Or am I the only one? I would prefer them over regular hands.
I think you belong to a very small club.
No I don't like rusty watches.
Mine are a bit that way on my 1680, not my personal preference but its authentic to the watch so there’s that
That’s fine by me. I’m not really one to follow the herd
That appears to me as being a symptom of developing problems that have the potential to result in major damage to the rest of the watch! I am showing a picture for my 50 year old Rolex Air-King which is original in every way (except for the NOS Rolex 14-karat yellow gold bezel.) Check out the hands. I suggest your watch needs a thorough check over.
It’s not a picture of my watch but one I saw online.
It delights me that it is not your watch. That kind of patina would not delight too many owners, or potential owners! My guess is that there has been droplets of water on the under-side of the crystal, to cause that damage. How much other damage is there, that is not so obvious?
Interesting point. I have a 1966 vintage Longines Jamboree whose sweep second hand has a light and even oxidation, making it darker than the other hands, which are pristine. In fact the rest of the watch and the movement show absolutely no signs of any discolouring/oxidation at all - like new.
I actually like the contrast of the darker second hand, and would not even consider replacing it.
It is only a standard manual dress watch, but I find myself putting in on more frequently than some of my far more expensive watches.
That’s similar to the above pictured 1016 - it’s mainly just the second hand that has oxidized. I really like the look of yours as well.
well that sounds like the biggest nonsense of the day .... always funny to read such bad guesswork
Oh omnipotent one! Look for a terse PM from me!
No, not a fan. I like patinated (read evenly faded to an attractive color and NOT stained or spotted) dials, but rusty, faded, flaking or pitted hands I can do without.
Pm is same quality as your rainforest inside the crystal… please avoid sending my private bs messages in future. I have better things to waste my lifetime
Not my top choice, but I don't mind them if they match the overall condition of the watch.
I don’t mind them as it shows originally. On some models such as 16750’s, it’s quite common occurrence to find oxidation / rust on hands. Personally, when I see perfect hands on that reference it deserves a closer inspection.
Here is my ‘84 16750, I wouldn’t swap them if you gave me a new set, they look great as they are.
Regarding the OP's hands I find them attractive.
I have a similar Submariner , its hard to capture the sparkles on the hands without degrading the rest of the photo.
I consider it fortunate that the degradation is so even.
Here's my best efforts to show the oxidation on the hands at the expense of the picture as a whole.
You can see the gloss lacquer missing on the minute track. This watch came from a very humid environment (SE Asia) but has not degraded since I have had it in non humid Perth WA.
A service set of hands often look out of place on an vintage watch, so unles they are downright ugly keep the originals.
A nice example you have there. Yes, I have seen quite a few of these rusty second hands especially in 16800's from the same time period. I agree completely with your sentiments!
I don’t mind them on vintage watches and usually the environment that can cause the watch to patina, may go hand in hand with oxidized hands. It’s quite common to see in older, heavy patina submariners.
I am afraid that I don't like corroded hands. One of the good things about radioactive-free lume is that there seems to be a reduction in the formation of corrosion on hands.
Just a random thought: if it were possible to polish the hands without affecting the lume, would people consider that a potential option?
Separate names with a comma.