1991 Rolex 16520 Daytona Luminous Question

[brockburst]

I recently received a 1991 Inverted Six 16520 from an established, reputable dealer. I noticed after unpacking the watch that the hands glow green but the rest of the dial does not. My question is if that is normal and correct for this year and this timepiece?

The watch was advertised as 100% original and I didn't think to ask for a glow shot as its a 'newer' timepiece. It is still within the return window so just want to double check as its a fantastic piece.

Here is a clip from the posting: "MkIII Rolex Daytona Zenith Reference 16520, matte case and bracelet, inverted 6 dial in stunning original condition and original tritium hands."

Thank you kindly, TRF.

[springer]

Hands have been changed to luminova. Tritium will not glow from that time frame.

[brockburst]

Thanks JP, is that a certainty that the hands 25 years later will not glow? I have tritium hands on a couple gilts that glow and are original.

The hands on this 16520 don't glow for long, and the dial doesn't glow at all.

Would pics help?

[Woody]

I think you have answered your own question - compare the hands with those on the watches that you already own.....if you are unhappy then contact the seller to arrange a discount or send it back for a full refund.

[brockburst]

Originally Posted by Woody

I think you have answered your own question - compare the hands with those on the watches that you already own.....if you are unhappy then contact the seller to arrange a discount or send it back for a full refund.

Well, not really, at all. That comparison wouldn't be useful, if it was I wouldn't have placed it here. My happiness is also not the question, it's the watch.

Any more constructive answers like springers out there? I'll post some pics as well.

[BrazenC5]

Its not normal and correct (to where the hands glow but the dial doesnt). Tritium around that age will no longer glow. I had a 91 GMT, dial and hands did not glow. Earlier models (gilt range) yes for a very short time. I do not believe it to be original hands. Genuine (as in OEM replacements), possibly.

[brockburst]

Originally Posted by BrazenC5

Its not normal and correct (to where the hands glow but the dial doesnt). Tritium around that age will no longer glow. I had a 91 GMT, dial and hands did not glow. Earlier models (gilt range) yes for a very short time. I do not believe it to be original hands. Genuine (as in OEM replacements), possibly.

Thanks very much I'll post pics just to confirm no other service parts

[Chalet]

I have a 95 16520. Both hands and dial are dead when it comes to Luke. Suspect you have service hands on the watch.

[springer]

Gilt era tritium is not the same as 1990s. The life of the later tritium is 30 years. A watch from around 1990 should not glow. I just purchased a 1989 Sub, it does not glow. In fact, none of my tritium watches glow.

[rootbeer7]

I have a 91 Sub that had hands and bezel pip replaced at some point. Dial has no lune whatsoever, pip and hands glow for a short period. I would guess later tritium replacements.

[Woody]

Originally Posted by brockburst

Well, not really, at all. That comparison wouldn't be useful, if it was I wouldn't have placed it here. My happiness is also not the question, it's the watch.

Any more constructive answers like springers out there? I'll post some pics as well.

My apologies, I have just noted that your other watches are from a much earlier period. From the other advice you have received then it sounds as though your watch has a replacement handset.

Good luck with your decision on how best to proceed.

[unprdctb1e]

I have a 1993 Daytona and the hands do not glow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brockburst]

Thank you, here is a pic of the watch.

Couple questions:
Does the bezel look correct?
Does the second hand / sub dial hands look correct? How does one tell if these have been changed?

Obviously the Minute/Hour hand glow so we have ruled that out.

Finally here is a pic of the movement:

Thank you kindly friends for the input and TRF for the space.

[JP Chestnut]

Is that watch unworn? I don't see a single bit of bracelet wear between the lugs.

[goldfixer21]

Originally Posted by JP Chestnut

Is that watch unworn? I don't see a single bit of bracelet wear between the lugs.

The last pic shows what appears to be a re-done brush finish on the band IMO

[brockburst]

Not unworn but certainly great condition, bracelet has a little bit of stretch and some scratches on the clasp etc. It was sold as unpolished.

Bezel and everything else looks correct to my eyes but sincerely appreciate the experts on the forum to chime in.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by brockburst

Not unworn but certainly great condition, bracelet has a little bit of stretch and some scratches on the clasp etc. It was sold as unpolished.

Bezel and everything else looks correct to my eyes but sincerely appreciate the experts on the forum to chime in.

I've bought rather many NOS sold end link five digit references that were perfect without noticeable shop wear. They all had at least a tiny tiny tiny bit of wear between the lugs from the end links rotating around spring bar if you looked closely. Those were year 2000+ SEL watches. I'd expect more of that with the hollow end links.

Can you snap more between the lugs pictures with better light?

Also, regarding unpolished. I see it was serviced. Assuming a serviced watch is unpolished, without proof in the form of a work order, seems a bit generous. Most watches are touched up at service. I agree that the bracelet doesn't look untouched based on this picture.

[brockburst]

This watch wasn't sold as NOS.

I can take pics of that, yes.

I am most interested in the dial, movement and bezel. Which outside of the obvious luminova hands which we have discussed, the rest of the watch.

[GTS Dean]

My 1998 Daytona's tritium dial plots do not glow. I had the hands replaced during service about 6 years ago because a timepiece without glowing hands in the dark is worthless to me.

[brockburst]

Everything else look ok to you guys?