How does a UV light affect old dead tritium?

[larryccf]

I thought it would make it sparkle or "twinkle" lightly but watches that used to show some sparkle under an older black light, now don't show any reaction but i'm also using a newer black light that is looking more purpe/blue than the uv light i used to use..... or am I mis-remembering?

[214270Explorer]

Sometimes some older Tritium's will react, sometimes not.

It's all a cr__p shoot.

My Oyster Perpetual Date from 1987 shows no more glow, not even the slightest, under the strongest of UV light. It died off many years ago.

[larryccf]

thanks - both watches are @ 50 yrs old, and i could have sworn the tritium on one would sparkle, not light up, just kind of show twinkles like stars in the night but i got zero response using a new UV light - my old one seems to burn out the batteries in < five seconds

[ravenhome777]

My 82 shines bright white under UV, but it doesn't glow at all when the light is turned off.

[Andad]

I don't think a UV light will activate Tritium?

It could activate residual phosphor in the original mix as small specks or a faint short glow?

[larryccf]

it might well be that's what i recall seeing - but old age and C.R.S. are a helluva combination

[BrazenC5]

Originally Posted by larryccf

I thought it would make it sparkle or "twinkle" lightly but watches that used to show some sparkle under an older black light, now don't show any reaction but i'm also using a newer black light that is looking more purpe/blue than the uv light i used to use..... or am I mis-remembering?

I recall you had a few Tudors, right?

With my 68 7016 it was mentioned one check for original hands would be those flecks under UV. Is this what you mean in the picture?

Can see them on the dial/hands on early snowflakes. I had to use a UV under a loupe to see them.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[ravenhome777]

I will have to look at mine more close under a loupe in UV. I don't recall seeing crystals. This is an early 80s watch. My guess is that Rolex could have modified their tritium recipe over the years. They have a philosophy of continually improving upon watch technology, so it wouldn't surprise me if their recipe for tritium changed over the years.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by ravenhome777

My 82 shines bright white under UV, but it doesn't glow at all when the light is turned off.

This. I've seen a couple of mine (current and former) have faint traces of that tiny sparkle in places, but for the most part, just the white "glow," as mentioned above.

Here's my DRSD under UV. Completely dead when the UV is removed, of course.

[lupus66]

Is about the mix not the trit. Twinkles are normal around 68. Dead or full glow on uv also possible depending on the mix they were using. 63-70 they did a lot of experimenting with the lume mix.

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by BrazenC5

I recall you had a few Tudors, right?

With my 68 7016 it was mentioned one check for original hands would be those flecks under UV. Is this what you mean in the picture?

Can see them on the dial/hands on early snowflakes. I had to use a UV under a loupe to see them.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I thought you stole my watch ; )

We need to talk and see how close our serial numbers are ; )

Here is mine.

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by BrazenC5

I recall you had a few Tudors, right?

With my 68 7016 it was mentioned one check for original hands would be those flecks under UV. Is this what you mean in the picture?

Can see them on the dial/hands on early snowflakes. I had to use a UV under a loupe to see them.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

That is exactly what i was talking about and remember seeing - and like you, i used a loupe with it's own black light - that loupe may be the difference, the black lights i tried in the past few days were, first a UV flashlight and then a larger 120 volt UV light fixture

My loupe, somewhere along the line, developed a short in it where it "eats" the small button batteries in about 5 seconds from installation

BIG Thanks for that loupe shot and reminding me to use a loupe

took about 35 shots, but this was the best i could grab with a small auto camera - it did not like focusing on the loupe

[ravenhome777]

That sparkle is really cool!

My watch looks more like Swish77's under UV. Bright white light, then dead when UV is removed.

[BrazenC5]

Originally Posted by linesiders

I thought you stole my watch ; )



We need to talk and see how close our serial numbers are ; )



Here is mine.

That's crazy. Took identical pictures with hands in the same position!

Great minds and all....I responded to PM. My 7016 is a black dial though. I do have a 94010 with a blue dial though.

Cheers,

Chris

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[BrazenC5]

Originally Posted by larryccf

BIG Thanks for that loupe shot and reminding me to use a loupe

Great shot! They also have cheap macro lenses that attach to your phone. I may give it a try.

Chris

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[larryccf]

the issue is i'm techonologically retarded - the owner's manual for my new camera is 308 pages - i've learned the camera, maybe 10% of it's capabilities.

Now i need to research how to turn off the "post focus" feature. THe post focus is a neat feature that when you take a shot, the camera automatically takes 2 - 5 seconds of shots in a burst, each shot focusing on a different point, and then merges them into the final image - great for adding depth of field to macro shots, but i can't figure how to turn it off to manually focus the damn thing on the loupe. That shot i caught only because i went back to my old canon powershot and got that pix after about 35 shots.

I've decided tomorrow to go back thru the owner's manual for my new camera (Panasonic Lumix 10)

[fusionstorm]

Originally Posted by larryccf

I've decided tomorrow to go back thru the owner's manual for my new camera (Panasonic Lumix 10)

A “real man” would’ve thrown away the manual as soon as you opened the box!

