nitediver
·We are all aware that one of the most important questions on a vintage watches is whether the dial is original or not.
I am aware that there are many factors to consider when inspecting vintage dials, and reaction to UV light is only one of them. Still, in the following I will focus on reaction of tritium dials to UV light. I have only few watches with radium dials, set lets set them aside for this post.
I have been doing some reading on this topics on various forums, but i still struggle to make real sense out of it so I am looking for your opinion and advice.
I studied some of my own watches and dials for comparison. I have some 30 plus vintage watches and almost all my vintage watches of various brands and periods glow when activated with UV light, and after a few seconds the glow fades. Some watches do not really glow, but rather reflect, similar to a reflective tape you will find on clothing or a bicycle helmet.
However, some dials do neither glow nor reflect the light, and this is what puzzles me.
To research the topic, i inspected some of my own watches and spare dials which do not show the typical glow under UV light. I looked at the following examples:
1) Rolex GMT Master 16700 from 1989
2) Rolex GMT Master spare tritium dial
3) Rolex 16570 black spare dial
4) Rolex 16570 white dial spare dial
5) Zodiac Sea Wolf
6) Glycine Airman SST 1970’s
7) Freese Series 1 – as comparison of what can be done with modern reluming.
I sourced the spare dial No. 2, 3 and 4 from a reputable seller in good standing on VRF, so I have every reason to believe they are legit. I purchased them with the intention to fit it to a 1990s Explorer II Ref. 16570 , as many of those have service dial. But for various reasons, I haven’t pulled the trigger on a Explorer II, so as of now I only have the dials.
I focus on the lume dots / triangles rather than on the hands in my comparison. Here are my observations: (pictures are in sequence)
1) Rolex GMT Master 16700 from 1989
In natural light, the lume dots show light beige patina. Under UV light, the lume does not glow, nor reflect the light. You could probably say that the tritium gleams, but I find it not very obvious.
That’s at least what I see, maybe you have another impression.
2) Rolex GMT Master spare tritium dial
In natural light, the lume dots and triangle shows a shiny custard patina. Under UV light, the lume does not glow, nor reflect the light. Essentially the same as sample No 1.
3) Rolex 16570 black spare dial
In natural light, the lume dots and triangle shows as shiny, almost orange patina. Under UV light, the lume shows pretty much the same results as example 1 and 2.
4) Rolex 16570 white dial spare dial
In natural light, the lume dots and triangle shows as a light beige, matt patina. Under UV light, I observed a slightly different reaction as the inner parts of the lume dots/triangle see to reflect the light.
5) Zodiac Sea Wolf
I chose the Zodiac Sea Wolf for comparison since it is one of my vintage watches which do not glow or reflect under UV light. The lume triangles show heavy patina under natural light, but as I mentioned I didn’t notice any reflection or glow. (The lume triangle on bezel however glows quite strong)
6) Glycine Airman SST 1970’s
Finally there is this interesting case of a 1970s Glycine Airman SST. Upon close inspection of the hands, the minute and second hand seem to be an old relume job, while the hour hand appears to be the original, albeit cracked lume. But none of the hands reflects or glow under UV light. The lume markers do slightly glow however. It could of course be that for the reluming of the minute and seconds, a nonglowing sort of paint was used.
7) Freese Series 1
The lume has a nice patina but looks quite different from the other dials in daylight when inspected by loupe. When activated with UV light, the lume glows lightly.
Inspection under UV light is one of my standard inspection methods for vintage watches. But with the different behaviour of the dials inspected I am not sure how to make sense of it.
So what is your interpretation of the observations above? Or did I miss an important aspect?
I am looking forward to learning about your take on this subject.
Best,
Stefan
I am aware that there are many factors to consider when inspecting vintage dials, and reaction to UV light is only one of them. Still, in the following I will focus on reaction of tritium dials to UV light. I have only few watches with radium dials, set lets set them aside for this post.
I have been doing some reading on this topics on various forums, but i still struggle to make real sense out of it so I am looking for your opinion and advice.
I studied some of my own watches and dials for comparison. I have some 30 plus vintage watches and almost all my vintage watches of various brands and periods glow when activated with UV light, and after a few seconds the glow fades. Some watches do not really glow, but rather reflect, similar to a reflective tape you will find on clothing or a bicycle helmet.
However, some dials do neither glow nor reflect the light, and this is what puzzles me.
To research the topic, i inspected some of my own watches and spare dials which do not show the typical glow under UV light. I looked at the following examples:
1) Rolex GMT Master 16700 from 1989
2) Rolex GMT Master spare tritium dial
3) Rolex 16570 black spare dial
4) Rolex 16570 white dial spare dial
5) Zodiac Sea Wolf
6) Glycine Airman SST 1970’s
7) Freese Series 1 – as comparison of what can be done with modern reluming.
I sourced the spare dial No. 2, 3 and 4 from a reputable seller in good standing on VRF, so I have every reason to believe they are legit. I purchased them with the intention to fit it to a 1990s Explorer II Ref. 16570 , as many of those have service dial. But for various reasons, I haven’t pulled the trigger on a Explorer II, so as of now I only have the dials.
I focus on the lume dots / triangles rather than on the hands in my comparison. Here are my observations: (pictures are in sequence)
1) Rolex GMT Master 16700 from 1989
In natural light, the lume dots show light beige patina. Under UV light, the lume does not glow, nor reflect the light. You could probably say that the tritium gleams, but I find it not very obvious.
That’s at least what I see, maybe you have another impression.
2) Rolex GMT Master spare tritium dial
In natural light, the lume dots and triangle shows a shiny custard patina. Under UV light, the lume does not glow, nor reflect the light. Essentially the same as sample No 1.
3) Rolex 16570 black spare dial
In natural light, the lume dots and triangle shows as shiny, almost orange patina. Under UV light, the lume shows pretty much the same results as example 1 and 2.
4) Rolex 16570 white dial spare dial
In natural light, the lume dots and triangle shows as a light beige, matt patina. Under UV light, I observed a slightly different reaction as the inner parts of the lume dots/triangle see to reflect the light.
5) Zodiac Sea Wolf
I chose the Zodiac Sea Wolf for comparison since it is one of my vintage watches which do not glow or reflect under UV light. The lume triangles show heavy patina under natural light, but as I mentioned I didn’t notice any reflection or glow. (The lume triangle on bezel however glows quite strong)
6) Glycine Airman SST 1970’s
Finally there is this interesting case of a 1970s Glycine Airman SST. Upon close inspection of the hands, the minute and second hand seem to be an old relume job, while the hour hand appears to be the original, albeit cracked lume. But none of the hands reflects or glow under UV light. The lume markers do slightly glow however. It could of course be that for the reluming of the minute and seconds, a nonglowing sort of paint was used.
7) Freese Series 1
The lume has a nice patina but looks quite different from the other dials in daylight when inspected by loupe. When activated with UV light, the lume glows lightly.
Inspection under UV light is one of my standard inspection methods for vintage watches. But with the different behaviour of the dials inspected I am not sure how to make sense of it.
So what is your interpretation of the observations above? Or did I miss an important aspect?
I am looking forward to learning about your take on this subject.
Best,
Stefan