ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

jedly1 · 5 April 2010, 08:29 AM

before it gets lost in the bevel thread..and it is another thing that quite a few myths exist around. to summarise the discussion to date from years of study and debate over on VRF and elsewhere... a quick précis.

On Rolex watches tritium was introduced as a safe alternative to the previously used radium circa 1962, and is most commonly identified on the dial with swiss < 25t until it was discarded for the safer luminova in the 90's - i wont digress into the whole underline thing.

Although we simply call it tritium it is actually a compound containing a phosphorous substance and within that overall compound there is some tritium which acts as the power source for the phosphorous material ((like the battery).

From the introduction onwards it appears that various different 'recipes' were used for this compound, as well as different physical applications to the dial.

If you line up a whole load of watches in consectutive years you can actually see the pattern of how these mixtures/applications changed, even more so if you use an ultraviolet loupe and can see the make up of the marker and its response to light.

what you tend to see - not as an exact science :

1. up until about 64/5/6. the gilt dials... markers tend to be quite domed and textured in their appearance and when exposed to a strong light source the luminous material will glow green for a short time. Put a UV loupe on them and it is a uniform green finish.

2. 67/68 first of the matt dials.. this seems to have been a cross over period in the manufacturing approach, two extremes along side.. very domed markers like half maltesers for those who know what they are, glow green for a short time if exposed to a strong light source. I guess this is why there are often so many posts requersting opinion from watches in this period as they seemt o create the most confusion.

OR

very flat very thin layer completely dead to light exposure.

3. 68-74/5 - greatly reduced amount of compound applied ,flatish application of the mixture nearly always dead to any light stimulation. you get used to see-ing how the application was made on different models in this time period, some with a very weaved texture., some dead flat. Usually greenish/bluish crystals present as the only glow under a UV loupe. tends to yellow over time.

4. mid 70's back to a more textured appearance with a bit more dome to the markers, often orangey crystals are the only things stimulated as visible under UV loupe. Does not tend to respond to light stimulous but there appears to be some small amount of power left in the tritium and often in a dark room in the middle of the night the markers/hands can be read/seen. Examples often tends to orange/brown as well as just yellow as they age.

5. early 80's - new mix again flat, glossier, no repsonse to light stimulous but often some power left in the tritium that will give some luninous in darkened conditions once the eyes have become accustomed.

thats pretty much where we leave vintage.

the tricky bit is the 60's stuff that still glows green, if you pick up a watch and it does , then it doesnt neccessarily mean its relumed, neither does it mean its OK, the relume question tends to be the trickiest (unless its just a crap job of physical application), is often virtually impossible to address over the net, and even in hand can leave a room split down the middle.

what we do know for the late 60's/70/870's stuff is that it appears from all the long term stored examples discussed, is that left to its own devices the tritium based compound will age, and gain patina. From what we have seen and a few experiments conducted we see that light has a bleaching effect on the mixture which slows the development of patina and keeps it light.

the tricky bit with this is that the mixture can also gain patina through moisture ingress ( especially for example in a humid climate). The trick here is to look for any other seconday signs of mositure.. staining, corrosion etc ..

Ok, not an authorative guide, and off course there will be examples that maybe buck this, it is after all Rolex.

Renoir · 5 April 2010, 08:50 AM

Great thread!

Nice work.

onkyo · 5 April 2010, 09:20 AM

Great information Jed.... thanks for sharing!

CaveDiver · 5 April 2010, 09:49 AM

Great thread:
Looking at this magnification, what circa would you place this lume?

Like the topic.

jedly1 · 5 April 2010, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaveDiver

Great thread:
Looking at this magnification, what circa would you place this lume?

Like the topic.

thats a 70-73 serif dial by the looks of it, but couldnt really say the lume was anything other than characteristic 70's. it doesnt really ( though i guess it could) work that way around, its more a case of being able to notice when the lume is wrong for a given period.

CaveDiver · 5 April 2010, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedly1

thats a 70-73 serif dial by the looks of it, but couldnt really say the lume was anything other than characteristic 70's. it doesnt really ( though i guess it could) work that way around, its more a case of being able to notice when the lume is wrong for a given period.

