AR coating Rolex crystals

[cvn72]

Hi,

Has anyone had the underside of their Rolexes crystals AR coated? I am looking to add AR to my 114270 Explorer and would like some reviews. I found some general discussions on the topic searching the forums, but I have not seen any reviews or before and after pictures.

Who does it? Approximate cost? How effective is it? Did you like the results?

Thanks.

[Rolex fan 61]

Why do you need an AR coating???
I have never needed this on any watch that I have owned?

[cvn72]

I don't need AR, but I prefer it. There's more glare than I prefer when looking at the watch from different angles. Since I plan on keeping the watch for a long time, why not if the improvement in worth it to me.

[Valkyrie]

I don't know the answer to your question but I don't think applying AR to the underside of the crystal will solve your problem. A while back I had some framing done (of documents) and specifically requested anti-glare glass for the frame. When I went to pick up the framed documents an obvious glare could be seen in the glass. It turns out that the anti-glare glass had been used as requested but the anti-glare side of the glass was turned in to face the document. When the glass was turned around with the anti-glare side facing out it worked as expected. I would expect you would see the same results with the AR coating on the inside of the crystal with little change in the glare as seen from your perspective.

[ecdc]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

I don't know the answer to your question but I don't think applying AR to the underside of the crystal will solve your problem. A while back I had some framing done (of documents) and specifically requested anti-glare glass for the frame. When I went to pick up the framed documents an obvious glare could be seen in the glass. It turns out that the anti-glare glass had been used as requested but the anti-glare side of the glass was turned in to face the document. When the glass was turned around with the anti-glare side facing out it worked as expected. I would expect you would see the same results with the AR coating on the inside of the crystal with little change in the glare as seen from your perspective.

It makes a difference, even just on the underside. I have watches with no AR coating (Rolex), underside only (Panerai), and double AR (Omega, Breitling). Underside is the best compromise. It cuts a lot of glare, but doesn't get as smudgy and dirty as double-AR coated on the topside. I so wish Rolex would go with AR coating on the underside of the crystal.

[EDL7]

Camera lenses have been using coatings since the 50's just for this very same reason..to cut flare and glare..from extraneous light sources..
If you go to a picture frame shop and look at high end Museum glass (very expensive per sheet)..you cant even tell there is glass there..but if you get any smudges on it..its a real bear to clean..
I'm surprised Rolex doesn't put coatings on the underside of the crystal..but it will cost more..maybe its just too much trouble for them..

[abrasive]

Underside-only would be the way to go. Having it on the outside is a serious pain.

[Sublover2166]

If Rolex thought it was necessary, they would have already been doing it. Under cyclops makes a big difference for reading the date, but under the whole crystal? Nah.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by Sublover2166

If Rolex thought it was necessary, they would have already been doing it. Under cyclops makes a big difference for reading the date, but under the whole crystal? Nah.

X2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cvn72]

It doesn't have to be a necessity for it to be useful. From what I've read, watches that have AR coating applied to just the underside of the glass are easier to read in many lighting conditions than ones without it. It may not be a deal breaker but many prefer to have it. I was hoping someone has actually tried to have it applied to a Rolex since they do no come with any AR coating, but it doesn't look like that is the case.

[johneh]

Originally Posted by Sublover2166

If Rolex thought it was necessary, they would have already been doing it. Under cyclops makes a big difference for reading the date, but under the whole crystal? Nah.

So because Rolex doesn't think it's necessary, that means it isn't worth doing? Have some more kool-aid.

AR makes a huge difference, especially on darker dials.

[Call_me_Tom]

I've never seen a Rolex with AR but I wouldn't mind trying it. The thing though...I'm thinking if you send it in to get serviced Rolex would remove it.

[R Douglas]

Someone here had it done to the underside, sorry I don't remember who it was.

[warrior]

Great freakin' post. Aesthetically, the dial face is the HEART of the watch and A/R coating relates to that. What good is it if your watch looks like a cloudy glare at certain angles where you can't see the face? Blind Rolex fanatics pooh pooh AR even on the underside...to me, it's far more important than bracelets, lug size--fat or thin, ceramics vs. non ceramic bezels , and PCLs vs. non PCLs that so many people on TRF care about...it's the one thing TRFers don't talk about much but should. Aesthetically, the dial face is the HEART of the watch, people!

Originally Posted by johneh

So because Rolex doesn't think it's necessary, that means it isn't worth doing? Have some more kool-aid.

AR makes a huge difference, especially on darker dials.

[warrior]

I've had it done to the underside of the crystal on my previously owned 14060M; strictly in terms of glare, the 14060M is the worst offender from my own experience of owning Rolexes. Google IWW ( International Watch Works). Jack Alexyon does it and does a good job, though make sure when he puts the crystal back on that the laser etched coronet at 6 in the crystal is at 6! When I had it done, it was around $150. And yes...it makes a big difference. Don't have before/ after pics, though.

Originally Posted by cvn72

Hi,

Has anyone had the underside of their Rolexes crystals AR coated? I am looking to add AR to my 114270 Explorer and would like some reviews. I found some general discussions on the topic searching the forums, but I have not seen any reviews or before and after pictures.

Who does it? Approximate cost? How effective is it? Did you like the results?

Thanks.

[kilyung]

I wonder if it would impact RSC's decision to work on it? You'd think they wouldn't notice it.

