Submariner Dial - Is this damage?

[Danj338]

Hi, can anyone chime in on your opinion on this dial? Is this damage or age? Sub 16610, 1996. Thanks!

[mineral]

I have seen This type of glossy dial during the transitional submariner model from mid 80s. It is normal to see them from that era. And most of them have so called the spider cracking dial.

But I am not sure why your 1996 sub exhibit this. May be other member can chip in to help.

For example my glossy 5513. Actually it looks beautiful under the strong light.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[exador]

It’s damage. Dealers call it patina.

[1665fan]

Damage when your buying, and like exador said “ patina” if your a dealer looking to make big bucks off the newbies ... is that a plexi dome crystal on the 5513? Looks cool

[koryong]

When you say damaged, do you mean it happened during a previous service when the watch was opened up, or is this a deteoriation of the paint surface over time ?

[Newrolexguy]

Maybe it’s damn-age instead of damage.

[nigelUK]

Originally Posted by Newrolexguy

Maybe it’s damn-age instead of damage.

very good

[SubKing]

literally looks like someone sprayed clear paint over the dial to cover up a previous damage... Looks like a poor reseal job to me.

[sensui]

I have an unpolished 16710 having this and I love it. It looks normal unless in certain angles in different lighting giving a wave look. It's in actuality even micro spidering but I really dig the look.

[Pureform]

Its not damage its patina... looks great...

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Pureform

Its not damage its patina... looks great...

Curious to know why/how you wouldn't call that damage.

[Pureform]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Curious to know why/how you wouldn't call that damage.

Damage would be taking the dial out and purposely forcing patina like putting it in the oven or using chemicals or rubbing the dial with somthing...

This is well known that during the transitional period with gloss dials and the pigments/lacquer formula in the gloss dials of the pre ceramics reacted differently in each dial.... spider/stardust/matte/ brown tropical... Why you think Rolex phased out the gloss dials early on at one point and introduced matte dials in 5513/1680 cause majority of them were turning into spider/stardust/ brown tropical and so forth, then in 1984 reintroduced gloss dials but the formula still wasnt right and caused all this patina... This is all due to prolonged period of UV light/Sun/Heat....

There is damage and then there is patina... The longer it stays in the sun the more patina it will get and each of them react different...

[sillo]

Originally Posted by Pureform

This is well known that during the transitional period with gloss dials and the pigments/lacquer formula in the gloss dials of the pre ceramics reacted differently in each dial....

This would be typical of the late 80s, but I've never seen this happen to a mid 90s gloss dial.

[Pureform]

Originally Posted by sillo38

This would be typical of the late 80s, but I've never seen this happen to a mid 90s gloss dial.

Leftover dials that rolex used throughout the years but rolex will never admit that, plus it takes years of patina to happen and early 90s is just getting started... come back in 20 years you will see threads on 90s patina...

[sillo]

Originally Posted by Pureform

Leftover dials that rolex used throughout the years but rolex will never admit that, plus it takes years of patina to happen and early 90s is just getting started...

It's a possibility, but I think these would've been used up by 1996. Also, the weird spotting and spidering was only typical for a few years on the very first glossy dials found on 16660s, 16800s, 16750s and some of the other transitional references of that era. These seems to fade away once the 90s rolled around.

Originally Posted by Pureform

come back in 20 years you will see threads on 90s patina...

Definitely agree here though, the 80s dials have a head start so we'll see how the 90s dials hold up in a few more years. I'm still leaning towards damage on this one. I'd go on some of the bigger vintage sellers archives and look at how many other dials of this era are already exhibiting this and you won't find many.

Either way I tend to stay away from watches like this because who knows how they'll hold up over time. They may look good at this very instance in time (I'm looking at you tropical dials), but they're basically dying in front of our eyes.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Pureform

Leftover dials that rolex used throughout the years but rolex will never admit that, plus it takes years of patina to happen and early 90s is just getting started... come back in 20 years you will see threads on 90s patina...

So, this, in your estimation, is likely a leftover 80s dial, and that’s normal patina....from sun exposure, and definitely not something like the result of moisture, heat, improper handling, chemical/cleaning fumes, or anything else?
I bring this up because something very similar just happened to my ‘66 gilt dial 5513 after a servicing. The result of which I am not calling patina.

[Pureform]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

So, this, in your estimation, is likely a leftover 80s dial, and that’s normal patina....from sun exposure, and definitely not something like the result of moisture, heat, improper handling, chemical/cleaning fumes, or anything else?
I bring this up because something very similar just happened to my ‘66 gilt dial 5513 after a servicing. The result of which I am not calling patina.

