd Rolex crystals on both older gens I have had and plenty of reps and I have never seen anything that looked like this. And what is happening on the GMTIIc appears to be all this and more too. I'll be interested to hear what the group decides and of course will accept whatever it is. Not looking to disagree with anyone per se, but thought I would help with some relevant gen pics since I was able to find these two...

[RobbieG]

I should also add that I'm sitting here with the watch in my hand moving it all around in the morning light - inside and outside on the lanai and I can't get it to reflect so bad that I can't read the dial or even wash out the WG indices. I don't remember ever seeing older Rollie crystals act that way. I'm also wondering more and more what Lani and I were asking which is whether there is a way to build some kind of AR material directly into the glass itself?

[b16a2]

@ Robbie At some angles do you get a purple ring around the outside of the crystal? My SMP had a single AR coating, and although it was colourless, at some angles a faint purple ring on the outside of the crystal would appear.

[HauteHippie]

chefcook's account would lead me to believe that the crystal he obtained had not been AR coated... As b16a2 says, check for a purple ring around the perimeter of the crystal (barely visible) under florescent lighting.... The single AR on my 196 is really only ever visible in my work bathroom, for whatever reason... but they use those compact florescent can light bulbs in there...

As for AR impregnated into the crystal.... No. Creative thinking though!

[RobbieG]

No, just like the UN AR. Absolutely colorless...

@ Robbie At some angles do you get a purple ring around the outside of the crystal? My SMP had a single AR coating, and although it was colourless, at some angles a faint purple ring on the outside of the crystal would appear.

[jake48]

Freddy - You observations seem to be spot on for me as well. I recently had The Zigmeister install my Chief AR'd Cyclops. Needless to say, I have a pretty extensive collection of Rep Subs to compare the AR's CII Cyclops against. Excited to see the results I compared the Ar'd Cyclops in ALL lighting conditions. Natural sunlight, fluorescent light, Halogen light, indirect light, a regular light bulb - you name it, I compared it.

The end result....

ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE! The AR'd Cyclops looked exactly the same to me in every single one of the lighting conditions I had it in when compared to the non AR'd Cyclops.

I am going with Chief on this one. There has to be a component missing and there is no way the Gen Cyclops is AR'd on one side only to get the anti reflective quality of the Gen. (I also have a Gen for comparison against the Rep and trust me,. the Gen AR'd Cyclops is amazing)

Anyway, it was a nice try, but my experience is that the AR did not make any difference...

[freddy333]

It appears that Rolex is applying their AR coating to the underside of the crystal (below the GMTIIC's cyclops). The reflections you see in the pics I posted are coming from the crystal itself. The cyclops then magnifies & refracts (bends) the images that appear through the crystal. You can AR the entire cyclops until the cows come home, but that will not make the date window look like it does on the gen.

[blue_sphere]

I have pictures of a gen sub crystal that I bought.

It does have a "ring" not sure if its what youre talking about.

[RobbieG]

So guys, what is the concensus on the standard Rolex AR in addition to whatever may be going on with the cyclops on the GMTIIc watches. Could the "overall" AR that Rolex claims to use on newer watches be adding to whatever the AR is on the cyclops to be producing that clearly major AR effect on the gens that would seem hard to do with a single AR layer on the underside of the cyclops? I say this because obviously we can all see how far toward that result my DJ already is. Seems like if you added AR to the underside of the cyclops, then there was the other AR just under that on the underside of the crystal then that is the most likely story? I just didn't hear from the experts (Freddy / Chief) as to what you guys think about the look of those head on DJ pics and whether you agree that something is different there than you remember on older gens...

[lanikai]

everyone seems to be heading in the same "direction".. given that the ar is on the crystal and it makes sense to be on the inside surface of the crystal .. I thought of your Datejust Robbie and how for a flat crystal it reflects very little compared to other older rolex crystals.

chiefs AR has very .. very little colour and that is on his double sided.. I think a single sided ar will not even be noticable

the only alternative to coating the entire surface would be to single coat one side then apply the mag and remove the rest of the ar that is surronding the mag...ergo we will achieve just the mag having the ar under it.. the top of the crystal could be single ar'd if this is attempted..

it may be wise to treat the top of the mag.. it can alway's be removed

I'll request chief to do this on his next run with the crystals with mags I have coming .. the only thing I'm concerned with is if the top of the crystal is single ar'd will the glue strip the ar coating? if so then the underside of the crystal needs to be done.

