Easy_beaching 35 Posted April 16, 2022 Hey guys, Quick question for the group...I have performed a crystal swap on my TC 16610, but I am noticing the mag seems a bit off from my other TC subs, and just in general. It was installed with the gen gasket and everything is snuggly installed at the correct height. Leaving me to believe the cyclops is the issue here. Looking for other opinions on the magnification as it doesn't appear to be 2.5 times and curious if others have seen this issue with genuine 295c crystal installs. Is there some variation in gen crystals cyclops, or was I taken for a ride and this is likely not a gen crystal. Could the gasket be the problem? *It was purchased from a long standing member on RWI. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aramis2288 6,254 Posted April 17, 2022 Yeah, you are right. The magnification definitely seems off. The gasket should not be a problem in this case, as your crystal sits at the exactly same height as Clark one. In my opinion the cyclops is the problem here. I'm happy for folks with more experience to correct me if I'm wrong, but it does not look like a gen xtal to me.... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Easy_beaching 35 Posted April 23, 2022 Appreciate the comment. I'm fairly certain the individual that sold this as gen was not being truthful, but you live you learn who not to trust. Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fatarms 7,777 Posted April 23, 2022 First thing I notice is that you are comparing 6 digit crystals with a 5 digit. There are some discrepancies sometimes with crystals and their thicknesses, for example a GMT vs a Submariner crystal. One is meant to be used underwater, and would need to be thicker. You may have been sold a GMT crystal. Check this out: https://www.everestbands.com/blogs/bezel-barrel/different-cyclops-magnifications-on-different-rolex-models 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Easy_beaching 35 Posted April 23, 2022 Interesting. The individual said it was for a 16610 and that is what they had it installed on, but the low mag could be explained by the GMT crystal for sure. Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rx4Time 1,472 Posted April 23, 2022 There are different gasket heights as well. What was the part number of the gasket? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Easy_beaching 35 Posted April 23, 2022 I don't have the pn for the gasket that came with it from the seller. I thought it could be the gasket as well so I eyeballed it next to the gasket that came out and a 2.7 I have, but obviously I can't discern a 2.5 versus a 2.7 difference. Would a smaller gasket fix this issue or just make the crystal sit too low? Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Easy_beaching 35 Posted April 23, 2022 I'm genuinely thinking about getting a 2.5 gasket and installing it on my 16760 to see if it works out. Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Easy_beaching 35 Posted April 28, 2022 Here is a shot of the crystal in question installed (right) next to the Viet crystal (left) on my 16760. I used the same gasket that was installed, but do you guys think it needs a shorter gasket? It still feels under magnified, but I left it mounted for the time being. Crystal definitely appears thinner in a side by side profile with a known gen 16610 crystal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Easy_beaching 35 Posted April 30, 2022 What do you think @fatarms should I experiment with a shorter gasket, or does the mag seem better on the GMT? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trailboss99 994 Posted April 30, 2022 If the coronet is legit I'd say it's a GMT xtal. Myself? I'd never buy a gen xtal from anyone unless it's sealed in a gen package because even the best can be hoodwinked now and again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
