How do you feel about adding a 2xAR coating to you rolex crystal?

[jswieton]

I was thinking about replacing my stock crystal in my DeepSea with a 2xAR coated crystal . How does everyone feel about doing that aftermarket treatment to their watch? I have seen some amazing examples of people doing this with their crystal and it really makes the black in the dial really pop. But I would like to hear what others have to say aboat that.
Thanks

[SearChart]

AR looks good until it scratches, just take a look at any old Breitling around, it doesn't look good.

[Valenciawatchrepair]

Originally Posted by SearChart

AR looks good until it scratches, just take a look at any old Breitling around, it doesn't look good.

I second this. What a terrible look!! Would much rather do without than put up with that.

[boatbasin]

I didn't do it to any Rolex, but I took one of my Seiko's with a damaged hardlex crystal and replaced it with a crystal from Crystaltimes Horology. Blue AR just on the inside. It looks great, gives a whole new look to the watch, and has proved to be bulletproof.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by boatbasin

I didn't do it to any Rolex, but I took one of my Seiko's with a damaged hardlex crystal and replaced it with a crystal from Crystaltimes Horology. Blue AR just on the inside. It looks great, gives a whole new look to the watch, and has proved to be bulletproof.

Just on the inside is fine, but some brands do it on both sides of the crystal

[1William]

I would not as I want the watch as it was manufactured.

[brandrea]

I think Rolex has it right. I’m in the no camp

[214270Explorer]

Originally Posted by SearChart

AR looks good until it scratches, just take a look at any old Breitling around, it doesn't look good.

I have a suspicion that Rolex does not use it for this exact reason.

[joli160]

The domed DSSD crystal is beautiful. Rolex is jewellery, take away that aspect and it's looking dull and boring

[R.G.Bramlett, CW21]

jswieton, in this section of the rolex forums you're not going to find a lot of support for this idea. based on the credentials of some of the people that post over here, that makes perfect sense.

But, in other sections of the Rolex forums, you're likely to have lots of people telling you to go for it.

So yes, i'm a no, too. scratched anti-glare coatings look bad. And we see this on so, so, so many tag heuers and breitlings.

[Rocket launcher]

Very good first post.......
Are you a Troll

[Rocket launcher]

if not a Troll I would advise

Noooooooooooooooooo Never

[Late]

Answer honestly: why do you own a Rolex Submariner instead of a Seiko or Tudor, or Deep Blue or Ball? Or what separates your Rolex from those?

The history and mystique may be part, the jewel-like allure may also be part. If so...

The uncoated (non-AR) crystal does reflect. So does a diamond. AR may make the dial "pop" more, but Rolex designed it to pop under the non-AR crystal. You'll lose some of the reflections that draw the eye to the watch.

Do what feels right to you, but factor in that non-reflective is, by definition, non-flashing which is less flashy.

[DoubleRedRolex]

Double AR looks amazing and does really show off the dial. You can AR just the underside and it helps a little bit but the dial doesn’t disappear like with double AR. But yes the downside is scratches. It pretty tough but it will scratch. Might be good on a Patek or AP but might be too delicate for a tool watch like Rolex. Rolex should defiantly AR the underside but I think it messes up the way the watch looks underwater with the flat saphire. Unfortunately don’t have anything with double AR to try and put in the bath tub.