Wow, you could tell that from the little font on the tritium markings?
If it is 70, it would line up, but still not explain the missing 2 lines on the dial for 5512

robsteve · 5 April 2010, 11:45 AM

I assume you are just referring to the dive/GMT watches. When was the change over for the dress models?

I have a 1989 15010 that the lume is dead and is is not reactive to even the brightest light. I think the dial is T Swiss T. I have had it since new and can't remember when it lost its glow. What was the typical life of this vintage tritium lume?

Next question, are there any tritium lume dials, sports or dress, that still glow well enough to read them at night?

Robert

jedly1 · 5 April 2010, 01:16 PM

i do tend to get a bit blinkered on the sports models which is a bit rude, but yes that is what i was reffereing to. The 't swiss t' marked dials i beieve usually had smaller amount of tritium present that meant under the regs it didnt have to be declared, or at least that is how it is explained... except that the 1655 orange hand explorer had 't swiss t' for its first dials in 71-74 ish then changed to 't swiss < 25t' even thought it remained the same dial .. Rolex !!!

The models that I personally have examined and taken note of that are similar are the daytonas, which are comparable in both the amount of tritium compound applied and the badging to most of the dress line up. generally though these have poor luminous performance due to the small dots and smaller hand strips applied, even on a service lumi dial they arent that great.

Interestingly the change over period seems a little later , more like 70-72 where the material goes from the stark glowing green ( under strong light exposure) to mostly dead, but this could just be a slow moving line with stocks built up.

i would suggest that the ' recipe' probably changed for all at the same time.

in terms of old and still glowing well without strong light exposure .... Rolex panerai luminor dial ?? :)

KlausM · 5 April 2010, 05:30 PM

Nice tritium post!

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaveDiver

Wow, you could tell that from the little font on the tritium markings?
If it is 70, it would line up, but still not explain the missing 2 lines on the dial for 5512

Two line SWISS - T<25 "5512" dial = 5513 dial

BR
Klaus

T5AUS · 5 April 2010, 07:53 PM

Good thread Jed, I find the early sixties dials hard to work out some times, this certainly clears it up some what

CaveDiver · 5 April 2010, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KlausM

Nice tritium post!

Two line SWISS - T<25 "5512" dial = 5513 dial

BR
Klaus

That seems to be the consensus, however how it got on my father’s 5512 that he purchased in the early 70’s remains a mystery. I do know that he stated several times that this is the only diver he owned that never was breached and the only diver he used once he purchased this 5512.

KlausM · 5 April 2010, 10:26 PM

Does it say 5512 on the case and caseback?
BR
Klaus

CaveDiver · 5 April 2010, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KlausM

Does it say 5512 on the case and caseback?
BR
Klaus

It has a 1530 movement
Says 5512 on the case
Say 5513 on case back with many service entries

Here you can see the case back:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showpost....0&postcount=63
Here you can see the case markings:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showpost....0&postcount=29

Oh and Rolex did not like the Bezel ring.

Any ideas?
Thanks

KlausM · 6 April 2010, 12:02 AM

5513 casebacks on a 5512 are fully acceptable.
The obvious guess would be a dial change at a service.
The second best guess would be a 5513 with a 5512 case. In both cases someone have not followed the rules.
I really doubt Rolex would have put a 5513 dial on a 5512 at the factory.

It would be interesting to see a better picture of the case markings and the bezel from the top.

BR
Klaus

CaveDiver · 6 April 2010, 12:37 AM

Form the top:
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h1...h/IMGP6496.jpg

Close up insert, mine is on the left compared to SteveM example
http://www.rolexforums.com/showpost....8&postcount=67

This pictures and thread here show more pictures of watch including case markings and a good shot of engraving:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=109294

Here is pictures of different angles and such that all started this hunt:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=104321

And back of bezel
http://www.rolexforums.com/showpost....8&postcount=50

Thanks,
I sure would like find out what happened.
As for the bezel, they had issue with the bezel ring not the insert.

I would embedded the pictures directly but I’m trying to mess up Jed’s thread to much.

KlausM · 6 April 2010, 02:07 AM

This one is not easy. The more you look at the pictures and read through the threads the more paranoid you get.
The bezel could just be heavily polished. The case markings especially the "STAINLESS" looks strange with very different letter hights but probably ok.
The dial is correct for the serialnumber/year of a 5513. So a theory could be that the old 5512 dial was damaged and the most correct dial available for the serialnumber/year which could be found (back in ´95) was the 5513 dial.

I don't think you will get much closer to an answer unless you find some of the old paperwork.

The patina on the dial and hands is super by the way!

BR
Klaus

CaveDiver · 6 April 2010, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KlausM

This one is not easy. The more you look at the pictures and read through the threads the more paranoid you get.

Being "Rolexed" did that to me.
They way the initially treated me, you would think the watch was some china made fake crap. Then I found that they have treated others this way too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KlausM

The bezel could just be heavily polished. The case markings especially the "STAINLESS" looks strange with very different letter hights but probably ok.

Rolex management insists it is not Rolex. And they told me they had another one of their “experts” that has been with them for 30 years look at it. That makes three Rolex techs state it is not Rolex. My watchmaker and Orchi disagreed but who knows for sure. Rolex finally agreed to supply me a bezel and let me keep my insert but they required to keep the ring. I tried to keep it for investigating, but they did not want it back out on the street.

I have seen so many screwy looking markings on the internet. I’m just glad there are no long middle bars on the E’s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KlausM

The dial is correct for the serialnumber/year of a 5513. So a theory could be that the old 5512 dial was damaged and the most correct dial available for the serialnumber/year which could be found (back in ´95) was the 5513 dial.

I don't think you will get much closer to an answer unless you find some of the old paperwork.

That is an interesting theory about ’95. Although I would not figure Rolex would put that dial on there. However, there was another place/person in the loop in 95.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KlausM

The patina on the dial and hands is super by the way!

BR
Klaus

Thanks. And thank you for taking the time to review my father's watch. I'm hoping to have it back soon and pray that it comes back to me in one piece.

KlausM · 6 April 2010, 03:24 AM

You are welcome. Remember to post pictures of the "new" watch.
BR
Klaus

Orchi · 6 April 2010, 03:31 PM

Err buddy Jedly...thanks for sharing your great write up about the lume markers...
Orchi enjoyed reading about it...

STEELINOX · 6 April 2010, 10:59 PM

Excellent thread !
I miss trit !

Mauiguy · 7 April 2010, 03:43 AM

I know this might be sacrilegious (not that I'd ever do such a thing), but has anyone ever experimented to see if patina'd tritium can be whitened without damaging it?

Just ax'n.

jedly1 · 7 April 2010, 07:37 AM

Yes a few people have done it, though no one has documented it well famously one guy who left a watch In a tree for the summer.

Pal of min left his comex 5514 on the window sill for a British summer, came up in tone a fair bit.

mike · 7 April 2010, 08:55 AM

Jed I took the liberty to paste your original post in the reference library and made it a sticky. Of course all credit is marked to you.

My humble thanks for this information.

