Forums Latest Members
  1. bgrisso Jan 18, 2019

    Posts
    3,118
    Likes
    6,870
    I got this watch a while back, and just assumed it was a relume, but was looking at it closer today, and not completely sure. Some of the lume left on the numbers is light color, and there is some grain/texture on the hands, I was still leaning towards relume but just less confident.

    What say you?
     
    P1000667.JPG
    GuiltyBoomerang likes this.
  2. Florent Jan 18, 2019

    Posts
    883
    Likes
    2,511
    Would say relumed. Too bright and white for the age...
     
    DirtyDozen12 likes this.
  3. bgrisso Jan 19, 2019

    Posts
    3,118
    Likes
    6,870
    what about comparing to this one, which I'm almost 100% sure is original, and also looks pretty light?
     
    P1010595_adj.jpg
    10H10 and aap like this.
  4. aap Jan 19, 2019

    Posts
    3,062
    Likes
    23,653
    I think the lumes on the second watch are more consistent all throughout (i.e. hands and numbers). In regards to the first, it seems to me that the hands are brighter and newer than the numbers. FWIW, here's mine, which I assume is a similar reference:
    [​IMG]
     
    Tony C. and sdre like this.
  5. sdre Jan 19, 2019

    Posts
    2,460
    Likes
    7,448
    Possible for you to get a UV light and test it?

    I remember reading that if it falls off immediately, it should be according to age of the watch but if its a relumed (it should last longer than 3 seconds)
     
    connieseamaster likes this.
  6. sxl2004 Jan 19, 2019

    Posts
    2,302
    Likes
    5,985
    The patina of hands and dial are inconsistent. The hands might not be relumed, but might be newer and replaced the original ones?
    ::popcorn::
     
  7. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Jan 19, 2019

    Posts
    7,346
    Likes
    24,029
    Not a definitive test, as lume artists can calibrate the decay. But, as you suggest, a long decay would verify a relume (which I believe it to be in the OP's watch).
     
    sdre and aap like this.