Sapphire crystal in an 1803

[Slimpee]

I recently inherited an 1803 YG DD (posted about it in other threads). I was worried about moisture on the case so I had my watchmaker looked it over. He dried it out and pressure tested it. Before I took it back, he suggested a domed sapphire crystal. He recommended it over the acrylic crystal. The crystal on it when i got it was not original.

I decided to go with sapphire for durability sake and I think it looks good but from a functionality perspective, is there any downside I need to know about?

[crowncollection]

No issues other than not original if it passed a pressure test


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zapokee]

One downside is that it's not correct for the watch - not sure why your watchmaker would recommend a domed sapphire crystal for an 1803. An original and correct non-domed cyclops acrylic crystal would provide just as much water resistance. Hundred bucks or so.

[TimeLord2]

I would definitely like to see a pic of your watch. I did not think that was an option even for an after market part.

[Yachtbuoy]

There's absolutely no guarantee that it'll keep any amount of moisture out. One of my watchmaker friends recently came across a vintage Rolex that had water ingress/rust after someone fitted a sapphire crystal to it.

The acrylic crystal pics up marks, but the watch was designed for that kind of crystal and (not to labour the point) but you risk compromising the integrity of the water resistance.

[R.W.T.]

They don't fit. The rehaute was not designed for that and it's an adaptation at best and I would never do that. The plexi crystals are more appropriate for the vintage, have worked for decades, and Rolex never desinged ANY adaptive means for putting sapphire on plexi models. They continue to make plexi crystals though it is said they are going out of prouction soon if not immediately. If they felt there was an appropriate way to accomplish this...they would have done it AS SOON as sapphire was released. They didn't. I would ponder those last two statements for a while before putting one of the AM sapphire set ups on a plexi equipped model.

[TimeLord2]

Originally Posted by Yachtbuoy

There's absolutely no guarantee that it'll keep any amount of moisture out. One of my watchmaker friends recently came across a vintage Rolex that had water ingress/rust after someone fitted a sapphire crystal to it.

The acrylic crystal pics up marks, but the watch was designed for that kind of crystal and (not to labour the point) but you risk compromising the integrity of the water resistance.

This was always my impression as well. They are designed differently and incompatible. Did you see this article on the Watch Buyers Group website? "Why Sapphire Crystals will Not Work on an Older Rolex" https://www.thewatchbuyersgroup.com/...n-a-old-rolex/

[Slimpee]

Originally Posted by TimeLord2

This was always my impression as well. They are designed differently and incompatible. Did you see this article on the Watch Buyers Group website? "Why Sapphire Crystals will Not Work on an Older Rolex" https://www.thewatchbuyersgroup.com/...n-a-old-rolex/

Well...shoot. Thank you for posting this.

The shop is well-respected in the area. It’s a FSC for many smaller brands and brings over interns from Switzerland every year to help teach them. I trust he knows what he’s doing. In regard to the sapphire crystal, he said that the sapphire crystal is a new option and that prior, you couldn’t use a sapphire with the 1803. He said it would work perfectly.

I’ll give him a call with the concerns brought up in the article. I appreciate it!

[crowncollection]

Originally Posted by Slimpee

Well...shoot. Thank you for posting this.

The shop is well-respected in the area. It’s a FSC for many smaller brands and brings over interns from Switzerland every year to help teach them. I trust he knows what he’s doing. In regard to the sapphire crystal, he said that the sapphire crystal is a new option and that prior, you couldn’t use a sapphire with the 1803. He said it would work perfectly.

I’ll give him a call with the concerns brought up in the article. I appreciate it!

They are referring to flat crystals in this article, the hands issue is addressed by the domed version you have. I am not saying I would do it. I never would. How long it remains waterproof may be questionable also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TimeLord2]

[QUOTE=crowncollection;10903136]They are referring to flat crystals in this article, the hands issue is addressed by the domed version you have. I am not saying I would do it. I never would. How long it remains waterproof may be questionable also.

And the plot thickens… This is getting interesting. So there is a new (maybe newish?) product that will do the trick and maintain water resistance? Sounds great! But like you, I would go with OEM.

[coelacanthus]

Someone can correct me if I’m off, but my understanding is that acrylic crystal is put in place with a retainer ring/collar, and the acrylic’s softness itself works as gasket to achieve water resistance. Sapphire is too hard for that (touching surface to metal pane of the case side can’t seal by itself) and need a gasket in place. Because of that, how crystal is fixed to the case is different between acrylic crystal vintage Rolex and later sapphire crystal models. Also this is why you’d replace acrylic crystal to ensure watertightness while you’d replace gasket on sapphire crystal watches.

Did the watchmaker somehow put a gasket? If no gasket is in place (and working effectively), you basically don’t have any real watertightness with sapphire crystal. You will have to do more than replacing acrylic crystal with sapphire to achieve proper watertightness, and if the watchmaker can’t explain it to you clearly, that will be an issue. Just my two cents.