[RobbieG]

On another note, I offer this old pic that was circulating around a while ago. Gen on left obviously - but notice the look of the main crystal other than the cyclops and the difference between the two. It looks to me like there is a slight colorless AR effect (about like that on my DJ) seen making the gen crystal less reflective as evidence of this AR mystery maybe. No doubt they are different and obviously the lighting and angle are the same. It is subtle but it is there IMO. The gen dial appears much more clear and deeper in color like you would see with a light AR job.

In any event, what are your AD's saying? I have now had a Rolex watchmaker from Congress jewelers, a personal friend AD who I will not name, and now a guy from both Mayor's jewelers as well all say that Rolex uses a single underside AR on all their watches now and from some of these pics I am finding it harder to refute that claim...

[RobbieG]

Sorry for my ignorance if there is something I'm missing, but doing a single light AR on the underside of the whole crystal and then doing a single AR on the underside of the mag then gluing the mag on won't do it. Seems like that would give the desired depth with the density of two seperate layers of AR then?

Or, how about if you double AR'd the whole crystal, did nothing with the mag, then stripped the AR of the top of the crystal after the mag glue was cured? Seems like that would give the right effect if ARing the mad on either side won't work andif we are in agreement that Rolex does do single AR on their crystals now you will want that anyway - just need to get the strength right and I have no idea how that works or if it can be varied easily...

everyone seems to be heading in the same "direction".. given that the ar is on the crystal and it makes sense to be on the inside surface of the crystal .. I thought of your Datejust Robbie and how for a flat crystal it reflects very little compared to other older rolex crystals.

chiefs AR has very .. very little colour and that is on his double sided.. I think a single sided ar will not even be noticable

the only alternative to coating the entire surface would be to single coat one side then apply the mag and remove the rest of the ar that is surronding the mag...ergo we will achieve just the mag having the ar under it.. the top of the crystal could be single ar'd if this is attempted..

it may be wise to treat the top of the mag.. it can alway's be removed

I'll request chief to do this on his next run with the crystals with mags I have coming .. the only thing I'm concerned with is if the top of the crystal is single ar'd will the glue strip the ar coating? if so then the underside of the crystal needs to be done.

[freddy333]

1st off, you should know by now to take anything an AD tells you with the huge grain of salt (I have a friend whose family owns a large upscale chain & they know NOTHING about Rolex watches). Secondly, any differences you see between the gen crystal & the rep in this picture are due to the inherent differences between a gen Rolex crystal & a cheap rep crystal (again, see Nanuq's post on this for clarification). It is not, with the exception of the area below the cyclops, due to any AR coating on the gen crystal. According to Dowling, who is the most reliable source of factual Rolex info since Rolex themselves are not disclosing much, there is no evidence that Rolex is AR coating any of their crystals other than the limited use of it on the GMTIIC.

Again, I think all you need to do is AR the crystal below the cyclops & you will achieve the same effect as on the gen.

There is an easy way to lay the issue of whether the gen GMTIIC has AR applied to the surface of the cyclops - Take a bottle of Windex glass cleaner with ammonia to your local AD & ask them if you can clean the crystal with the Windex. Assuming the sales person is well versed in Rolex facts (not likely) & assuming the cyclops does have an externally-applied coating of AR on the cyclops, they will tell you no because the ammonia will remove the AR coating. But if the sales person allows you to try this test, go ahead & clean the crystal with the Windex. Repeat a few times. If, after the Windex, the gen date window looks like the rep on the right, then you know the cyclops was externally coated with AR & your sales person will have alot of explaining to do to their boss. But if it still looks like the gen watch on the left in the pic above after a few cleanings with the ammoniated Windex, you can be sure that there is no AR coating on any external surfaces of the crystal or cyclops (which is what I suspect is the case).

