Anti reflective coating on Rolex

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Yeah, my Omega only has the single coating. Point is, if scratching was the reason, Rolex could simply do the single undercoat, but, as we've seen, it's all about the bling to them.

True. I think OP's question has been answered.

FWIW, I've had watches with single-sided AR, and double-sided AR. Single-sided reduces glare better than no AR at all, but that "disappearing crystal" effect is best achieved with double-sided...at least until the coating gets scratched. I do think single-sided would be a good compromise, but apparently that isn't Rolex's bag.

[Mystro]

Rolex official position on why they dont use AR. Rolex likes the bling of their crystals and consider that sparkle a design element.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

True. I think OP's question has been answered.

FWIW, I've had watches with single-sided AR, and double-sided AR. Single-sided reduces glare better than no AR at all, but that "disappearing crystal" effect is best achieved with double-sided...at least until the coating gets scratched. I do think single-sided would be a good compromise, but apparently that isn't Rolex's bag.

Agreed, but my single-sided AR watch is still worlds away from the uncoated Rolex crystal.

[JBoone]

I have two watches with AR on outside. Both have scratched AR.

[warrior]

I don't even think it's bling!!! Bling is the sparkle from a fluted bezel. I call it "people not being able to SEE THE Beautiful Rolex Dial under certain lighting conditions because of the cloudy glare", NOT sparkle or bling

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Yeah, my Omega only has the single coating, and others do it that way, too. I wish Omega didn't switch. Point is, if scratching was the reason, Rolex could simply do the single undercoat, but, as we've seen, it's all about the bling to them.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by Watchflair

Any input would be speculative at best - I would imagine that the AR coating has a tendency to chip peal and scratch - that's my experience on my Breitling Emergency at least.

Agree! Had several Seamaster Ceramics (SMPc's) as well as other Omegas with AR in the outside and they are pretty easily scratched

[asiparks]

i guess i’m the only person with double AR coated watches that, after many years, aren’t scratched from regular use....

If it really is just about bling, a double ar’d crystal would allow a glossy dial with white gold indices and hands to really sparkle, it would look far better than the white slab reflection from the sapphires’ surface.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by asiparks

i guess i’m the only person with double AR coated watches that, after many years, aren’t scratched from regular use....

If it really is just about bling, a double ar’d crystal would allow a glossy dial with white gold indices and hands to really sparkle, it would look far better than the white slab reflection from the sapphires’ surface.

Well, Rolex apparently admitted as much. It "blings" because the crystal reflects light so much that it flashes from a distance, much more than my AR coated watches.

[Rocket_Man]

A TRF member had his crystal coated on the inside and posted pics. Probably a few years ago now. I really liked the look. If you wanted to do it you could get a crystal and take it to an eye glass maker and have the underside coated, then have a watchmaker swap it out. It is not going to cost that much, just time to organize it.

As has been stated before, it has nothing to do with durability, it is just the look Rolex is going for. They do use AR coating on the underside of certain models with a cyclops and no one has issues with it or questions about it. In fact most probably don't notice.

Here is a pic of a GMT with the cyclops removed.

[OJONES]

I also think it’s the bling factor. Those who say it’s to avoid wear, well ... PCLs is all I’ve got to say there.

[zackontherun]

Originally Posted by warrior

I don't even think it's bling!!! Bling is the sparkle from a fluted bezel. I call it "people not being able to SEE THE Beautiful Rolex Dial under certain lighting conditions because of the cloudy glare", NOT sparkle or bling

Yeah I think so too but maybe I’m too not hardcore enough haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krash]

I prefer no AR coating. I like my watches to glisten and shine. However, there are some Omegas and Breitlings that have AR coatings that I want and might get. So an AR coating isn’t a deal breaker for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Watchflair

Any input would be speculative at best - I would imagine that the AR coating has a tendency to chip peal and scratch - that's my experience on my Breitling Emergency.

It does. Even on a 216570 with double AR on the cyclops.

[SamP]

Originally Posted by thewolfofmiddlesex

It'll scratch like the others say. I'd say max life would be circa 10yrs. Reapplying it is a PITA and nigh on impossible of the crystal is scratched.

Polished centre links scratch easily but nevertheless Rolex introduced them - necessitating a polish at service, should the wearer be so inclined.
The crystal could similarly be replaced at service.
It’s a nice option for those who prefer less dazzle, single coating or double.
Anyway the behemoth that is Rolex marches on.

