Lume on Explorer II 1655

[Milou66]

Hello everyone,

I have a question that's been bothering me for a while and hoping to find the answer here:

Why is the lume on most 1655 less "patinated" than same period subs?

I've always been fascinated with the "disco" dial of the first Explorer II. Having seen many of them, I noticed, that with few exceptions, the lume on the dials were still white or ivory and much less patinated than their contemporary subs or other rolex models of the period.

Is it the dial manufacture that used a different tritium mixture?

Many thanks for your input and insights!

[inadeje]

Perhaps it was refinished? New lume added?

[Dan S]

What year(s) specifically? You really need to distinguish early and late 70s when it comes to lume. The lume on late 70s pre-Comex and Maxi dial Subs often stay very light. Early 70s is a crap shoot depending on the history of the watch. I often see the straight hand 1655s with yellow lume.

[Alexander88]

My 1655 spent its first 40 years in the Caribbean. The lume has aged strongly but evenly.
You're right, many 1655s from the 70s still have very white, unaged lume.
But in my hunt for 1655s, I have also seen many watches with missing tritium dots and crumbling tritium.
Probably has to do with environmental conditions.

[Milou66]

Thank you for the quick feedback, very grateful. Here are some images of 1655 Mark 1, where I find the lume particularly white or light ivory for 50 year old dials.

Maybe they spent their time deep into caves and away from sunlight, but I would have expected more pumpkin lumes.

I did read somewhere that tritium lume could turn darker over time not because of sunlight but because of its chemical composition.

In any case, surprised to see so many "white" dials on this model.

[Dan S]

Many people claim that very light lume is the result of being in the sun, not in the dark. This generally seems like speculation to me.

In any case, I could also post many photos of Mk1 1655 dials with yellow lume, so this may be a case of confirmation bias.

Those two photos appear to be of the same watch, BTW.

[Milou66]

yes sorry, it was just to illustrate my thoughts. Here is a general view but I'm finding it difficult to size the image correctly for this forum, but hopefully you'll understand my point on overall "whitish" dials on the 1655, perhaps it's just an impression due to the white border on the hands? Thanks!

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Many people claim that very light lume is the result of being in the sun, not in the dark. This generally seems like speculation to me.

In any case, I could also post many photos of Mk1 1655 dials with yellow lume, so this may be a case of confirmation bias.

Those two photos appear to be of the same watch, BTW.

X100. I've never noticed 1655s to be any different than other vintage Rolex sports models when it comes to patina. Some light patina, some dark patina and some in the middle, with little rhyme or reason, other than the usual theories about sun, no-sun, tropical climate, etc ....

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by swish77

X100. I've never noticed 1655s to be any different than other vintage Rolex sports models when it comes to patina. Some light patina, some dark patina and some in the middle, with little rhyme or reason, other than the usual theories about sun, no-sun, tropical climate, etc ....

Exactamundo.

[Milou66]

I think I’ve got an explanation: Some dials have had their lume « flake » away and all is left is the actual white markers that originally were covered with lume.