Speedmaster Mk40 35.20.53 lume difference

Hi,
Longtime lurker, first time posting.

Just wondered if anyone knew why the lume on the hands and the lume on the dial numbers of the Omega Speedmaster MK40 seem to be different on mostly all examples out there for sale that I can see? I read something about mid 90's dial and hands lume aging being different on some models but can't find the article now.

I've been looking for one for some time and maybe just about to buy one but the lume is holding me back as I would prefer to have an all original piece rather than service hands but as I said, pretty much all examples on Chrono24 of this model seem to be the same with the hands lume brighter than the dial.

https://www.chrono24.co.uk/omega/ref-35205300.htm

Appreciate any input from anyone who knows
Cheers

I am here looking for exactly the same information! Signed up here today. I own a Speedmaster Triple Date in silver and I am in negotiations to buy a 1996 Speedmaster Harlequin Mk40. I read somewhere (I thought it was on this forum) that the dials and hands of the Mk40s were not all lumed in-house. From memory, I think the post said something like the dials were produced in-house and the hands were outsourced. Both have Tritium lume, but they are different mixes, hence the colour difference. I don't know if this is true or not, so I wanted to find the original post to start checking provenance from there. It does sound like a plausible explanation. While the Tritium dials look pleasing to me, the hands look like service hands and they are the first thing my eye is drawn to. Not sure if I could live with that. If, on the other hand, the hands will eventually turn to the same, or a similar colour with age, then I think I'd go with one of these, if I could find a nice one.