Thoughts on Rolex Explorer II 16570 Hands?

[Pilot1985]

Hi all!

Im looking at this Explorer II X Series 1992

What are your thoughts in the hands lume? relumed?

I quote the sellers ad
"The hands are tritium and they match almost perfectly to the dial (a very rare thing on “corn/cream” 16570).
Tritium is original and was checked with UV light: both hands and hour markers react correctly in the same way."

Seller has a very good reputation.

I have asked him and waiting on his reply if the hands are relumed and UV photos.

[Pilot1985]

Got the UV photos.

What do you think?

[1665fan]

Seller seems honest, and as you say has a very good rep.... he’s describing them as original essentially so if you trust him......I’m not sure how color matched hands look under UV but they don’t look very similar to the hour markers....

[springer]

Normally the markers and hands look white under the UV light. I'm not seeing that in the photos.

[swaini3]

Doesn't seem right....

[swish77]

I don't think the tritium on the dial or hands is original. It's been messed with, presumably to give it that extra patina. That's why some of the hour plots look uneven and patchy under the UV.

You want original tritium to look something like on my 1665 under UV. I realize this is an older watch, but the appearance should be close. There are slight variations in tone or "white-ness" I've seen under UV, but nothing like what I see on the OP's example.

[Chris75]

It looks absolutely fine to me: in the 90's Rolex had different suppliers for hands and indexes, so you often find different glowing under UV between hands and dial.

I have a 16570 (not corn) and a 16700 from the early 90's and lume looks exactly this way: hands are dead and index have some "sparkling" under UV (the little spots you see in the pics).

You can't compare it with a 1665 lume: it was a different tritium mix (and probably also a different UV lamp the one used).

Imo you should ask for a video in which the UV lamp is also turned off at one point.

P.S.

There is a very nice one 16570 corn at Christie's New York online auction.

[Pilot1985]

I got this photo form a dealer in ch24

The hands might look a bit similar but still some white there but the markers are completely a different story.

[Pilot1985]

Originally Posted by Chris75

It looks absolutely fine to me: in the 90's Rolex had different suppliers for hands and indexes, so you often find different glowing under UV between hands and dial.

I have a 16570 (not corn) and a 16700 from the early 90's and lume looks exactly this way: hands are dead and index have some "sparkling" under UV (the little spots you see in the pics).

You can't compare it with a 1665 lume: it was a different tritium mix (and probably also a different UV lamp the one used).

Imo you should ask for a video in which the UV lamp is also turned off at one point.

P.S.

There is a very nice one 16570 corn at Christie's New York online auction.

Can you post an UV photo of yours for comparison?


I have a video of the original discussion Explorer but I do not know th emethod to upload videos here in the forum.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Pilot1985

I got this photo form a dealer in ch24

On your second example, that's what I'd expect to see on original tritium hour plots under UV. Note how the whiteness on the plots is similar to my much older 1665 above. Sure, the tritium mixtures vary through the years, but the appearance should still be close under UV.

Originally Posted by Chris75

It looks absolutely fine to me: in the 90's Rolex had different suppliers for hands and indexes, so you often find different glowing under UV between hands and dial.

I don't agree with this. There is no "glowing" at all on the OP's first example under UV. It should look closer to the second example. Also in the first daylight photo of the questionable example, look closely at the 12 o'clock marker. Definitely looks doctored, IMHO.

[Chris75]

Originally Posted by Pilot1985

Can you post an UV photo of yours for comparison?


I have a video of the original discussion Explorer but I do not know th emethod to upload videos here in the forum.

Here you can also see as first one has same supplier for hands and dial while second has not.

Difference may also depends on UV light (for example last one isn't under direct and strong light).

[Chris75]

Originally Posted by swish77

Also in the first daylight photo of the questionable example, look closely at the 12 o'clock marker. Definitely looks doctored, IMHO.

