Just me or is the lume on Rolex watches Subpar

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by CashGap

...C'mon, they could fix this...

It is my understanding that most companies are using the same material - Luminova/Superluminova - and it's effectiveness depends largely on surface area and the amount of paint. This was not a problem with tritium. Therefore, Rolex could fix it, but probably only by changing the style of the hands and hour markers. The maxi-dial was probably a step towards this but I suspect wholesale changes would create a much bigger uproar, especially if these changes were made to the long running professional models like the Sub, GMT, etc.

[illusionest]

among the watches that I own, the newer Rolexes do glow brighter than the older ones. But BY FAR the Pelagos is THE brightest.

Heck, I bought two, here they are side-by-side, "luming".



The Explorer 2 lume is quite nice as well (this photo wasnt taken in as dark of a setting)

[Syed117]

I really don't like the "it's a rolex so it gets a pass" mentality.

Each time an aspect of Rolex watches that could be improved gets brought up, we always have a few people that say they don't care. Glad to see so many people in this thread acknowledging that rolex lume is poor.

Yes, it's not the end of the world and doesn't really affect the user too much, but that's not the point. The point is that if you truly believe rolex is the best and aren't just a victim of marketing, then you should always push for improvements. These things would never stop me from buying a rolex that I really liked, but making things better is never a bad thing.

The lume could definitely be improved. They make legendary dive watches and use mediocre lume. Even if they are just jewelry at this point, it's laughable. There is just no excuse for watches costing half as much or even a $200 seiko to have better lume. How about we get some AR coating on the underside of the crystal while we are at it.

[phranxinatra]

One of my biggest concern before I bought my SubC was the lume, especially because I owned POs and I'm a lumeatic. And to my pleasent surprise, the lume is much better than I expected. I can easily read the time when I wake up in dawn. It's not as bright as on the PO big size, but the difference is negligible.

[Lightforce1911]

the lume is great for a minute. Then it fades, thats the only downfall.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by bobabreath

I do wish Rolex lume could be better. But when you wear a tritium Rolex for a while and switch to the Luminova ones, you realize the lume is adequate. The latest Chromalight is another improvement in the right direction, but still nothing that will sear your retinas at night.

Agreed.

I still have an Omega Railmaster and a Seiko diver(both Luminova) that I have compared my black DSSD with at different times during the night having them all lined up next to the bed.
I have found the DSSD to be comparable to the other two in the initial stages of the night(1st half hour), and it has the edge over the others later in the night with a distinct advantage in the morning.
So I suppose my experience is very different to others here

In summary I find the lume on the DSSD to be quite adequate, but would like it to be a little better overall.
Out of curiosity, I have also checked the lume on my D-Blue and found it to be exactly the same as the black DSSD.
I must have acquired the only two good ones made

[subking86]

The lume on my Submariner lasts about 15 minutes before dimming. I can still read it throughout the night but towards the end of the night, I have look a little closer. My Breitling is bright all night.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Syed117

I really don't like the "it's a rolex so it gets a pass" mentality.

Each time an aspect of Rolex watches that could be improved gets brought up, we always have a few people that say they don't care. Glad to see so many people in this thread acknowledging that rolex lume is poor.

Yes, it's not the end of the world and doesn't really affect the user too much, but that's not the point. The point is that if you truly believe rolex is the best and aren't just a victim of marketing, then you should always push for improvements. These things would never stop me from buying a rolex that I really liked, but making things better is never a bad thing...

I'm sort of on the fence. While fully admitting it's not the best lume out there, I really don't care. I've never checked out the lume prior to buying a Rolex, ever. Similarly, I don't prefer either green over blue or vice versa. In fact, on the contrary, I'm not sure I'd like my nice watch to light up like a Vegas sign in all low light situations. If I'm out having a steak dinner with a client (or a lady) in a dimly lit restaurant, suit and tie with a Rolex on my wrist, I don't really want my watch screaming "LOOSEST SLOTS IN TOWN!!" to the entire room. I'm not directing traffic, after all.

