The GMT is useless without an illuminated bezel.

[Lex_Ordo]

Although the comment of the OP, is not without merit...

This is the way Rolex designed the GMT, GMT II, and the GMT IIc.
Oh, and the Submariner, Yachtmaster, Explorer II, etc.

Different watch companies have designed similar watches with their own take on illuminating the bezel. Some were even posted in this thread.

However, They.... Are NOT Rolex.

[HogwldFLTR]

I'm fond of the approach that Ball is using with a sapphire bezel insert and tritium tubes used for underlighting.

[Dirt]

Cockpits are illuminated.
Airports are as well.

I suppose everyone who has used one for it's intended purpose has not had too much of an issue to date.
When travelling I used to wear an EXP II and it was just fine.

I see a lack of lume on the bezel on a GMT watch a non issue.
But I suppose it would be novel
It would certainly push the cost up

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by 2ltdjorn

The GMT is useless without an illuminated bezel.

It's quite amazing that a useless watch is one of the most sought after watches in the world.

[lamnyc]

I prefer platinum over Super Luminova.

[RyanJ]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

It's quite amazing that a useless watch is one of the most sought after watches in the world.

Yes, because people are dying to buy a watch with a GMT feature. Please... The hype from the Internet and FOMO is what is driving the hype for this and the majority of Rolex watches.. Not their features..

[InitialAndPitch]

I carry one of these in the top pocket of my flightsuit. It comes on a Jubilee.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by Bizcut1

I Love my Tudor...the "tool" feel of it...in a darkened plane cabin though, the GS lume rocks the world.

Although, the GS does lack the romance of having a purely mechanical device on your wrist. An accurate mechanical device is more impressive than an accurate computer.

[daOnlyBG]

I don't get why people are harshing on the OP. If he said "What are your thoughts?" most of you would have gladly volunteered your opinions. So he says "Debate." and suddenly so many here are offended? lol

And for what it's worth, I think it's a really legit question. I personally wish Rolex would feature a luminescent bezel. I think it'd add to the utility and pay homage to the GMT's ancestry.

Originally Posted by Tools

It could be interesting for the new ceramics though. Shouldn't be too tough to use Chromalite to fill the insert numbers with.

You'd have chromalight exposed to UV rays on the bezel (as opposed to inside the case, where the anti-UV protective coating helps prolong the chromalight life).

Of course, Tudor still features this on some of their watches, so maybe Rolex would follow suit.

Originally Posted by breitlings

... I believe they did file a patent for illuminated ceramic bezels.

That being said the GMT is debatably the best watch in the world.

I wholeheartedly agree!

Originally Posted by Dirt

I see a lack of lume on the bezel on a GMT watch a non issue.
But I suppose it would be novel
It would certainly push the cost up

Would it? I imagine chromalight is cheaper than platinum.

[Ihatecheese]

Re the Q: Folks in the US can be a bit more direct, which doesn't always resonate so well to the more delicate international forums ears. (eyes? :)

Even with lume the bezel and hands are kind of useless if it hasn't been charged. My phone is far better at the dead of night!

[904VT]

Originally Posted by Ihatecheese

Re the Q: Folks in the US can be a bit more direct, which doesn't always resonate so well to the more delicate international forums ears. (eyes? :)

Even with lume the bezel and hands are kind of useless if it hasn't been charged. My phone is far better at the dead of night!

What are you talking about?

Is that direct enough lol

[Speedbird-1]

Originally Posted by Tools

Yes, he is a flashlight salesman.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by 2ltdjorn

Debate...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Folks here can balk if they want to. Many here put Rolex on a pedestal and can’t or won’t see their shortcomings. Of course lume in the bezel would improve the functional utility, arguing otherwise is simply silly and arguing for arguing sake. Rolex gets a pass on things that other watch companies don’t (I.e. date wheels not matching the dial color -any other watch company gets slammed fr this, rushing 30 year old “technology” of ceramics to the point that the colors are pastel and purple rather than blue, the almost complete illegibility of the Daytona, my god how the black bay chrono was slammed for that hand blocking the subdial-but no one date point out the flaws in the Daytona) the list goes on.

So short answer is yes, lume would increase the utility, but then again Rolex has become jewelry and less interested in function.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by RyanJ

Yes, because people are dying to buy a watch with a GMT feature. Please... The hype from the Internet and FOMO is what is driving the hype for this and the majority of Rolex watches.. Not their features..

I agree to the extent that when a member asks the forum whether or not that member should purchase a Sub or a GMT, then it's pretty obvious that the question is about fashion and not function.