Different color spots (especially in the middle of the marker, usually on the 12 or 6) is absolutely normal on corn 16550/16570 or in strong patina 16700/14060: lume often aged unevenly

[swaini3]

Originally Posted by Chris75

Here you can also see as first one has same supplier for hands and dial while second has not.

Difference may also depends on UV light (for example last one isn't under direct and strong light).

There is a notable difference between your 16570 hour markers and OP's ones under UV. Yes, different tritium mixes were used etc. but the whitish / bluish
reaction is there in yours and swish's 1665.

[Mr.Kaplan]

Sorry guy I feel like to intervene since the 16570 is mine and some pics from a private conversation were posted.

The watch reacts under direct UV light exactly as correctly stated by Springer: markers and hands look white.




Probably the pictures that I sent to Pilot85 weren't the best to judge, I am myself very skeptical on "corn" 16570, and I always check them thoroughly, with loupe and UV light.

The pics that Pilot85 posted (of course no problem about that) were taken with a loupe and not under direct UV only to show some subtle and specific features as the difference between markers and hands (almost completely dead) and the “glowing bubbling” effect (the uneven spots) that 90’s lume indexes have (little spots where tritium lume isn’t completely dead, typical of younger than 30 years old tritium).

I am sorry for the late reply but I was just told by a friend that this was the issue and I am not frequently on this forum lately (my bad!).

[Mr.Kaplan]

Here under another and direct UV light (pics from a video).

[Pilot1985]

Originally Posted by Mr.Kaplan

Sorry guy I feel like to intervene since the 16570 is mine and some pics from a private conversation were posted.

The watch reacts under direct UV light exactly as correctly stated by Springer: markers and hands look white.




Probably the pictures that I sent to Alessandro (Pilot85) weren't the best to judge, I am myself very skeptical on "corn" 16570, and I always check them thoroughly, with loupe and UV light.

The pics that Pilot85 posted (of course no problem about that) were taken with a loupe and not under direct UV only to show some subtle and specific features as the difference between markers and hands (almost completely dead) and the “sparkling” effect (the uneven spots) that 90’s lume indexes have (little spots where tritium lume isn’t completely dead, typical of younger than 30 years old tritium).

I am sorry for the late reply but I was just told by a friend that this was the issue and I am not frequently on this forum lately (my bad!).

Im glad that you see no problem in posting the photos.

As they are directed at a watch and I never posted a link of your advertising nor mentioned your name.

For me is purely for knowledge.

As I spoke with you our deal did not went thru because of different motives (mine not yours) but I said I liked the watch a lot.

However I will kindly ask you to delete my name from your post and here in an open forum refer to me with the username only please.

I still think this is an usefull topic to discuss and I will research further on the tritium UV photos on early 90's rolex.

I hope this doesnt become a pointing finger thread ....

[Mr.Kaplan]

Originally Posted by Pilot1985

Im glad that you see no problem in posting the photos.

As they are directed at a watch and I never posted a link of your advertising nor mentioned your name.

For me is purely for knowledge.

As I spoke with you our deal did not went thru because of different motives (mine not yours) but I said I liked the watch a lot.

However I will kindly ask you to delete my name from your post and here in an open forum refer to me with the username only please.

I still think this is an usefull topic to discuss and I will research further on the tritium UV photos on early 90's rolex.

I hope this doesnt become a pointing finger thread ....

No problem, my friend, I am always happy to help.

If I had know that you had some doubts on UV pics I would have sent you better ones (especially if you were going to post those pics from our private conversation): we are all here to learn.

Watch is now on hold, I was told about this thread by the buyer (that is also a friend).

[Pilot1985]

Originally Posted by Mr.Kaplan

No problem, my friend, I am always happy to help.

If I had know that you had some doubts on UV pics I would have sent you better ones (especially if you were going to post those pics from our private conversation): we are all here to learn.

Watch is now on hold, I was told about this thread by the buyer (that is also a friend).

I am happy you have found a buyer, as we spoke I knew it was not going to take long for that to happen!

You took care of posting better photos. I will wait to see what the more knowledgeable members say if they change their opinion or not as I am here to learn more than to criticize.

[Alex The Watch Guy]

I run when I see patina that strong on any neo-vintage Rolex, you are wise in doing your diligence specially with escalating prices. There seems to be a heavy run on strong patinated 16570’s lately, where were these fine specimens a few years ago when prices were subdued?

[Chris75]

Dial looks exactly how I would expect in a 90's Rolex.

Regarding the patina you should always be careful, with four digits matte dial as with five digits glossy neo-vintage: I see more yellow patina matte dial Subs and GMT in Hong Kong than in the rest of the word.

That said, I am the first owner of a beautiful 16600 that my dad bought in 1992 and of a 16520 from 1998 and they both developed a very nice patina, of course in different parts

[Pilot1985]

Originally Posted by Chris75

Dial looks exactly how I would expect in a 90's Rolex.

Regarding the patina you should always be careful, with four digits matte dial as with five digits glossy neo-vintage: I see more yellow patina matte dial Subs and GMT in Hong Kong than in the rest of the word.

That said, I am the first owner of a beautiful 16600 that my dad bought in 1992 and of a 16520 from 1998 and they both developed a very nice patina, of course in different parts

Thanks for sharing the photos before!!

since you keep having more 90's Rolex why dont you share those UV photos as well

[TimeToGo]

Plots and hands look very nicely done!

[Chris75]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris75 View Post
Dial looks exactly how I would expect in a 90's Rolex.

Regarding the patina you should always be careful, with four digits matte dial as with five digits glossy neo-vintage: I see more yellow patina matte dial Subs and GMT in Hong Kong than in the rest of the word.

That said, I am the first owner of a beautiful 16600 that my dad bought in 1992 and of a 16520 from 1998 and they both developed a very nice patina, of course in different parts
Thanks for sharing the photos before!!

since you keep having more 90's Rolex why dont you share those UV photos as well

This is my 1990 5513, same light glowing and sparkling, or uneven bubbling as someone called, effect in the opener one.



I have most of my watches in the safe, but if you are doing some research I can pick them up and send you pics via PM.

It would probably be better to open a new thread about 90's lume at UV if this is the subject.

Imo it also make the difference the type of UV light you use: for example this picture was taken at my watchmaker that has a UV lamp, and the effect is lighter, with my UV torch you have a more vivid effect: you see a more homogeneous and stronger white.

It's also important to see how long indexes and hands glow after being stimulated, not only if they get white, because also early Luminova get white/greenish but keep glowing longer where tritium last only for a few seconds.

[Chris75]

This is a 16550 R serial from 1988, with another UV torch.

Same sparkling on hands but harder to capture the whitey effect on index with this one.

[springer]

.

[swish77]

Forget the UV debate for a moment, this 12 o'clock marker on the OP's first example would make me suspicious just on its own. Doesn't look right, as if lume/patina has been added atop the marker and not filled in properly.

[Alex The Watch Guy]

Many relumed hands / dials these days can be done to pass the ‘UV test’, these UV shots don’t prove / disprove anything to me.

[Mr.Kaplan]

I am sorry guys, I posted UV pics since I was told this was the issue.

Forget the UV debate for a moment, this 12 o'clock marker on the OP's first example would make me suspicious just on its own. Doesn't look right, as if lume/patina has been added atop the marker and not filled in properly.

Probably not my best pictures, but 12 o'clock marker is fine, no lume had been added atop, it's probably an effect of the pictures at the direct sunlight.
The index hasn't a 100% even color (but that's totally normal, usually you find it slightly darker in the center) but surface is totally right and untouched.
It hasn't any suspicious stain and texture is 100% correct-

Of course is always very hard to judge these watches from pictures, but as everyone that had any experience with me know, I meticulously check all my watches with loupe, UV and maximum care.