[larryccf]

well, if you see a real man with nothing to do, send him over........ I'm not even halfway thru the manual and have already gone thru 4 aspirin

[BrazenC5]

Originally Posted by larryccf

well, if you see a real man with nothing to do, send him over........ I'm not even halfway thru the manual and have already gone thru 4 aspirin

If you haven't cracked the code, try youtube...now, i ususally go there first before a manual.

[larryccf]

heck of an idea - thanks

[SailingLife]

My 69 1680 has no glow at all guess I’ll have to invest in a black light to try

[larryccf]

be sure to go with a loupe as well, i went thru two blacklights without seeing any sparkle. It was BrazenC5's post reminding me of the need for the loupe

i used a 10X and believe anything stronger will be too difficult to catch a pix thru. My shot above was with a 10X loupe and a black light flashlight

here's the one i just ordered https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Main reason, all these cheap chinese loupes seem to go south - last one i had to fail, ie the 2nd one developed some sort of short where a new set of batteries (3 button batteries) burn up in about 5 seconds of use. At least the one above, has a backup loupe in case one fails

FWIW

[Gee2789]

My old 1675 had completely dead lume as well and I had half thought it was relumed that way.

But man, now I need to get a loupe and try my black light again. Good suggestions!

[larryccf]

just rcvd the two loupes I linked to above, and the flat one works really nice with a decent power UV light. Now the question will be durability

the other one, the all metal teardrop shaped loupe, is 40X, and is usable but you really need to position it in a small vice above the dial to hold it steady at exactly the right distance - it's enough of a headache focusing the camera on the viewing side of the loupe's lens, it's not fun when the loupe is moving.

FWIW

[larryccf]

while it was easier to position and focus the camera, even with the new loupe catching the right shot showing the sparkles took quite a few shots to get one really definitive

,

and just a suggestion if anyone is ordering that loupe i linked to or any chinese loupe - go ahead and order replacement batteries while you're at it. Took me just over an hour to take the shots tonite, and ended up with dead batteries in the loupe so i had to recruit the wife unit to hold the UV flashlight. You might consider ordering one of the cheap UV flashlights as they use AAA batteries and seem to last longer

here's the flashlight i'd gotten https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

at $10 for 2 flashlights, they even came with batteries installed

[bncapass1]

Sorry for resurrecting an older post but this topic fascinates me. The Rolex Tritium era ran from 1964 – 1997. The mixture process was Tritium, which is in its natural gas state, is then infused with a solid, then ground to a fine powder and then mixed with phosphorescence zinc sulfide. Zinc sulfide on its own will glow very briefly after being hit with a UV light but then fades rapidly after the light source is removed. In Tritium luminous compound, the radioactive decay bombards the phosphorescence zinc sulfide produces a continues glow. The caveat is from the moment the compound is mixed and applied, Tritium starts to lose it radioactivite decay reaching a half life after 12.5 years. Now, one would think a 1994 Submariner being more than 25 years old would not glow at all however I find even today that many even early 90's sports models can still be seen in the dark after your eyes adjust. It’s very faint but you can still see the remaining radioactive decay at work charging the zinc sulfide. What is perplexing to me is Singer, who made dials for Rolex, seems to have used two different types of radioactive luminous compounds. One that would glow after hit with a UV light but rapidly fade after the light source is removed like my two 1970’s Datejust’s and my 1980 Air King with the other like my three 1990’s sports models which do not react to any light source at all including a UV light yet you can see the very faint glow in pitch dark after you eyes adjust.

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by bncapass1

Sorry for resurrecting an older post but this topic fascinates me. The Rolex Tritium era ran from 1964 – 1997. The mixture process was Tritium, which is in its natural gas state, is then infused with a solid, then ground to a fine powder and then mixed with phosphorescence zinc sulfide. Zinc sulfide on its own will glow very briefly after being hit with a UV light but then fades rapidly after the light source is removed. In Tritium luminous compound, the radioactive decay bombards the phosphorescence zinc sulfide produces a continues glow. The caveat is from the moment the compound is mixed and applied, Tritium starts to lose it radioactivite decay reaching a half life after 12.5 years. Now, one would think a 1994 Submariner being more than 25 years old would not glow at all however I find even today that many even early 90's sports models can still be seen in the dark after your eyes adjust. It’s very faint but you can still see the remaining radioactive decay at work charging the zinc sulfide. What is perplexing to me is Singer, who made dials for Rolex, seems to have used two different types of radioactive luminous compounds. One that would glow after hit with a UV light but rapidly fade after the light source is removed like my two 1970’s Datejust’s and my 1980 Air King with the other like my three 1990’s sports models which do not react to any light source at all including a UV light yet you can see the very faint glow in pitch dark after you eyes adjust.

You are right there are anomalies which point to variances in production.

As well as the (Circa +/- 1 year) the very well-known 1967 ZS dials that are very bright.....nearly all 70's 37.5 mm Daytonas lume up strongly, as do many Datejusts and a lot of DayDates!

And I have had a few 90 Subs that had the fag-end of luminosity too, as you have noted.

So clearly different manufacturing materials and processes were used.