Here is an excerpt from the instructions that came with my last set of AR'd sunglasses (my last computer CRT came with similar warnings) --

Soap and warm water are best for cleaning AR-coated lenses. Avoid using Windex

[HauteHippie]

It now looks to me like Rolex is coating the *entire* underside of the GMT IIc crystal along with the cyclops. You don't/can't reject reflections off the top surface of the cyclops without coating it. It is just that simple. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I am also going to take this up with my AR guy... Freddy, or anyone, if you've got a side by side pic of a coated and uncoated cyclops on a non-Rolex-rep watch face please post it. I'd like the proprietor of the AR lab to have a look and see what he thinks. I'm going to have to wonder, also, at this point if there is some problem with the fixturing of these tiny lenses that is somehow effecting the application of the AR. We'll see.

[lanikai]

we also can "discuss" this as to who has the correct inside info.. different rolex reps will tell you a variety of "stories" .. so without putting anyone up on a pedestal ... suggest this...

we get 2 crystals AR'd.. one single sided; one double sided ... (for control testing)

apply a coated mag and then strip away the ar surrounding the mag .. doing the same with the double sided crystal ...as I say the mags coating can alway's be stripped also..

we may find that the single sided ar need not be stripped around the mag... we should be able to cover all bases doing it this way ... if this doesn't work then we gotta be happy with what is... is but at least we will have tried everything possible

just pop a couple of prozac and get on to the next rep...

[PhilipM]

Looking at the 2, the gen to me has look like a drop of water on the glass. This leads me to think in a different way, either a different glass cement is used, or a different cyclops with a different refractive index is used.

This might be an odd question, but is the cyclops on the Gen stuck on, or is it part of the same crystal, just milled and polished out of a bigger blank?

[RobbieG]

BTW, all this is making me doubt my sale of this watch. I want one again now - thanks Freddy, just what I need. You just had to bring all this up didn't you?

[RobbieG]

Well to that end I suppose we could take anything anyone says with a grain of salt, but I appreciate all you have said. Keep in mind one of them was a watchmaker who was trained by Rolex who claims to have gotten that info from Rolex directly. He actually called them kind of in front of me - i.e., I asked - he left the room and came back saying he had talked to someone who told him that bit about the F serials. He certainly didn't make it up, but maybe whoever he called did. Who knows. Likewise, who or where he called I have no idea. Then again, who or where Dowling called is also a mystery as well I'm sure - or maybe he claims to only have researched this issue just as it relates to the GMTIIc. In any case, I'm always more trusting of my own eyes than what anybody says and I wouldn't even be having the discussion if I weren't certain something is going on that is different.

To that end, I do know with high certainty that while I have no idea what it is, but there is absolutely a difference in the reflective nature of the crystal on my current Datejust as compared to the half dozon or so older Rolex watches of varied models I have owned over the years. Period. There is no question in my mind. It may be that the sappire material itself or its finish is different and isn't AR at all - I have no idea - but again, it is less reflective. So if it isn't some sort of AR so be it, but again, there has just never been a glare free date viewing experience in any lighting conditions for me before owning this watch with any other Rolex. What can be seen in those pictures is present in any lighting conditions, indoors or out and at most all but the most extreme angles.

As I said, it makes no difference to me what causes it, but nobody can argue that whatever it may be is very real and measurable both in pictures and to the naked eye. Of course how it all relates to the GMT piece is anyone's guess hence the thread, but I have just been trying to offer that whatever is different about the new Rolex crystals might be contributing to you guy's issues with getting this right. In any case it sounds like nothing concrete is afoot but I'm rooting for you all to get there. It sure is cool whatever it is - both on my watch and the major improvement of that on the cyclops of the watch in question. A MAJOR improvement for the brand to be certain...

1st off, you should know by now to take anything an AD tells you with the huge grain of salt (I have a friend whose family owns a large upscale chain & they know NOTHING about Rolex watches). Secondly, any differences you see between the gen crystal & the rep in this picture are due to the inherent differences between a gen Rolex crystal & a cheap rep crystal (again, see Nanuq's post on this for clarification). It is not, with the exception of the area below the cyclops, due to any AR coating on the gen crystal. According to Dowling, who is the most reliable source of factual Rolex info since Rolex themselves are not disclosing much, there is no evidence that Rolex is AR coating any of their crystals other than the limited use of it on the GMTIIC.

