Anti-reflective coatings

[gktii]

Wanted to ask your opinions on this topic.

First question: Does Rolex use an AR coating on their crystal?
Inside or Outside?
Why or why not?
Which would you prefer?

i personally really enjoy the look of the AR coatings...I know they can eventually wear out or scratch, but the visual of the dial is so much better with the coating. I just purchased the DSSD D-Blue, and when viewing pics of it, i notice the glass has a terrible reflection, making it difficult to see the colors. What are your thoughts?

[tritium8]

waiting on the experts but I've heard my 216570 Exp. II only has AR on the cyclops and not the crystal.

Some of my other watches have it an I like it....but I also love tritium. :-)

[gktii]

i like it as well...All of my Panerai's have it and it makes the viewing of the dial so much nicer...and takes a better pic as well...i'm also waiting to see what everyone has to say about it...

[Bangel]

Current Rolex watches only have AR under the cyclops. Older ones didn't have any.

AR coating in general can be on either or both sides of the crystal. On the outer surface it can potentially get visibly scratched. Also, some note that AR coating can sometimes subtly alter the colour of the crystal

I'd prefer to have AR coating on the entire underside of the crystal. To me, this would enhance visibility without the risk of the coating getting scratched.

[rolehex]

Yep, I too would like to see it added to the inside.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Bangel

Current Rolex watches only have AR under the cyclops. Older ones didn't have any.

AR coating in general can be on either or both sides of the crystal. On the outer surface it can potentially get visibly scratched. Also, some note that AR coating can sometimes subtly alter the colour of the crystal

I'd prefer to have AR coating on the entire underside of the crystal. To me, this would enhance visibility without the risk of the coating getting scratched.

How well does that work? You still get the glare off the outer surface. Does the inner AR coating reduce the reflections enough on the inside surface to make a noticeable difference?

[Bangel]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

How well does that work? You still get the glare off the outer surface. Does the inner AR coating reduce the reflections enough on the inside surface to make a noticeable difference?

I'm no expert, but through my eyes it's definitely noticeable and I think it works quite well. It's kind of like the difference when looking at the date through the cyclops between newer and older Rolex models.

In an ideal situation, having double AR coating is no doubt more effective, but I see having the AR coating just on the underside of the crystal as a happy trade off between acceptable function and durability. I find that with "real world" wear, AR coating on the outside inevitably gets worn away or scratched, and this can end up looking worse than the reflections it was designed to reduce!

[brettpaul]

Originally Posted by Bangel

Current Rolex watches only have AR under the cyclops. Older ones didn't have any.

AR coating in general can be on either or both sides of the crystal. On the outer surface it can potentially get visibly scratched. Also, some note that AR coating can sometimes subtly alter the colour of the crystal

I'd prefer to have AR coating on the entire underside of the crystal. To me, this would enhance visibility without the risk of the coating getting scratched.

This! I'd like Rolex to use AR on the inside of the crystal....we'll see!

[Syed117]

I wish Rolex used it.

On the inside at the very least. It makes such a huge impact on readability.

I think I read here once that it's an aesthetic choice. It does take some shine away from the crystal.

[Tseg]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

How well does that work? You still get the glare off the outer surface. Does the inner AR coating reduce the reflections enough on the inside surface to make a noticeable difference?

I have AR coating on the underside of my Orient Saturation Diver. It works superbly.



Versus the Rolex glare...



Despite the Rolex glare I never find myself struggling to tell the time... It certainly adds to the bling-factor.

When I first got my Rolex I really questioned the lack of AR... but now I have grown accustomed to it and really have no desire to see them add it to the whole crystal. The move putting it on the underside of the cyclops was a good idea as without it there was a functional issue.

[tkerrmd]

I think Rolex avoids it on purpose, as it adds to the overall "look" of the watch?

[kilyung]

I've never bemoaned the lack of AR on my Rolexes, Pateks, APs, Langes for some reason. However I've quite enjoyed it on my IWCs.

[Dries]

Originally Posted by Tseg

I have AR coating on the underside of my Orient Saturation Diver. It works superbly.



Versus the Rolex glare...



Despite the Rolex glare I never find myself struggling to tell the time... It certainly adds to the bling-factor.

When I first got my Rolex I really questioned the lack of AR... but now I have grown accustomed to it and really have no desire to see them add it to the whole crystal. The move putting it on the underside of the cyclops was a good idea as without it there was a functional issue.

Great shots

[Tseg]

Originally Posted by Dries

Great shots

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Bangel

I'm no expert, but through my eyes it's definitely noticeable and I think it works quite well. It's kind of like the difference when looking at the date through the cyclops between newer and older Rolex models.

In an ideal situation, having double AR coating is no doubt more effective, but I see having the AR coating just on the underside of the crystal as a happy trade off between acceptable function and durability. I find that with "real world" wear, AR coating on the outside inevitably gets worn away or scratched, and this can end up looking worse than the reflections it was designed to reduce!