Nonetheless, the GMT has been used as a tool watch for professionals long before the internet driven Rolex mania.

Even if the GMT could benefit from a lumed bezel, the demand over the last 65+ years has not been sufficient for Rolex to add that complication.

To summarize, the GMT is not a useless watch and never has been.



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[904VT]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Folks here can balk if they want to. Many here put Rolex on a pedestal and can’t or won’t see their shortcomings. Of course lume in the bezel would improve the functional utility, arguing otherwise is simply silly and arguing for arguing sake. Rolex gets a pass on things that other watch companies don’t (I.e. date wheels not matching the dial color -any other watch company gets slammed fr this, rushing 30 year old “technology” of ceramics to the point that the colors are pastel and purple rather than blue, the almost complete illegibility of the Daytona, my god how the black bay chrono was slammed for that hand blocking the subdial-but no one date point out the flaws in the Daytona) the list goes on.

So short answer is yes, lume would increase the utility, but then again Rolex has become jewelry and less interested in function.

Rolex is not perfect by any means but I don’t get all the talk on the forums of Daytonas not being legible. Maybe the black dial, but the white is very easy to read imo. Also less ambient light on the dial than the diver crystals allow. Regarding the blue and red I mean the competition is Omega with their dull black and white ceramic insert. I know what you’re saying though about Rolex being given more leeway. Though I do think manufacturers like Rolex, Patek, ALS, AP are driving a lot of innovation where no one else is willing to go save for maybe Richard Mille which are really not production watches.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I agree to the extent that when a member asks the forum whether or not that member should purchase a Sub or a GMT, then it's pretty obvious that the question is about fashion and not function.

Nonetheless, the GMT has been used as a tool watch for professionals long before the internet driven Rolex mania.

Even if the GMT could benefit from a lumed bezel, the demand over the last 65+ years has not been sufficient for Rolex to add that complication.

To summarize, the GMT is not a useless watch and never has been.



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Well said

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by 904VT

Rolex is not perfect by any means but I don’t get all the talk on the forums of Daytonas not being legible. Maybe the black dial, but the white is very easy to read imo. Also less ambient light on the dial than the diver crystals allow. Regarding the blue and red I mean the competition is Omega with their dull black and white ceramic insert. I know what you’re saying though about Rolex being given more leeway. Though I do think manufacturers like Rolex, Patek, ALS, AP are driving a lot of innovation where no one else is willing to go save for maybe Richard Mille which are really not production watches.

Yes the Daytona is not legible. See I use my chrono everyday to time things as part of of job not just for steaks. If you look at the minute counter, there is not enough hash marks around the subdials making reading the minutes around 9, 10, 11, 12 then the 19, 20, 21 almost impossible to distinguish. In fact during timing one test in my job, i was unable to read the exact elapsed time. The one thing the watch was intended to failed. My speedy has never failed at this basic function. The daytonas in the 70 through early 80’s did not have this problem and the 30 minute register had 30 hash marks.

Secondly omega is far ahead of Rolex in terms of innovation. There is real functional utility to their antimagnetic movements (my 16610 has been magnetized 2-3 times in the past year from putting my hand in the fridge grabbing the milk and having my wrist too close to the door strip). Look at the seamaster ultralight, I mean not a fan, but you have to admire their willingness to experiment. Meanwhile Rolex is playing around with 40 year old ceramics. I’m not knocking Rolex, I own and have owned many and they are tough as nails. My point being functionality is not their biggest concern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[djgallo]

Originally Posted by The Argonaut

Have a look at this. On a Bakelite, it looks great and would be very useful. Tempus Machina for those interested.

Too much light....I want to sleep at night...that will light up the entire room...

[904VT]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Yes the Daytona is not legible. See I use my chrono everyday to time things as part of of job not just for steaks. If you look at the minute counter, there is not enough hash marks around the subdials making reading the minutes around 9, 10, 11, 12 then the 19, 20, 21 almost impossible to distinguish. In fact during timing one test in my job, i was unable to read the exact elapsed time. The one thing the watch was intended to failed. My speedy has never failed at this basic function. The daytonas in the 70 through early 80’s did not have this problem and the 30 minute register had 30 hash marks.

