80's Advertising Pamphlet showing Rolex Submariner with Red Seconds Hand?

[Greglaw]

I agree that no way is that a reflection. There is nothing to suggest that it is. There would be red reflecting off of other areas.

[1675-David]

Originally Posted by baumare

The list for GMT and Sub was to long of a wait so he got a DD instead

The plot thickens…

[Greglaw]

How about a less fuzzy and clear up close picture of the actual document?

[Incroyable12]

They would have used film cameras with filters in those days so perhaps it was an effect of the lens filter?

[Swearengen]

That's full planetary alignment

Originally Posted by 1675-David

I saw a really, really, really rare example on chrono24 back when these we a thing, blueberry, radial, all red, Tiffany dial… kind of like a pizza with extra everything

[jay_kay]

I'll take a clearer pic this evening of the article. I definitely looks to me to be a red hand and not reflection. Difficult though as its an old printed document the quality isn't amazing.

[jay_kay]

It is very difficult to tell but the folk who suggested reflection could be right. Still pretty inconclusive!

[TuRo]

Thanks looks like reflection to me esp given the end of tip shape and the less red effect around the silver of the tritium blob on second hand .

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by TuRo

… and the less red effect around the silver of the tritium blob on second hand .

Bingo.

[marty497]

Both watches are set at 10:10:32, the standard time watches appear at in adverts. Both appear to have the crowns screwed down also so they can't be stopped by hacking which makes me think they could be dummy watches for the photoshoot.

[Filipão]

Reflection, no doubt imho.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Filipão

Reflection, no doubt imho.

Don't you love those reflections that have a mind of their own. It just picks and chooses where it wants to reflect. Gotta love it. Sure would be nice to know the back story on this pamphlet. There are obviously two schools of thought in this thread which beg the questions.....Why would Rolex put out a brochure with a red hand Submariner (unless it was a prototype) or why would Rolex put out a brochure that looks like it has a red hand Submariner with red light reflections distorting the photos to fool morons like me into believing it is not a reflection. If it is a reflection, that is some real sorry photography to advertise a new style watch.

I'm with Flip on the "no doubt" what is going on in the photo. And, with that said, let's move on and have a little fun.

What is going on in the photo posted below? A prize awaits the one with the correct answer - the one that finds the secret red hand first could win a prize. All right now. Let the games begin - are they real or are they reflections - come on, don't be shy.

[Old Expat Beast]

Three different hands all picking up different effects from the light, direct or reflected. Bezel insert, too. Seems pretty clear to me. But I wouldn't mock anyone who disagrees.

[77T]

My suspicion is circled below in red. Looks China made

The blue arrow is my guess to your query.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[tekno]

My guess is they are real, and the out of place hand is top right corner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[tekno]

I’ll stick with my first guess, red hands are painted and not reflections.

[1675-David]

Did JP just call himself a moron??

[springer]

Originally Posted by 1675-David

Did JP just call himself a moron??

Absolutely. Now go find that secret red hand and win the grand prize!!! The hunt ends at noon tomorrow.

[alwayshere]

has anyone got a better quality pic of this advert?

might actually help with this thread...

[1675-David]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

has anyone got a better quality pic of this advert?

might actually help with this thread...

any high quality images the mysterious Red Handed Sub are going to be as hard to come by as high quality images of The Loch Ness Monster

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by marty497

Both watches are set at 10:10:32, the standard time watches appear at in adverts. Both appear to have the crowns screwed down also so they can't be stopped by hacking which makes me think they could be dummy watches for the photoshoot.

Indeed - I don't think your well observed comment has had its 'propers....mucho-intrigueo!

[springer]

For those that read my posts in this thread, you'll remember that I didn't believe the red hand found on the 16800 advertising brochure was a reflection - let alone this hand being the only hand on this dial that turned red from a reflection. Additionally, I have a hard time believing that Rolex printed an advertising brochure with a photo that was very deceptive depicting a red hand on a Submariner.

As the past few weeks came and went, this thread seemed to have lost steam, at least for me, until today. Yesterday my wife changed out some towels in the privy with one of them being red in color. I decided to conduct a little experiment regarding a post I made earlier in this thread - wondering why all the hands on this 16800 Submariner weren't red, or why wasn't more of the red color captured on the dial if in fact this was just a mere reflection.