[Slimpee]

Originally Posted by coelacanthus

Someone can correct me if I’m off, but my understanding is that acrylic crystal is put in place with a retainer ring/collar, and the acrylic’s softness itself works as gasket to achieve water resistance. Sapphire is too hard for that (touching surface to metal pane of the case side can’t seal by itself) and need a gasket in place. Because of that, how crystal is fixed to the case is different between acrylic crystal vintage Rolex and later sapphire crystal models. Also this is why you’d replace acrylic crystal to ensure watertightness while you’d replace gasket on sapphire crystal watches.

Did the watchmaker somehow put a gasket? If no gasket is in place (and working effectively), you basically don’t have any real watertightness with sapphire crystal. You will have to do more than replacing acrylic crystal with sapphire to achieve proper watertightness, and if the watchmaker can’t explain it to you clearly, that will be an issue. Just my two cents.

That’s a great question. I watched him pressure test it but I believe that was before the sapphire was installed. I will call him to ensure it was pressure tested after the sapphire was installed.

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by Slimpee

That’s a great question. I watched him pressure test it but I believe that was before the sapphire was installed. I will call him to ensure it was pressure tested after the sapphire was installed.

If you're planning to swim/shower with it, it's an issue. Otherwise, not as serious but still needs addresssing.

It's the fact that the 1803 isn't supposed to have sapphire crystal that would bother me. It just ain't right. Maybe find a new watchmaker if he's giving this kind of advice...

It needs the correct flat acrylic crystal with a cyclops. Do it right.

Photos?

[coelacanthus]

Originally Posted by Slimpee

That’s a great question. I watched him pressure test it but I believe that was before the sapphire was installed. I will call him to ensure it was pressure tested after the sapphire was installed.

Ask specifically if he has put a gasket. It MIGHT pass the pressure test now, but remember sapphire crystal is extremely hard yet brittle. If the fitting is not proper, it can shatter or crack (then shutter) later. Unlike acrylic, there is no give. Acrylic can crack too if not installed properly or wrong parts are used, but as long as you are using modern, completely new Rolex genuine service acrylic crystal for the right watch, that shouldn't be a problem.

I wouldn't personally do this mod because of the reasons others pointed out. And Acrylic is part of the charm. (and it won't shutter like sapphire, can be polished, won't be as reflective). That said, as long as you are OK with the fact it's a mod, not a factory approved repair option with genuine parts like opting for a (proper) tropic crystal instead of cyclops, it's your watch to modify. I still think you should make sure the installation was done properly.

[Yachtbuoy]

Also I think there has been threats for years that they’d stop making plexiglass crystals, still don’t see it happening.

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by coelacanthus

it's your watch to modify.

If you want to mod, get a Seiko diver. The Rolex 1803 isn't for modding, other than strap choices.

[crowncollection]

Originally Posted by Slimpee

That’s a great question. I watched him pressure test it but I believe that was before the sapphire was installed. I will call him to ensure it was pressure tested after the sapphire was installed.

They come with a basket of course


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Yachtbuoy]

Originally Posted by zapokee

If you want to mod, get a Seiko diver. The Rolex 1803 isn't for modding, other than strap choices.

I mean, I've seen some Datejusts with the "tropic" crystal or whatever with no magnifier, and that's fine, but it also it still uses acrylic as not to compromise water resistance.

Otherwise agreed, the older Datejusts/Day-Dates are absolute strap monsters.

[R.W.T.]

Originally Posted by coelacanthus

Someone can correct me if I’m off, but my understanding is that acrylic crystal is put in place with a retainer ring/collar, and the acrylic’s softness itself works as gasket to achieve water resistance. Sapphire is too hard for that (touching surface to metal pane of the case side can’t seal by itself) and need a gasket in place. Because of that, how crystal is fixed to the case is different between acrylic crystal vintage Rolex and later sapphire crystal models. Also this is why you’d replace acrylic crystal to ensure watertightness while you’d replace gasket on sapphire crystal watches.

Did the watchmaker somehow put a gasket? If no gasket is in place (and working effectively), you basically don’t have any real watertightness with sapphire crystal. You will have to do more than replacing acrylic crystal with sapphire to achieve proper watertightness, and if the watchmaker can’t explain it to you clearly, that will be an issue. Just my two cents.

The sapphire glass fits inside a lip in nylon type of ring gasket...the lower part of the ring goes over the rehaute or flange on the case. The bezel tightness presses the nylon both against the outer edge of the crystal and the rehaute sealing on both surfaces.

[R.W.T.]

Originally Posted by Yachtbuoy

Also I think there has been threats for years that they’d stop making plexiglass crystals, still don’t see it happening.

Someone will always make a suitable aftermarket crystal. There have been no crystals for pre tropic and pre cyclops glasses for decades...I've used GS metric sized PHD and PK crystals in these models for over 10 years.

There is nothing wrong with an aftermarket crystal, even the ones that are tropic and cyclops style, with the exceptioin of some not mimicing the magnifier exactly. Sometimes the are a little oversized. The bezels can be adjusted if need be. It's not the end of the world if Rolex quit tomorrow...which for all intents and purposes...guys with accounts tell me they have. No crystals for 4 digit models.