5 April 2010, 08:29 AM	#1
jedly1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: mel(oz)/Yorks(uk) Posts: 1,917	hows about a new thread on tritium lume markers before it gets lost in the bevel thread..and it is another thing that quite a few myths exist around. to summarise the discussion to date from years of study and debate over on VRF and elsewhere... a quick précis. On Rolex watches tritium was introduced as a safe alternative to the previously used radium circa 1962, and is most commonly identified on the dial with swiss < 25t until it was discarded for the safer luminova in the 90's - i wont digress into the whole underline thing. Although we simply call it tritium it is actually a compound containing a phosphorous substance and within that overall compound there is some tritium which acts as the power source for the phosphorous material ((like the battery). From the introduction onwards it appears that various different 'recipes' were used for this compound, as well as different physical applications to the dial. If you line up a whole load of watches in consectutive years you can actually see the pattern of how these mixtures/applications changed, even more so if you use an ultraviolet loupe and can see the make up of the marker and its response to light. what you tend to see - not as an exact science : 1. up until about 64/5/6. the gilt dials... markers tend to be quite domed and textured in their appearance and when exposed to a strong light source the luminous material will glow green for a short time. Put a UV loupe on them and it is a uniform green finish. 2. 67/68 first of the matt dials.. this seems to have been a cross over period in the manufacturing approach, two extremes along side.. very domed markers like half maltesers for those who know what they are, glow green for a short time if exposed to a strong light source. I guess this is why there are often so many posts requersting opinion from watches in this period as they seemt o create the most confusion. OR very flat very thin layer completely dead to light exposure. 3. 68-74/5 - greatly reduced amount of compound applied ,flatish application of the mixture nearly always dead to any light stimulation. you get used to see-ing how the application was made on different models in this time period, some with a very weaved texture., some dead flat. Usually greenish/bluish crystals present as the only glow under a UV loupe. tends to yellow over time. 4. mid 70's back to a more textured appearance with a bit more dome to the markers, often orangey crystals are the only things stimulated as visible under UV loupe. Does not tend to respond to light stimulous but there appears to be some small amount of power left in the tritium and often in a dark room in the middle of the night the markers/hands can be read/seen. Examples often tends to orange/brown as well as just yellow as they age. 5. early 80's - new mix again flat, glossier, no repsonse to light stimulous but often some power left in the tritium that will give some luninous in darkened conditions once the eyes have become accustomed. thats pretty much where we leave vintage. the tricky bit is the 60's stuff that still glows green, if you pick up a watch and it does , then it doesnt neccessarily mean its relumed, neither does it mean its OK, the relume question tends to be the trickiest (unless its just a crap job of physical application), is often virtually impossible to address over the net, and even in hand can leave a room split down the middle. what we do know for the late 60's/70/870's stuff is that it appears from all the long term stored examples discussed, is that left to its own devices the tritium based compound will age, and gain patina. From what we have seen and a few experiments conducted we see that light has a bleaching effect on the mixture which slows the development of patina and keeps it light. the tricky bit with this is that the mixture can also gain patina through moisture ingress ( especially for example in a humid climate). The trick here is to look for any other seconday signs of mositure.. staining, corrosion etc .. Ok, not an authorative guide, and off course there will be examples that maybe buck this, it is after all Rolex.

5 April 2010, 01:16 PM	#8
jedly1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: mel(oz)/Yorks(uk) Posts: 1,917	sorry mate i do tend to get a bit blinkered on the sports models which is a bit rude, but yes that is what i was reffereing to. The 't swiss t' marked dials i beieve usually had smaller amount of tritium present that meant under the regs it didnt have to be declared, or at least that is how it is explained... except that the 1655 orange hand explorer had 't swiss t' for its first dials in 71-74 ish then changed to 't swiss < 25t' even thought it remained the same dial .. Rolex !!! The models that I personally have examined and taken note of that are similar are the daytonas, which are comparable in both the amount of tritium compound applied and the badging to most of the dress line up. generally though these have poor luminous performance due to the small dots and smaller hand strips applied, even on a service lumi dial they arent that great. Interestingly the change over period seems a little later , more like 70-72 where the material goes from the stark glowing green ( under strong light exposure) to mostly dead, but this could just be a slow moving line with stocks built up. i would suggest that the ' recipe' probably changed for all at the same time. in terms of old and still glowing well without strong light exposure .... Rolex panerai luminor dial ?? :)

5 April 2010, 07:53 PM	#10
T5AUS "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Real Name: Phil Location: Brisbane Aus. Watch: ing the time go by Posts: 1,443	Good thread Jed, I find the early sixties dials hard to work out some times, this certainly clears it up some what __________________ www.journeyjottings.com

6 April 2010, 10:59 PM	#20
STEELINOX 2024 ROLEX DATE-JUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Sink-O! Location: a praire in AZ Watch: ROLEX-less atm... Posts: 14,007	Excellent thread ! I miss trit ! __________________ *Positive Waves Baby* Lug Hole Loyalist / Chamfer Line Inspector INFORTHE WIN 274

5 April 2010, 08:50 AM	#2
Renoir "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Renato Location: New York Posts: 2,396	Great thread! Nice work.

5 April 2010, 09:20 AM	#3
onkyo Banned Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: Pav Location: Manhattan Posts: 11,495	Great information Jed.... thanks for sharing!

5 April 2010, 09:49 AM	#4
CaveDiver "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Dallas Posts: 1,075	Great thread: Looking at this magnification, what circa would you place this lume? Like the topic.

5 April 2010, 11:45 AM	#7
robsteve "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 776	I assume you are just referring to the dive/GMT watches. When was the change over for the dress models? I have a 1989 15010 that the lume is dead and is is not reactive to even the brightest light. I think the dial is T Swiss T. I have had it since new and can't remember when it lost its glow. What was the typical life of this vintage tritium lume? Next question, are there any tritium lume dials, sports or dress, that still glow well enough to read them at night? Robert

5 April 2010, 10:26 PM	#12
KlausM "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Copenhagen Watch: Rolex + Posts: 105	Does it say 5512 on the case and caseback? BR Klaus

6 April 2010, 12:02 AM	#14
KlausM "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Copenhagen Watch: Rolex + Posts: 105	5513 casebacks on a 5512 are fully acceptable. The obvious guess would be a dial change at a service. The second best guess would be a 5513 with a 5512 case. In both cases someone have not followed the rules. I really doubt Rolex would have put a 5513 dial on a 5512 at the factory. It would be interesting to see a better picture of the case markings and the bezel from the top. BR Klaus

6 April 2010, 12:37 AM	#15
CaveDiver "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Dallas Posts: 1,075	Form the top: http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h1...h/IMGP6496.jpg Close up insert, mine is on the left compared to SteveM example http://www.rolexforums.com/showpost....8&postcount=67 This pictures and thread here show more pictures of watch including case markings and a good shot of engraving: http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=109294 Here is pictures of different angles and such that all started this hunt: http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=104321 And back of bezel http://www.rolexforums.com/showpost....8&postcount=50 Thanks, I sure would like find out what happened. As for the bezel, they had issue with the bezel ring not the insert. I would embedded the pictures directly but I’m trying to mess up Jed’s thread to much.

6 April 2010, 02:07 AM	#16
KlausM "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Copenhagen Watch: Rolex + Posts: 105	This one is not easy. The more you look at the pictures and read through the threads the more paranoid you get. The bezel could just be heavily polished. The case markings especially the "STAINLESS" looks strange with very different letter hights but probably ok. The dial is correct for the serialnumber/year of a 5513. So a theory could be that the old 5512 dial was damaged and the most correct dial available for the serialnumber/year which could be found (back in ´95) was the 5513 dial. I don't think you will get much closer to an answer unless you find some of the old paperwork. The patina on the dial and hands is super by the way! BR Klaus

6 April 2010, 03:24 AM	#18
KlausM "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Copenhagen Watch: Rolex + Posts: 105	You are welcome. Remember to post pictures of the "new" watch. BR Klaus

6 April 2010, 03:31 PM	#19
Orchi Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Malaysia Posts: 2,934	Err buddy Jedly...thanks for sharing your great write up about the lume markers... Orchi enjoyed reading about it...

7 April 2010, 03:43 AM	#21
Mauiguy "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Hawaiian islands Posts: 1,107	I know this might be sacrilegious (not that I'd ever do such a thing), but has anyone ever experimented to see if patina'd tritium can be whitened without damaging it? Just ax'n.

7 April 2010, 07:37 AM	#22
jedly1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: mel(oz)/Yorks(uk) Posts: 1,917	Yes a few people have done it, though no one has documented it well famously one guy who left a watch In a tree for the summer. Pal of min left his comex 5514 on the window sill for a British summer, came up in tone a fair bit.

7 April 2010, 08:55 AM	#23
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	Jed I took the liberty to paste your original post in the reference library and made it a sticky. Of course all credit is marked to you. My humble thanks for this information.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)