[Sublover2166]

Originally Posted by johneh

So because Rolex doesn't think it's necessary, that means it isn't worth doing? Have some more kool-aid.

AR makes a huge difference, especially on darker dials.

Really, I have never had an issue reading my watch dials in over 30 years. Sorry to bust your bubble.

BTW, when the RSC services your piece and notices a coating on the crystal, be prepared to be charged for a replacement or not have your "modified" watch serviced.

[johneh]

Originally Posted by Sublover2166

Really, I have never had an issue reading my watch dials in over 30 years. Sorry to bust your bubble.

There's no bubble to burst. Rolex could use AR to increase legibility...it could be better. If you're happy with the status quo, awesome, but there are definitely some visibility benefits associated with AR coatings.

[Syed117]

Can live without it, but readability is so much better with coating. No ridiculous glare from ever angle other than head on.

Wouldn't stop me from buying a Rolex, but I want it.

If Rolex does add coating some day, everyone will claim it is the best thing ever. The same thing happened with warranties. When Omega started offering 4 year warranties on their higher end watches, people scoffed and said that no one needs more than two years. When Rolex changed theirs to 5 years, it was revolutionary.

[Alex_TA]

When you get used to AR-coated crystal, it's hard and even impossible to go back.

[EDL7]

Its surprising Rolex doesn't coat their glass on the inside..really..as that should be standard and would make the dial face more visible in a variety of lighting conditions..esp for a watch of this magnitude..the glass is so important..
But Rolex is a bit stodgy...and...well..progress comes slowly..perhaps..a little too slowly..
And to those who say they can see their dials just fine now w/o coating..well..once you try it..you probably wont want your old crystal anymore..
But its easy to do..and there are people in the lens industry that can do this no problem at all..

[Rocket_Man]

Clearly Rolex sees the benefit of AR coatings because they use them under the Cyclops to increase readability. That is under the Cyclops, not on top. It might actually be under the crystal I'm not sure, but under the crystal is clearly a benefit (no pun intended). Anyway, clearly Rolex sees the value. They don't coat the entire bottom for a reason. They WANT the glare. They think it adds 'bling' to the watch like the WG markers, PCL etc and it also makes the crystal stand out as a part of the watch. In fact to only coat the cyclops area must involve a mask and extra steps over just coating the entire surface, so it is an aesthetic choice not a cost choice.

I'd love to have the crystal AR coated (underneath only). I saw some pics on here of someone who had it done and it was a big improvement. Much better visibility of the dial and it makes the crystal somewhat disappear. Can't find the post though.

[Classique Breguet]

I am going to have this done to my 16200 with black face. It is my personal opinion that the glare detracts from the look. I prefer the sharper look of the clearer, blacker face at all angles. It makes the black face "pop" more.

[Johny]

Originally Posted by warrior

I've had it done to the underside of the crystal on my previously owned 14060M; strictly in terms of glare, the 14060M is the worst offender from my own experience of owning Rolexes. Google IWW ( International Watch Works). Jack Alexyon does it and does a good job, though make sure when he puts the crystal back on that the laser etched coronet at 6 in the crystal is at 6! When I had it done, it was around $150. And yes...it makes a big difference. Don't have before/ after pics, though.

a very informative answer to the ops. request for information.

[Classique Breguet]

Yes, thank you to "warrior" for that informative post. This was super helpful to me, and I'm sure many other people have also received benefit from this information.

I'm an inventor, so I definitely agree that having more choices available is better. Does it "need" more anti reflective properties? I see it this way, when I look at it, I say, "This would be better if there was less glare." This answers the question definitively for me.
I have just emailed these guys and will post before and after shots on this thread.

[Boaters]

Jack does great work and his schedule is usually booked be prepared for a wait.

[JohnLT]

I had a black dial Breitling with AR. In certain light it made the dial appear to be gray or blue in color. I imagine the same would happen with a Rolex black dial? It was an affect I did not like at all.

[Classique Breguet]

Originally Posted by JohnLT

I had a black dial Breitling with AR. In certain light it made the dial appear to be gray or blue in color. I imagine the same would happen with a Rolex black dial? It was an affect I did not like at all.

I'll let you know. My gut tells me this Rolex dial is black black, where the Breitling must not have been black black.


Worst case I don't like it and can switch it back.

All phenomena are impermanent.

[phillycheez]

If AR is the reason stopping you from getting a Rolex just get it done. I'm all for modifying watches to your liking! It's your watch. Who cares about everyone else.

Personally after wearing a watch with double AR, my IWC, for a year I find it depends on the watch for me.

At least the Rolex model I chose I like the no AR. It makes the dial, dial markers and hands reflect light in so many different ways. I like it a lot.

I like my IWC and AR really clears that dial up but it looks the same from all angles. Kinda boring now...

Depends on the watch for me.

AR or no AR... I've never not been able to read the time.. Ever.

[Classique Breguet]

Don't get me wrong. I love my just purchased 16200, but I would like to try it with less glare. It is my understanding that just AR coating the underside will not completely eliminate the glare, it will only reduce it. If it doesn't work out, I think it still will have been worth trying.

In the last year I have bought many high end watches. Patek, AP, Vacheron, Breguet, JLC, a tourbillon....none of them had any glare. I like the less glare look. My vintage 1500 has very little glare and I prefer that look. Just personal opinion.

I'll just have to try it and see if it improves the look for me or not. Even if it did not, I would still really like my 16200, even with "too much" glare.