Totally agree that AR coating on the outside would look pretty bad in short order. A watch is subject to a lot of dings and dangs. The crystal is too susceptible to impacts that would mar an AR coating.

[joe100]

The president of RUSA said it makes the watch love more sparkly.

If you want still reflective properties, go with acrylic crystals.

[eonflux]

AR coating on the inside of the crystal would be great.
AP does that, and it looks a bit cleaner (note that on the magnifying glass of the AP, there's AR coating on top, hence the bluish color on the magnifying glass).

AR on the inside of the DSSD crystal would be great. The thick, domed DSSD crystal creates more glare than flat Rolex crystals.

Agree with others that I'd prefer no AR on the outside--I've had a couple of watches with external AR and it tends to accumulate at least fine scratches/swirls.

[polaris72]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Totally agree that AR coating on the outside would look pretty bad in short order. A watch is subject to a lot of dings and dangs. The crystal is too susceptible to impacts that would mar an AR coating.

Breitling uses AR coating on both inside and outside of the crystal. I had my Chronomat and Emergency Titanium re-coated for $45 during my regular maintenance. If you are not abusing the coating on the crystal too much, it will last circa 5 years. Then of course hot climate, sudden temperature changes, and sharp impacts will lesser its life.

[johneh]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Totally agree that AR coating on the outside would look pretty bad in short order. A watch is subject to a lot of dings and dangs. The crystal is too susceptible to impacts that would mar an AR coating.

It's actually quite durable. I have a PO 8500 from 2012 and the AR doesn't have a single mark on it.

[eltonbalch]

Originally Posted by tkerrmd

I think Rolex avoids it on purpose, as it adds to the overall "look" of the watch?

I think it would be a mistake to change!

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by polaris72

Breitling uses AR coating on both inside and outside of the crystal. I had my Chronomat and Emergency Titanium re-coated for $45 during my regular maintenance. If you are not abusing the coating on the crystal too much, it will last circa 5 years. Then of course hot climate, sudden temperature changes, and sharp impacts will lesser its life.

Well... it was 136 today at work, in and out of the a/c most of the day, and the usual bangs into things. I don't see an AR coating looking that great for long in my tool watch world. Whereas the plain sapphire is exceptionally durable.

Plexi scratches polish out easily, whereas AR must be replaced. I would be curious to know how people would respond to the appearance of their sapphire degrading faster than the implied 10 year service interval on new Rolex's.

[AK797]

Gotta admit I would love it, esp on my blue sunburst in the sunshine, it isn't as crisp as could be.

[gktii]

I have AR on all of my Panerai's, and i notice ZERO scratches or swirls..And the ability to view the dial is 10fold without it. I've got the DSSD D-Blue on order now, and i have a feeling i'm going to be disappointed that it doesn't have the coating...That dial deserves to be seen from all angles...Just my opinion...and i live in VA where the humidity you can cut with a knife. Never any problems with my watches that have it..

[gktii]

Here are 2 examples.




The clarity is superb. And no swirls. 😉


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[warrior]

Those pics demonstrate why I think the lack of A/R coating ( especially on the underside of crystals) is the biggest weakness of Rolex watches. A pretty face/dial deserves clarity...NOT some mirror-like cloudy gaze that you often see. I think "the lack of A/R gives a Rolex it's sparkly look" argument... is just a rationalization and inaccurate. If you appreciate the design and beauty of a Rolex dial, crispness and clarity of the dial face should be of paramount importance. I think the lack of A/R is a lot more important than some of the other complaints forumers have.

Originally Posted by gktii

Here are 2 examples.




The clarity is superb. And no swirls. ��


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gktii]

Originally Posted by warrior

Those pics demonstrate why I think the lack of A/R coating ( especially on the underside of crystals) is the biggest weakness of Rolex watches. A pretty face/dial deserves clarity...NOT some mirror-like cloudy gaze that you often see. I think "the lack of A/R gives a Rolex it's sparkly look" argument... is just a rationalization and inaccurate. If you appreciate the design and beauty of a Rolex dial, crispness and clarity of the dial face should reign paramount.

Agree 100%!!

[warrior]

great minds think alike :-) i'm actually quite surprised that this issue doesn't come up more often.

Originally Posted by gktii

Agree 100%!!

[Oyster99]

Can you not let a jeweller take care of some aftermarket anti glare?

[gktii]

Originally Posted by Oyster99

Can you not let a jeweller take care of some aftermarket anti glare?

great question...i personally would only want an AD or Authorized Rolex warranty specialist handle that...but honestly, i have no clue...i'm sure you could..but i would be afraid of something going wrong in the process...i'd rather have a fully functioning "cloudy" Rolex, than a crystal clear one with all sorts of issues on the inside...

[Oyster99]

Originally Posted by gktii

great question...i personally would only want an AD or Authorized Rolex warranty specialist handle that...but honestly, i have no clue...i'm sure you could..but i would be afraid of something going wrong in the process...i'd rather have a fully functioning "cloudy" Rolex, than a crystal clear one with all sorts of issues on the inside...

Good point!