Secondly omega is far ahead of Rolex in terms of innovation. There is real functional utility to their antimagnetic movements (my 16610 has been magnetized 2-3 times in the past year from putting my hand in the fridge grabbing the milk and having my wrist too close to the door strip). Look at the seamaster ultralight, I mean not a fan, but you have to admire their willingness to experiment. Meanwhile Rolex is playing around with 40 year old ceramics. I’m not knocking Rolex, I own and have owned many and they are tough as nails. My point being functionality is not their biggest concern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had trouble at first, but the more I wore the watch the more I recognized the positions which are always consistent regardless of markers or not. Doesn't matter regardless if the hour and mins hands are in the way. Personally, I'd prefer a timing bezel than anything, but if needing more exact I prefer the smoother pushers on the 4130 compared to 1861. Omega's anti-magnetic movements are impressive. I know some have had issues, but I've never had any of my 6 digits magnetized (or my 5 dig Exp2) though and I open my fridge for a cold one quite often

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by 2ltdjorn

Debate...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No debate here. Just a ludicrous statement.

GMT has been popular for a reason since its inception in 1954

[Greg 59]

To lume or not to lume? That is the question.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Greg 59]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Folks here can balk if they want to. Many here put Rolex on a pedestal and can’t or won’t see their shortcomings. Of course lume in the bezel would improve the functional utility, arguing otherwise is simply silly and arguing for arguing sake. Rolex gets a pass on things that other watch companies don’t (I.e. date wheels not matching the dial color -any other watch company gets slammed fr this, rushing 30 year old “technology” of ceramics to the point that the colors are pastel and purple rather than blue, the almost complete illegibility of the Daytona, my god how the black bay chrono was slammed for that hand blocking the subdial-but no one date point out the flaws in the Daytona) the list goes on.



So short answer is yes, lume would increase the utility, but then again Rolex has become jewelry and less interested in function.

This is all so so true.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[michaelodonnell123]

Originally Posted by FTX I

Illuminated bezels are tacky.

Um no.

[SeaAndSky]

The fact is that unless one is in the military conducting operations at night in extremely dark conditions then I can’t think of a single reason why lume would be a necessary function on any dial. As a target audience member for the GMT, who uses the watch as intended, I can say unequivocally that lume is useless on the GMT dial.

I suppose it might help in a dual engine failure electrical emergency if the rat failed and I was curious the exact moment I was dying.

[REFZ]

Originally Posted by 2ltdjorn

Joined the Club on 02/12/2016 with 116710BLNR

Why did you buy a useless watch when you joined the forums?

[Onikage]

Incoming Pussy Galore would be hilarious. How's that Batgirl?

[GMT Aviator]

Well being an airline Captain, the GMT is aimed solely at professionals like myself.

As a watch it’s far from useless and I use mine as intended almost daily.

I’ve never had an issue with the non-lumed bezel of the Rolex and I also own a Ball GMT which does have lumed numerals on the bezel. I’ve never used the bezel numerals whether on the Ball or the Rolex to read time from them in the dark.

Now if Rolex were to lume the GMT bezel, then they would have to fundamentally change the bezel from a ceramic to a saphire crystal bezel with the luminova applied beneath the glass otherwise it would be at risk of being rubbed off, something that doesn’t happen with the PVD platinum numerals.
So Rolex have gone for durability and resilience over lumed bezel numerals and that neither detracts from the GMT’s usefulness or functionality, day or night.

[fozzyf18]

I have to agree with GMT Aviator. I too use my 16710 daily for its intended purpose. Cockpits have illumination built in which make reading a watch quite easy. If I experience a total electrical failure at night, then I will be using a flashlight to reference standby flight instruments. Already a bad night if that happens. I will be more concerned with flying the plane and referencing the aircraft attitude than the time. If things are really bad and I have to dead reckon and use my watch, the flashlight is already out to help.

[rushca01]

Originally Posted by GMT Aviator

Well being an airline Captain, the GMT is aimed solely at professionals like myself.

As a watch it’s far from useless and I use mine as intended almost daily.

I’ve never had an issue with the non-lumed bezel of the Rolex and I also own a Ball GMT which does have lumed numerals on the bezel. I’ve never used the bezel numerals whether on the Ball or the Rolex to read time from them in the dark.

Now if Rolex were to lume the GMT bezel, then they would have to fundamentally change the bezel from a ceramic to a saphire crystal bezel with the luminova applied beneath the glass otherwise it would be at risk of being rubbed off, something that doesn’t happen with the PVD platinum numerals.
So Rolex have gone for durability and resilience over lumed bezel numerals and that neither detracts from the GMT’s usefulness or functionality, day or night.

Tudor lumed the ceramic bezel on the pelagos, so it can be done.

[D.P.G.]

I find the cockpit has more then enough ambient light at night for the reflection off inlayed numbers to be very visible. Not an issue for me at all.