[Cato]

One of the things that first attracted me to Rolex was that crystal flash.

[Omegamma]

According to my experences all AR layer makes a slite color distorsion. Even with a so called color less AR the color of the white indexes will move a bit to cream or off white. This effect could kill the amazing completely black dial with perfect white index contrast which we all love in our Rolexes. It can be a reason too.

[rolehex]

One more vote here for Rolex to put it on... at least underneath.

[Rippin]

Originally Posted by rolehex

One more vote here for Rolex to put it on... at least underneath.

I'm with you in this one. Put in on the inside of the crystal. Lack of AR coating makes it difficult to read the dial at certain angles.

[SamP]

Originally Posted by Omegamma

According to my experences all AR layer makes a slite color distorsion. Even with a so called color less AR the color of the white indexes will move a bit to cream or off white. This effect could kill the amazing completely black dial with perfect white index contrast which we all love in our Rolexes. It can be a reason too.

Good catch.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Omegamma

According to my experences all AR layer makes a slite color distorsion. Even with a so called color less AR the color of the white indexes will move a bit to cream or off white. This effect could kill the amazing completely black dial with perfect white index contrast which we all love in our Rolexes. It can be a reason too.

Welcome to the forum

To expand on your hypothesis... perhaps it would also take away from the brilliant sunburst dial colors as well

In any case, I’m not really buying into the dial “glare” or whatever you want to call it. I’ve never had any difficulty reading the time. If there’s a bit of glare I just turn my wrist slightly. Another nano second is all it takes and as a bonus, it’s a bit longer to enjoy looking at the dial

[asiparks]

Originally Posted by Omegamma

According to my experences all AR layer makes a slite color distorsion. Even with a so called color less AR the color of the white indexes will move a bit to cream or off white. This effect could kill the amazing completely black dial with perfect white index contrast which we all love in our Rolexes. It can be a reason too.

Not so much.
Generally, AR coatings increase contrast, not reduce it. If you look at the dial/datewheel through your AR'd Rolex cyclops, you'll notice that from every angle the dial appears blacker*

If you remove the crystal from your Rolex, you'll also notice the dial looks blacker and crisper, because less light is being reflected back at you. This is what AR does.

And the indexes are off white. Not perfect white at all.

* only applicable to black dials

[ecdc]

Originally Posted by Rippin

I'm with you in this one. Put in on the inside of the crystal. Lack of AR coating makes it difficult to read the dial at certain angles.

Yes, this.

[joli160]

I like it like it is, love the shine of the crystal and dials

[cfjan]

What it looks like when AR is applied on BOTH sides of the crystal. It looks like there's no crystal at all!

Obviously the trade off would be scratching the coating on the outside. So I can understand a company not wanting to coat the AR on the outside. But there is really no downside with AR coating on the inside. So not sure why Rolex does not do it.

[asiparks]

Originally Posted by cfjan

What it looks like when AR is applied on BOTH sides of the crystal. It looks like there's no crystal at all!

Obviously the trade off would be scratching the coating on the outside. So I can understand a company not wanting to coat the AR on the outside. But there is really no downside with AR coating on the inside. So not sure why Rolex does not do it.

Nice ! I have a 142 "Spacelab", the lemania is a fantastic movement...Mine is in a safe on the other side of the world, but I bought it in '97. The case is scratched, but the AR is still fine.





I've had these for almost 10years, both have double sided AR and both are far from cosseted, yet the AR seems to be holding up...

I'd give it another couple of years... Just as Rolex were latecomers to legible lume, ceramic components and movements with longer than 40 hours PR, they'll add at least 1 layer to their sapphires eventually....

[CRM114]

It would be great if Rolex did this to the inside of the crystal. Inside the crystal doesn't scratch. Rolex's stated reason they don't (more flashy) is lame. I want to see the dial clearly, not a bunch of reflection off the sapphire.

Since Rolex does apply AR coating underneath the cyclops apparently they believe its more important to see the date at a glance than the time...on a watch. I don't know about anyone else but my watch is used primarily to tell time, not the date. Walking around with a dateless watch is okay, having a date is an added nicety, but nobody goes out of their way to produce a dedicated wrist calendar. If Rolex did, would they then apply AR coating to the entire thing? Seems like their priorities re AR are back to front.

