"The luminous in the hands should match that on the dial."

[Haywood_Milton]

One reads this often enough, but is it a fallacy?

I reproduce this Rolex image of a Submariner 5513 printed in their 1989 UK catalogue :



If hands and dials were produced by different people, in different places and at different times, why should they match ?

Insta : haywood_milton_rolex

[brandrea]

I’m interested to hear what the experts say.

[Haywood_Milton]

Here is the full page, which should help illustrate that it is the specific watch's dial and hands which do not match, rather than a localised print anomaly :

[Old Expat Beast]

That bezel's not too well centred, either, and the 50 looks off. I also had this 1989 catalogue and noticed some of the creamier lume plots on the 5513 dial (though 2,3,4 and 5 look white to me). Seems to be a common misconception, too, that all Rolex lume was pure white from the factory.

[springer]

I would not rely on that photo to be representative of the typical watch from that era. They had red Subs in the owner's manual until 1979 which was never the case.

[Haywood_Milton]

Originally Posted by springer

I would not rely on that photo to be representative of the typical watch from that era. They had red Subs in the owner's manual until 1979 which was never the case.

The point of this thread is surely about mis-matched luminous on dial and hands, to which the above is not really relevant. Rolex were obviously happy at the point of both manufacturing quality control and publicity sign-off that this was acceptable for the new watch they show, regardless of whether it is an older image being used in a 1989 catalogue.

I believe these dials with WG surrounds were first fitted to watches manufactured in 1984 with mid-8m case numbers, for what it is worth.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

The point of this thread is surely about mis-matched luminous on dial and hands, to which the above is not really relevant. Rolex were obviously happy at the point of both manufacturing quality control and publicity sign-off that this was acceptable for the new watch they show, regardless of whether it is an older image being used in a 1989 catalogue.

I believe these dials with WG surrounds were first fitted to watches manufactured in 1984 with mid-8m case numbers, for what it is worth.

Sorry if I misinterpreted the point of this thread Milton. The photo is very poor quality, it has darker patina in the shadow area of the photo and is not representative of what was being produced back then. There was obviously, at least for me, some quality control issues in the advertising photos during that era. This reminds me of the "all red" minute hand found on another Rolex found in an old advertising brochure from the 1980s.

[1675-David]

Those old Rolex catalogues are full of watches that would be considered to have issues today.

[LateLearner]

The ad picture shows half the plots match the hands, while several don’t.

I chalk that up to magazine copying/printing. Not Rolex quality control.

FWIW, my vote is hands should (more closely) match the dial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swish77]

Bad photos in an old Rolex catalog wouldn't be my first choice when trying to determine the true aging characteristics of vintage Subs.

Still, it's an interesting point and crazy to see how sloppy Rolex used to be when marketing its watches. Think about how buttoned-up and anal the company is nowadays.

[powerfunk]

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

is it a fallacy?

Yes, 100% yes.

I've been saying that the "lume on the hands need to match the dial" thing is basically nonsense for years. Regardless of whether the lume was the same from the factory, the lume usually doesn't age/patina at exactly the same rate. Exactly-matchy-matchy hand and dial lume is actually a red flag for me, personally.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by powerfunk

Exactly-matchy-matchy hand and dial lume is actually a red flag for me, personally.

You could certainly take that approach, but every one of my vintage Rolexes I've owned through the decades, including when they weren't even vintage, has had matching tritium dials/hands.

And with a UV light, matching tritium doesn't need to be a red flag.

[springer]

Normally the dial markers and hands match or are very close. When they do not match well, for me, it indicates something (the hands or dial) have been changed out during the decades of ownership or use.

[Filipão]

Now, do hands usually get darker than plots, or lighter...?

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

One reads this often enough, but is it a fallacy?

I reproduce this Rolex image of a Submariner 5513 printed in their 1989 UK catalogue :



If hands and dials were produced by different people, in different places and at different times, why should they match ?

Insta : haywood_milton_rolex

I'd call that an anomalous photo rather than anything standard. Their photography and attention to detail weren't great back in the day.

I don't think we should take this as proof that mis-matching aesthetics were the norm.

[Fredrik]

The plots are more yellow to the left in the photo, matching the yellow gradient on the page itself. My guess is that whoever produced that page for the catalogue, added the hands after applying the gradient to the page.
I have always assumed hands were added afterwards in old Rolex catalogues, there was an example a few months back indicating the same.

[subx]

Yes most often than not in real life hands DO match the dial

.. but they don't ALWAYS naturally age the same way and therefore match the dots, but in some eras of patina like the 1970s pumpkin era a lot of the dials would get closer to orange while the hands went closer to yellow.

caveat: to muddle the observations, hands are often dyed to match the dial in the secondary market

[Filipão]

Originally Posted by subx

Yes most often than not in real life hands DO match the dial


caveat: to muddle the observations, hands are often dyed to match the dial in the secondary market

Indeed. Thus the need to ALWAYS ask for UV pictures.

[cruvon]

Originally Posted by Filipão

Indeed. Thus the need to ALWAYS ask for UV pictures.

If they were dyed, they won’t glow under UV light?

[swish77]

Originally Posted by cruvon

If they were dyed, they won’t glow under UV light?

Correct, although "glow" is perhaps the wrong word. If the hands are relumed and/or color-matched, they will react differently under UV compared to the dial.

The tritium should emit a white-ish "glow" under UV, or green with certain watches, and then die when the UV is removed. Color-matched hands will usually be completely dead under UV.

[piperflyer]

Originally Posted by zapokee

I'd call that an anomalous photo rather than anything standard. Their photography and attention to detail weren't great back in the day.

I don't think we should take this as proof that mis-matching aesthetics were the norm.

Nobody said it was "the norm".

What is being shown is that when it is found, it is not NECESSARILY a problem. You really honestly thing that is a "anomalous photo" where the color is off SPECIFICALLY on the hands alone and no where else m'kay.....

[1675-David]

It's quite a strange image apart from the mismatched hands and dial, the top lugs appear narrower than the botom lugs and the crown is not straight which would suggest the watch was not shot perpendicular to the camera. The face tells a different story however with consistent concentric circles of the dial rehaut bezel. Image manipulation didn't start with Photoshop and who knows what they did back in the day, a lot could happen to an image between the click of the camera and the finished brochure

[TuRo]

Take the cato’ photos with a pint of salt….vis the red second hand nonsense we discussed a few months back !

The only real world differences I’ve encountered on full unmolested sets are Tudorflakes where the hands are often a shade different.

[cruvon]

Originally Posted by swish77

Correct, although "glow" is perhaps the wrong word. If the hands are relumed and/or color-matched, they will react differently under UV compared to the dial.

The tritium should emit a white-ish "glow" under UV, or green with certain watches, and then die when the UV is removed. Color-matched hands will usually be completely dead under UV.

thanks, so the whitish glow is only visible only when the uv light is on?

With 1680 red subs or DRSD's would the plots still glow after the uv light is taken off after shining or would the tritium be dead?

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by cruvon

thanks, so the whitish glow is only visible only when the uv light is on?

With 1680 red subs or DRSD's would the plots still glow after the uv light is taken off after shining or would the tritium be dead?

My 2.9 mil 1680 is dead, zero glow after UV light.