I saw your dial and its def patina/ natural reaction after all these years... Possibly from taking the dial out and breathing fresh air/ humidity and the lacquer reacted and started doing what it's meant to do... Your watch is not damaged... Keep your watch in the sun and after a few years you will have a nice brown dial and will be worth double...


If you look at alot of tropical dials from your year they all look similar to yours when they start to tropicalize...

[Danj338]

Ok, thank you for all of the responses.

Here’s a few more in natural light.

[Pureform]

Originally Posted by Danj338

Ok, thank you for all of the responses.

Here’s a few more in natural light.

Your watch is not damaged as you can see the dots are from lacquer deteriorating, has that effect where it bubbled and popped, exactly like the transitional dials.... This is patina from natural age on the gloss dials...

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Pureform

I saw your dial and its def patina/ natural reaction after all these years... Possibly from taking the dial out and breathing fresh air/ humidity and the lacquer reacted and started doing what it's meant to do... Your watch is not damaged... Keep your watch in the sun and after a few years you will have a nice brown dial and will be worth double...


If you look at alot of tropical dials from your year they all look similar to yours when they start to tropicalize...

I know the semantics of this can be discussed forever, but aren’t we just substituting “tropical” for “degrading” or “corroding”?
This, from a very reputable dealer whom I like, is described as an excellent gilt tropical dial.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[05carbondrz]

Very rare Stardust Dial...Worth at least 3x what a mint one would bring(Only If your a large Dealer though)

[Pureform]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

I know the semantics of this can be discussed forever, but aren’t we just substituting “tropical” for “degrading” or “corroding”?
This, from a very reputable dealer whom I like, is described as an excellent gilt tropical dial.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That to me is not patina but water damage as you can see the lume had moisture too, possibly forced patina...


Patina is a watch naturally patine'd without any disruption of water...

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Pureform

That to me is not patina but water damage as you can see the lume had moisture too, possibly forced patina...


Patina is a watch naturally patine'd without any disruption of water...

I agree, but when dealers, sellers, and even buyers alike, start using the phrases so interchangeably, and without an agreed upon definition, anything can be anything to anyone.

[springer]

First off, the dial is not correct for the age of the watch. Not even close.

The appearance it exhibits is not "patina" by any stretch of my imagination or vocabulary. It is severely damaged by what I believe was artificially means.

I'll echo other comments in this thread in that I've never seen one of these dials exhibit this type of dial finish from this era. I'm thinking that Sub King's comments regarding it being resprayed with lacquer or other clear finish might explain what caused this damage. Of course the best way to determine what is going on would be to examine the dial in person.

[037]

Is there any evidence of shine on the gold surrounds or tritium plots? That would help determine if it was sprayed with lacquer or if the paint has simply bubbled with age. The lighting might be making it look worse than in person.

I'd still file it under damage, although it still could be natural and not purposely induced. Spider dials are damaged in my book as well.

[Danj338]

All of the surrounds and and writing have no sheen like the dial. None of the lumes light up at all.

[037]

Given that, I'd side with it being paint degradation either natural or from cleaning. The photos are difficult to judge with certainty and I'm not willing to make a call without seeing more detail.

I've seen other mid-'90s 16610s with that exact dial but tend to agree with those who have said it was either a late leftover or from an earlier Era. I don't have a Mondani book to say for sure.

But, regarding damage, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you like it then that's what matters. If you want us to tell you that it's damaged, that's an easy request.

[Danj338]

Originally Posted by 037

Given that, I'd side with it being paint degradation either natural or from cleaning. The photos are difficult to judge with certainty and I'm not willing to make a call without seeing more detail.

I've seen other mid-'90s 16610s with that exact dial but tend to agree with those who have said it was either a late leftover or from an earlier Era. I don't have a Mondani book to say for sure.

But, regarding damage, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you like it then that's what matters. If you want us to tell you that it's damaged, that's an easy request.

thanks, I Will try and post a video of the watch.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by springer

First off, the dial is not correct for the age of the watch. Not even close.

The appearance it exhibits is not "patina" by any stretch of my imagination or vocabulary. It is severely damaged by what I believe was artificially means.

I'll echo other comments in this thread in that I've never seen one of these dials exhibit this type of dial finish from this era. I'm thinking that Sub King's comments regarding it being resprayed with lacquer or other clear finish might explain what caused this damage. Of course the best way to determine what is going on would be to examine the dial in person.

As always, some to-the-point, couched in experience, spot-on knowledge.

[Styles Bitchley]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

As always, some to-the-point, couched in experience, spot-on knowledge.

Yeah. I always like Springer’s mic drops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk