ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
18 May 2015, 03:43 AM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: CA
Watch: 16610LV
Posts: 122
|
Test for >2003 904L Steel ?
In as much as 904L steel has been in use since about 2003, is there a way to distinguish this material from fraudulent substitutes?
weight, chemical test, hardness, etc? |
18 May 2015, 10:28 PM | #2 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Margate
Watch: your back
Posts: 324
|
Yes
You can get xrf analysis done and it will tell you exactly the amount of nickel and chromium to establish what grade of stainless you are testing
|
18 May 2015, 10:48 PM | #3 |
"TRF" Life Patron
Join Date: Jun 2005
Real Name: Peter
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng
Watch: ing you.
Posts: 52,267
|
It was round late 1987 early 1988 that Rolex started to use 904L for the watch cases, but whether 316L or 904L will make little to no difference if 904L was so wonderful dont you think all the major brands would use it.Its more purely marketing and at one time Rolex was the only one that used it, but now that brag has gone as a few more watch manufactures use it now like Xoskeleton nothing magical with 904L .SS like 904L was developed for plants using high acid liquids things like vinegar in pickling plants,or high saline pipes and storage. Sure 904L is a little more corrosion resistant but if you don't have your watch in salt water or acid 24/7 then 904L has little real advantage especially in todays mainly pampered watches.So keep them clean this with normal regular service then this corrosion or the so called case pitting in the vintage type watch should not happen.The main and only difference between 316L over 904L it has slightly more Molybdenum(Mo)approx 2% more, approx 1-2% more Crome(Cr) 1% copper(Cu) and approx 10% more nickel and that's it.Its no harder than 316L and if fact 904L will scratch and show scratches more easily than the watch industry norm 316L.
__________________
ICom Pro3 All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only. "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever." Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again. www.mc0yad.club Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder |
19 May 2015, 10:29 PM | #4 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Calumet Harbor
Watch: ing da Bears
Posts: 13,568
|
Last I looked 904L is more expensive than 316L. I can see why a competitor wouldn't feel a need to go with pricier 904L for not much better corrosion resistance in this application.
Now if t were Hastelloy, that would be something to write home about :) |
19 May 2015, 11:55 PM | #5 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Very Far Away
Posts: 579
|
Marketing my ass. You have to dig around in Rolexland to even discover they use 904L, and I'll wager 80% of Rolex owners don't even know about it. It's actually quite simple: Rolex watches are known for lasting for generations. Nobody knows the watch better than the company itself, and with the millions of watches they've serviced over the years they know what's likely to deteriorate over time, especially if the watch is regularly exposed to salt water and chlorine in swimming pools. 904L is more resistant to corrosion and pitting, so they decided to use it. Rolex watches, despite all the dinks on this forum that buy dive watches and don't dive with them and freak if a scratch appears, are designed to be worn in the real world and exposed to the elements and other things that tend to age watches. Why do you think they polish up like new after decades of use, and have such outstanding resale value compared with just about everybody else? It's the same reason why they use white gold on indeces and hands-it's more expensive, but it lasts longer. If it's just marketing, they'd use a co-axial escapement but they discovered it doesn't offer any real advantages at all. 904L is superior in this application compared with 316L, so they use it.
|
20 May 2015, 01:16 AM | #6 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Calumet Harbor
Watch: ing da Bears
Posts: 13,568
|
Rolex markets 904L. They display it in all their spec's and have a video on YouTube.
The type of pitting resistance you get from 904L versus 316L makes a difference in a chemical plant using sulfuric acid, but not so much on your wrist. But, 904L is known to polish better and is easy to weld with standard techniques. It may be a superior material for Rolex production and QC standards that keeps 904L in the range. |
20 May 2015, 02:05 AM | #7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Margate
Watch: your back
Posts: 324
|
904L has more nickel than average other stainless
And is therefore more expensive. It is not as corrosive resistant as it is hyped upto be.
for example it is prone to pitting with moist iodine at 20 degrees Celsius if in contact with urine, Indian Ink, Lugol's solution, bromide salts which are used in spa baths and other halides and free iron containing solutions, it is prone to pitting. You could be surprised as to how readily such chemicals are present in our sorroundings. Rolex watches and other stainless steel timepieces from other brands are vulnerable to pitting and corrosion in their Achilles heel which is where the case back meets the mid case. Regardless of the grade used, it is always wise to rinse your timepiece in clean running water to avoid osmosis of such nasty salts creeping between the case and case back. The worst part of all this is that when pitting and corrosion starts, it is then impossible to stop like rust on your car unless you cut it out References: outokumpu corrosion handbook, Avesta Sheffield corrision tables 1984 |
20 May 2015, 12:33 PM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 6,527
|
Good stuff!