If this respect, every Rolex may not have a nice sunburst dial but all the modern examples do have an annoying sunburst sapphire crystal that can render the dial itself unreadable depending on the angle to the light source(s).

At least if I'm ever stranded in the middle of a desert, ice cap, or adrift in a raft I can flash Morse Code SOS reflections to aircraft passing overhead or ships on the horizon.

[Snowpuppy]

Originally Posted by Art 1

This is the reason. A few years ago James Dowling was given time to interview Rolex at Basel. One of the questions he asked was about the AR and why Rolex does not use it. The answer was that they, Rolex wanted the shiny look that the Rolex glass gives off. So it's that simple, it's the look that Rolex Execs want.

What a shitty look to choose (imo). Who’d rather look at a shiny crystal than the beautiful watch face beneath it? Like others have already said, Rolex is late to the party with AR coating, and for them to start AR coating their crystals, it would almost be like admitting they were wrong about not using AR sooner. I say almost because they could easily just say that many of their newer customers have been requesting AR coated crystals, and that they’re going to start offering AR coated crystals on certain watches, and/or as an option or as replacement crystals, and still be able to save face.

I have to laugh when people keep saying that AR coatings will scratch or wear off/peal, whatever, completely ignoring the people that are suggesting the AR coating be placed on the inside of the crystal (which will never scratch or peel). I have an Omega Planet Ocean chronograph that I purchased in 2013, and I wore that as my daily driver (swapping it out for other watches for occasions like weddings, etc) up until this year when I finally got my DSSD D-blue dial. The Omega P.O. has double sided AR, and after over 5 years, the AR coating is still as nice as when I got it, while the watch itself has all sorts of scratches, dings, and mars from daily wear. It’s not difficult to clean the crystal on that watch at all either, I breathe on it, and wipe it with a soft cloth, and it looks perfect, so while it may attract or highlight things like smudges or fingerprints, I’ve never found that to be a real world issue.

After wearing my Planet Ocean for 5+ years, and wearing my DSSD for a few months, I’m going to get this crystal double AR coated. I’m so used to being able to see the dial, and I bought the D-blue dial because it’s a beautiful dial, and tbh it really sucks having all that glare off of the crystal, I want to be able to see the dial (that I paid almost a grand more to have over the black one), and that’s going to be best achieved by having it AR coated. Oh, and if the AR coating does scratch, they can just remove it, the crystal isn’t ruined.

[Finslayer83]

So who does it? I’d get my 14060m done

[cda555]

Originally Posted by Snowpuppy

What a shitty look to choose (imo). Who’d rather look at a shiny crystal than the beautiful watch face beneath it? Like others have already said, Rolex is late to the party with AR coating, and for them to start AR coating their crystals, it would almost be like admitting they were wrong about not using AR sooner. I say almost because they could easily just say that many of their newer customers have been requesting AR coated crystals, and that they’re going to start offering AR coated crystals on certain watches, and/or as an option or as replacement crystals, and still be able to save face.



I have to laugh when people keep saying that AR coatings will scratch or wear off/peal, whatever, completely ignoring the people that are suggesting the AR coating be placed on the inside of the crystal (which will never scratch or peel). I have an Omega Planet Ocean chronograph that I purchased in 2013, and I wore that as my daily driver (swapping it out for other watches for occasions like weddings, etc) up until this year when I finally got my DSSD D-blue dial. The Omega P.O. has double sided AR, and after over 5 years, the AR coating is still as nice as when I got it, while the watch itself has all sorts of scratches, dings, and mars from daily wear. It’s not difficult to clean the crystal on that watch at all either, I breathe on it, and wipe it with a soft cloth, and it looks perfect, so while it may attract or highlight things like smudges or fingerprints, I’ve never found that to be a real world issue.



After wearing my Planet Ocean for 5+ years, and wearing my DSSD for a few months, I’m going to get this crystal double AR coated. I’m so used to being able to see the dial, and I bought the D-blue dial because it’s a beautiful dial, and tbh it really sucks having all that glare off of the crystal, I want to be able to see the dial (that I paid almost a grand more to have over the black one), and that’s going to be best achieved by having it AR coated. Oh, and if the AR coating does scratch, they can just remove it, the crystal isn’t ruined.

Please share pictures as soon as you get it done. That blue dial will look magnificent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sweetswisssteel]

AR always scratches over time. Not that special to be honest

Sent from my HTC 2PXH3 using Tapatalk