Again, I think all you need to do is AR the crystal below the cyclops & you will achieve the same effect as on the gen.

There is an easy way to lay the issue of whether the gen GMTIIC has AR applied to the surface of the cyclops - Take a bottle of Windex glass cleaner with ammonia to your local AD & ask them if you can clean the crystal with the Windex. Assuming the sales person is well versed in Rolex facts (not likely) & assuming the cyclops does have an externally-applied coating of AR on the cyclops, they will tell you no because the ammonia will remove the AR coating. But if the sales person allows you to try this test, go ahead & clean the crystal with the Windex. Repeat a few times. If, after the Windex, the gen date window looks like the rep on the right, then you know the cyclops was externally coated with AR & your sales person will have alot of explaining to do to their boss. But if it still looks like the gen watch on the left in the pic above after a few cleanings with the ammoniated Windex, you can be sure that there is no AR coating on any external surfaces of the crystal or cyclops (which is what I suspect is the case).

Here is an excerpt from the instructions that came with my last set of AR'd sunglasses (my last computer CRT came with similar warnings) --

Let me also add that based on my side-by-side pics of an AR'd cyclops (both sides, according to Chief) vs a non-AR'd cyclops on the same rep crystal & under the exact same lighting conditions, I think it is clear that AR'ing the cyclops, at least by itself, does nothing to produce the effect seen on the gen GMTIIC. So logic would dictate that the effect has to be caused by something other than an AR coating applied to the cyclops.

Similarly, it also seems quite clear to me that the gen crystals are not AR'd across their entire surface -- either internally or externally. This is obvious even in the pic above that shows the same reflection across both crystals, excepting, of course, through the date window on the gen. Since we have already seen (see my pics at the beginning of this thread) that double AR coating the cyclops, at least by itself, does nothing to eliminate the reflections in the date window, I think you have to conclude that there is something below the cyclops that is reducing the reflections....... Or am I missing something?

[jake48]

we also can "discuss" this as to who has the correct inside info.. different rolex reps will tell you a variety of "stories" .. so without putting anyone up on a pedestal ... suggest this...

we get 2 crystals AR'd.. one single sided; one double sided ... (for control testing)

apply a coated mag and then strip away the ar surrounding the mag .. doing the same with the double sided crystal ...as I say the mags coating can alway's be stripped also..

we may find that the single sided ar need not be stripped around the mag... we should be able to cover all bases doing it this way ... if this doesn't work then we gotta be happy with what is... is but at least we will have tried everything possible

just pop a couple of prozac and get on to the next rep...

Your spot on Lani - I have always liked your real world approach. There is never a shortage of people who claim they "know" someone and as soon as thier statements are proven unreliable, well, it is amazing how fast the story changes...

[RobbieG]

It is also amazing how easy it is for certain members to spit in the eye of another member for no reason other than that he is a cry baby who carries a some stupid vendetta around with him about a replica watch which has no value to either party but yet he somehow sees the need to continue it.

Or maybe his own limited mental capacity prohibits him from seeing that the member he spits on is clearly only trying to help out of the goodness of his heart, given he has no vested interest in this project himself. Despite this fact he is still happy to lend his own pics, time, and effort to help his friends get to the bottom of the issue.

The single greatest irony of all is that the very vendetta he holds against this member was created over the exact same watch and the exact same information and the exact same sources and that no statements from anyone, including him, have ever been proven to be either reliable or unreliable - hence the discussion on this discussion and opinion forum which only exists because people have varied opinions. So lucky we are to have different views and information that can all come together and be sorted out in the hopes of learning something, huh?

Moreover the member he criticises has in every instance made it ridiculously clear that he claims no knowledge whatsoever on the subject, but rather is simply communicating what he has heard in the interest of helping others to the point os spelling it out in nearly every post - then (at the inception of this vendetta) and now I might add.

And finally, as per usual, the critical one offers nothing in the way of help to the matter at hand and is content to put forth only useless and utterly witless sarcasm havin no value to the thread or helping anyone get closer to solving the modding issue. Sigh...

Your spot on Lani - I have always liked your real world approach. There is never a shortage of people who claim they "know" someone and as soon as thier statements are proven unreliable, well, it is amazing how fast the story changes...