I guess I'm somewhat ambivalent about it, but I'm not giving them a pass. If glow in the dark is a high priority, there are better options.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

It is my understanding that most companies are using the same material - Luminova/Superluminova - and it's effectiveness depends largely on surface area and the amount of paint. This was not a problem with tritium. Therefore, Rolex could fix it, but probably only by changing the style of the hands and hour markers. The maxi-dial was probably a step towards this but I suspect wholesale changes would create a much bigger uproar, especially if these changes were made to the long running professional models like the Sub, GMT, etc.

I also think it's dependent upon the sheer volume of lume and not just the surface area.
If i'm correct, I suppose in theory it's possible to get some improvement in the overall performance of the lume if Rolex so desire.

Prior to the purchase of my DSSD, I have had a good number of Rolex watch models and found the performance of the lume varied between the same model watches of the same vintage, and obviously between the different models.
The overall impression I had, was that there was a slight improvement from Luminova to Super Luminova and on to Chromalight.
All the watches labeled as having Tritium were just about dead or completely dead for all intents and purposes with one exception which must have been made during the transition period to Luminova where it was labeled as Tritium but was clearly one of the better examples of Luminova.

With regard to the Maxi dial format, I had one of the later Super luminova variants in the original Kermit and it was utterly disappointing on every level

[withthesword]

I think while surface area helps to increase the brightness, the depth of the lume is what really helps it last. I dig the white gold plots, but I guess it limits the amount of lume they can pile in there?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by ref1655

from an applications standpoint, the only activity where dimming luminova might become a real issue is for those who actually use an explorer 2 for cave exploration...which is probably few at best.

can you imagine having to recharge your dial every so often with a flashlight while deep underground? this makes a strong case for using Indiglo.

I real terms, I should imagine one would have a constant light source whilst underground anyway.

Unless one is actually a bat of some description or using night vision goggles or something

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by withthesword

I think while surface area helps to increase the brightness, the depth of the lume is what really helps it last. I dig the white gold plots, but I guess it limits the amount of lume they can pile in there?

Maybe that's why Rolex are equipping the lume plots with little nipples to slightly increase the volume.

And no ice needed

[mfer]

Originally Posted by withthesword

I think while surface area helps to increase the brightness, the depth of the lume is what really helps it last. I dig the white gold plots, but I guess it limits the amount of lume they can pile in there?

You are correct, it is all about surface area and volume. Panerai have a very thick and very large surface area. Rolex lume is not inferior, just not as much as some other watches.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by mfer

You are correct, it is all about surface area and volume. Panerai have a very thick and very large surface area. Rolex lume is not inferior, just not as much as some other watches.

That's it.
And there's obviously nothing wrong with it as far as Rolex are concerned so there's nothing to fix.

[ref1655]

one possible remedy/solution for the luminova disenchanted...

petition Rolex to bring back tritium & have the dial/hands re-touched or replaced during periodic RSC servicing intervals. with a half-life of roughly 12.5 years, 1-2 servicings during that timeframe should do the trick. tritium glows both in the dark as well as the light so all bases are covered.

they might also consider excusing themselves from the vintage Rolex (mid 60s to early 90s?) market as many tritium dials/hands no longer glow in the dark & it will only lead to further disappointment.

for the 'glow in the dark' crowd interested in vintage Rolexes, perhaps it's best to stick with something earlier...like a 1930s-early 60s era radium dialed model. with a half-life of over 1600 years, the illumination will at least be partially assured.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by ref1655

...for the 'glow in the dark' crowd interested in vintage Rolexes, perhaps it's best to stick with something earlier...like a 1930s-early 60s era radium dialed model. with a half-life of over 1600 years, the illumination will at least be partially assured.

Well, the vintage crowd has already discounted the dead on arrival tritium. It seems most of the vintage guys don't particularly care that it doesn't glow as much as that it has proper patina, meaning a nice even discoloration and not a lot of missing or chipped material. Keep in mind those into vintage like exactly that. Tritium is supposed to degrade so that's kind of what they want to see. Anything that has been reapplied at service is no longer original.