Today, I went into the bathroom and took a couple photos of my GMT 16750 and my 1972 Seiko DX close to the red towel in different positions. As you'll notice in the photos below, where the towel is reflecting on the dial, all the hands are red and just not the seconds hand like found in the advertising brochure. My conclusion, as well as that of a few others who posted in this thread is - the red Submariner hand was not the result of a reflection - at least based on my experiment. Your opinions my vary based on your own experiments.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by springer

For those that read my posts in this thread, you'll remember that I didn't believe the red hand found on the 16800 advertising brochure was a reflection - let alone this hand being the only hand on this dial that turned red from a reflection. Additionally, I have a hard time believing that Rolex printed an advertising brochure with a photo that was very deceptive depicting a red hand on a Submariner.

So if I understand you correctly, JP, you're saying that your watches have red hands.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Dan S

So if I understand you correctly, JP, you're saying that your watches have red hands.

I rest my case your honor... unless there is evidence presented to the contrary!!!

[1675-David]

Interesting to see the emergence of these, until now, undiscovered and undocumented exotic second hands. Jacek over at Tropical Watch has an amazing yellow handed DRSD for sale. What makes this piece so special is the second hand actually changes color to black when viewed from a different angle!!!

[baumare]

Originally Posted by springer

For those that read my posts in this thread, you'll remember that I didn't believe the red hand found on the 16800 advertising brochure was a reflection - let alone this hand being the only hand on this dial that turned red from a reflection. Additionally, I have a hard time believing that Rolex printed an advertising brochure with a photo that was very deceptive depicting a red hand on a Submariner.

As the past few weeks came and went, this thread seemed to have lost steam, at least for me, until today. Yesterday my wife changed out some towels in the privy with one of them being red in color. I decided to conduct a little experiment regarding a post I made earlier in this thread - wondering why all the hands on this 16800 Submariner weren't red, or why wasn't more of the red color captured on the dial if in fact this was just a mere reflection.

Today, I went into the bathroom and took a couple photos of my GMT 16750 and my 1972 Seiko DX close to the red towel in different positions. As you'll notice in the photos below, where the towel is reflecting on the dial, all the hands are red and just not the seconds hand like found in the advertising brochure. My conclusion, as well as that of a few others who posted in this thread is - the red Submariner hand was not the result of a reflection - at least based on my experiment. Your opinions my vary based on your own experiments.

Maybe I didn't understand your explanation, but the last picture of the Seiko doesn't proof that it was a reflection?
I mean in this pic only half of the hour hand looks red (and part of the top case) everything else looks white/silver... or I'm wrong?

Screen Shot 2022-11-07 at 4.31.16 PM 2.jpg

This is fun, thank you for bring it up again

[springer]

Try reading my post again. I think you missed my point. Reflections normally occur for more than one single hand. The Seiko photo you referenced was to point out and show the silver colored hands and other silver accents on the dial. The other Seiko photo and the 16750 photo depicts a reflection on the dial where the red coloring from the towel affects more than one hand.

My point of this post was that the red hand on the Submariner was not a reflection. That's it for me.

[tekno]

Could you not see Rolex editing the photo prior to print for some sort of visual effect? Does it make the watch stand out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[1675-David]

In a strange twist of fate I spotted this old advert offered for sale on a local auction site and immediately recognized it as the controversial image that started this thread. After a tough bidding war (was that you Springer?) I snagged it and it arrived today in the post.



after close inspection and hi-res scanning I have 3 key take aways...



1. The hand in "my" add looks more golden than red. Conclusion: Rolex, for reasons only known to themselves changed the red hand for a gold hand (or vice versa) before retaking the image.
2. The minute hand is still inconceivably thick. Question: why would Rolex do this?
3. The hour hand seams to be missing a chunk. Question again: Is it possible that this is the result some kind of rodent infestation back in the day that Rolex never went public with

We will probably never know the answers to these questions but that's what makes this hobby so exciting

[HERITAGE82]

Love the analysis!