[jake48]

Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah Blah, Blah BLah.....

Really Mr. "Geee - look at me" - Get a life. You are much more at home in the Looney bin where you belong. This thread is not about you or your Gens. We are trying to figure out the AR cyclops issue. The only thing you are contributing to this thread is speculation.

Haven't you noticed I ignore your babbling?

For Christ's sake....

Edited December 15, 2008 by jake48

[freddy333]

Huh???????? How did this all become so personal. Can we (all) just focus on the matter at hand? Please.

If there is 1 thing I have learned in 20+ years of watch collecting (mostly Rolex) is to trust only that info that comes 1st person. In this case, I think most would agree that Dowling is 1 of the few people, outside of Rolex S.A., who is both reliable & able to get accurate (& occasional official) info out of the source (Rolex). The subject of AR & why Rolex does not use it has come up more times than I can remember on TZ & each time the best sources have been consistent in saying that, with the exception of the date window on the GMTIIC, Rolex does does not AR their watches. Now that does not mean it is impossible, only that it would be pretty unlikely that a watchmaker would have information that Dowling does not have. That is all I am saying. And until I hear otherwise from a reliable source (including what I see with my own eyes), I remain, with all due respect, wholly unconvinced.

[RobbieG]

Right. That is all anyone is contributing to it. If we knew the answer we wouldn't be talking about it - er, speculating - discussing - with opposing views on this um, discussion forum.

There are three other truths here:

1. Nobody thinks I'm making the thread about about anything but AR - and yes, my gens are in it as they related to these questions. Otherwise I wouldn't be offering any theories (which if you notice both Chief and Lani seem to recognize also, and like me - they admittedly have no idea why - hence the discussion).

2. I owned the genuine watch for a a time and as such I am familiar with the piece enough to have a meaningful contribution to the discussion from that alone.

3. You absolutely don't ignore me, as evidenced by what you posted in the first place. Everyone can see what you are doing and your pointless sarcasm and knows it has no place in this thread. I'm sure they are also wondering why you seem to harbor such hate for me continually, and why in God's name you always do seem to care what I say or think. Nobody else does. LOL. Even I don't listen to me too much. LOL. In the end, everyone (except you apparently) is perfectly fine with just taking it all in and forming thier own opinions. How about you join the rest of us and do that too from now on - at least when it concerns me. M-kay?

The only thing you are contributing to this thread is speculation.

[jake48]

And what Rep were were you basing your speculation on? -Oh, yeah, that's right you don't own one...

AR infused into the cyclops? I guess you got that one form one of the Official rOLeX memos didn't ya....

HA, HA HA, HA. HA. HA. HA HA. HA .HA. HA....

Don't you have a 996 to go "hammer"

Oh man...

Look at me I am Boobie Geee, did I tell you I have Gen? Did I?....

[RobbieG]

The discussion is about getting a rep to look like a gen Jake. Everything we do is based on strife toward genuine counterparts on this whole forum. Again, what are you taking about? I ask once more, do you have anything to contribute or must you go on ruining Freddy's thread?

Let me take the high road gents and try this another way.

Jake, what are your thoughts on what the gen might have that makes it so difficult to achieve?

Will you concede that my gen DJ has less glare than previously seen and as such maybe the crystal itself (and yes, maybe some process Rolex does to achieve that affect other than an external AR coating) is adding to the perceived depth of the AR on the cyclops? And I'm sorry if my gen offends you in some way. I thought it might help in the discussion about AR and the clarity which seems to be hard to duplicate on the rep.

And since the original run didn't nail it, what do you think the best way to go about it is? Rolex isn't going to solve this problem in the project, you have to, so what can you suggest to help everyone, since none of us seem to know? All we know how to do is ask people who we guess might be in the know and to that end I thought I would share something I have heard to try and help. Maybe you have a better way bro?

And what Rep were were you basing your speculation on? -Oh, yeah, that's right you don't own one...

AR infused into the cyclops? I guess you got that one form one of the Official rOLeX memos didn't ya....

HA, HA HA, HA. HA. HA. HA HA. HA .HA. HA....

Don't you have a 996 to go "hammer"

Oh man...

Look at me I am Boobie Geee, did I tell you I have Gen? Did I?....