|
20 May 2015, 12:56 PM | #9 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 36,807
|
Quote:
Was Rollieverde's "marketing my ass' comment necessary? Any feature that may give a product an 'edge' over the opposition whether real or perceived is 'marketing' and Rolex certainly mention this 904L steel in their specification. Could be he is the DINK? I am surprised that Rolex chose to use 904L given that nickel allergies are not uncommon.
__________________
E |
|
20 May 2015, 11:53 PM | #10 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Margate
Watch: your back
Posts: 324
|
Quote:
|
|
21 May 2015, 12:18 AM | #11 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Real Name: Syed
Location: The Ether
Posts: 3,388
|
Quote:
I'm sure 904L is great but does it really make an difference in practical real world applications? Probably not. PADI said they've been using it for almost 30 years at this point. So have the cases of the past 30 years held up significantly better than cases from other manufacturers that doesn't use 904L? Doesn't really seem that way. Anyway, always great to learn a little more. Thanks for the information guys.
__________________
Rolex Datejust 41 126334 | Omega Speedmaster Professional Hesalite | Cartier Santos Large | Tudor Black Bay 58 |
|
21 May 2015, 04:26 AM | #12 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: CA
Watch: 16610LV
Posts: 122
|
Is there an opportunity to test the steel as a validation of authenticity where the material should be 904L?
|
21 May 2015, 04:28 AM | #13 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Very Far Away
Posts: 579
|
Quote:
There is a world of difference between marketing and materials science, and 316 is fine for most watch wearers who never venture outside and take excellent care of their timepieces. But for those who actually spend extend ed time submerged in salt water or in chlorine pools, and want a stainless alloy that polishes up brilliantly over time thus keeping the watch looking like new for decades, I argue that 904L is a better metal and that's why Rolex uses it. The notion that it's just for marketing purposes is pretty silly considering the expense involved, and the fact that I believe most Rolex owners have no clue what kind of stainless it is-it just looks good. Yes, it says 904L in the specs and there's a video about it, but it's not a commercial Rolex plays anywhere. Yes, it's part of the marketing of the watch but because it supports the claim of durability, which I think time has proven isn't hype. AZOM.com states that 316 alloy is "A lower cost alternative (to 904L), but with much lower corrosion resistance." It is also important to remember that not all 904L steel has the same elemental composition; it varies depending on the blend which can vary within certain values. The 904L used in Rolex watch cases is not the same as that used in chemical plant plumbing, for example. So believe what you want. Use all the industrial on-line references you want to prove a point, I just did above. It's a fun game to play. But If you think it's all BS, then buy a watch with 316 steel so you won't feel duped. But don't accuse the company of just blowing smoke up people's arses when it's clear by the quality and durability of the products that the engineers and metallurgists Rolex has employed for decades weren't hired for their marketing skills. Now, if you will excuse me, my Kool Aid should be sufficiently chilled by now. |
|
21 May 2015, 12:02 PM | #14 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Calumet Harbor
Watch: ing da Bears
Posts: 13,568
|
316L works great in sea water. I have a ton of dive equipment that has hundreds of hours immersed in the ocean, has been mixed with sand in the surf, and with no evidence of corrosion or pitting. Choosing 904L over 316L for a wristwatch probably didn't have that much to do with corrosion resistance, as can be evidenced by the lack of corrosion in the pre-904L vintage Rolex's as well as other brands.
It is a good alloy no doubt, costs a bit more than 316L, and polishes up very nicely. But it's a reach to say that it offers a such vastly superior performance over 316L that one should prefer a watch made from it. If it were a grade of Hastelloy, I might buy that argument for a short minute, but not for 904L. It is different, and Rolex does promote it as a supersteel alternative to those mundane manufacturers of the lowly 316L watches sold to the common man. But it's not unobtainium, as Rolex would lead people to believe. How was the Kool-Aid? |
21 May 2015, 12:13 PM | #15 | |
TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron
Join Date: May 2007
Real Name: Larry
Location: Mojave Desert
Watch: GMT's
Posts: 43,049
|
Quote:
Caseback pitting caused by the corrosive acids from the human body were commonplace at the case back/case gasket junction and a cause to toss those cases because they wouldn't pass a pressure test. After switching to 904 steel it is uncommon to hear about a badly corroded caseback at the gasket/case junction..
__________________
(Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member |
|
21 May 2015, 11:58 PM | #16 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Very Far Away
Posts: 579
|
Quote:
"904L stainless steel is commonly used in high-technology and in the aerospace and chemical industries. Its excellent anti-corrosion properties are comparable to those of precious metals. Rolex masters in-house the entire manufacturing process for its 904L steel watch components." Where does it say super steel alternative? Vastly superior performance? Mundane manufacturers of the lowly 316L watches sold to the common man? Rolex certainly doesn't use such superlatives, and doesn't imply that 316L is utter crap and neither do I. I said 904L was better because it is more corrosion resistant, and it is. As for dive equipment, in 35 years of diving I've seen plenty of rust with older knives, K-valves, all kinds of equipment that was not adequately cared for and even some that was. The kind of metals used are very different that the 316 used in watches, and more and more plastics and composites are used, especially in regulators, and have been for the last couple of decades. Can your watch survive if made of 316 instead of 904? Of course. Is 904 more resistant to the kind of corrosion watches (and dive watches in particular) are exposed to? Yes. That's all there is to it. And as anybody who's dealt a lot with vintage watches can attest, some older watches have absolutely had corrosion issues. It all depends on the care the watch receives, and even more so the environment the watch has spent most of its time in. Watches, cars, toasters, you name it do better in dryer, more arid environments which is why they mothball aircraft in the desert. The story goes the Rolex Oyster was initially created not to primarily keep out water when submerged, but to deal the moisture in the humid climes of India where at the time they were selling a lots watches and seeing a lot of internal corrosion. Rust is the watchmaker's arch enemy. This is why you want the best materials available, while still delivering the look you're after. The Kool Aid was tart, yet refreshing. And thanks for asking. |
|
25 May 2015, 04:20 AM | #17 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 414
|
Quote:
|
|
25 May 2015, 05:07 AM | #18 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Real Name: Jim
Location: Connecticut
Watch: this! Hold my beer
Posts: 2,813
|
904 for a watch is hype.
I have seen inconel 718 dissolved in cold seawater. And that makes 904 look like cast iron. The big issue is crevice corrosion around the bracelet and links (Moreso with solid end links- was this really an improvement?) and under the case back. Rinse your watch after sea water exposure regardless of what it is made of. |
25 May 2015, 05:20 AM | #19 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Real Name: Jim
Location: Connecticut
Watch: this! Hold my beer
Posts: 2,813
|
Quote:
It has to polish up well (for Rolex) so that severely limits the high end alloys. The alloy Sinn uses is arguably better suited to the task. It doesn't polish up very well however... |
|
25 May 2015, 11:47 PM | #20 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Margate
Watch: your back
Posts: 324
|
Quote:
However, most rolex models are satin or Matt in appearance anyway, so polishing would not really be a big issue. Regarding the machining of micro details, tungsten carbide tools are used for the machining of duplex. The basic duplex lines contain approximately 22% chromium and some 5% Nickel in addition to molybdenum and some rhodium. Anti corrosion properties are far better because of this and it is also cheaper!!!One of the greatest advantages is that most subsets of Duplex and some of the newer generation Duplex have far anti galling properties than the austenetic stainless steel range. I cannot wear 904L as the Nickel content is way too high for my allergy to Nickel. A far better option a would have been 6Mo!!! Bottom line is that stainless steel regardless of grade is just steel and will rust like all Iron blends when exposed to the right oxidants and there are many in our environment!!! |
|
26 May 2015, 05:31 AM | #21 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: middle east
Watch: Patek, IWC , Rolex
Posts: 104
|
To answer the original question you might be able to use a Positive Materials Identification tool such as this :
http://gammaxuk.co.uk/alloy-verification.asp |
26 May 2015, 02:47 PM | #22 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Margate
Watch: your back
Posts: 324
|
Quote:
ammaxuk.co.uk use an xrf analyser to verify whatever metal alloy of interest |
|
29 May 2015, 08:05 AM | #23 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Real Name: Mitch
Location: CONUS
Watch: DSSD and others
Posts: 1,186
|
|
23 November 2018, 04:04 PM | #24 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Australia
Posts: 809
|
Quote:
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.