Restore vs keep original, To whom it may concern

[JasonM]

It's not, it's tritium. Sometimes tritium gets puffy. But you can't fake tritium, just leave it uncharged and check if it still glows very faint after 24hrs in a box.

Really interesting you say that, I have a 6306 with aged dark brown like that I've always suspected is tritium, you don't often see it in vintage Seiko divers but when I have seen it it's usually in 6306s, I've brought it up a couple of times on the SCWF but no one really commented or got into the discussion as to weather it was indeed tritium and when Seiko changed to their own lume compound, it must have been around when they introduced the 6309 diver?

[Bodo]

If it says T on the dial Jason it will stand for Tritium, the 704 L stands for Lumibrite. The 8000T and 8009T dials on the 6105 are also I believe Tritium. The promethium 147 was used in the late 80s early 90s I believe, on dials like the 7002 and possibly the 6309 slim case version. These don't however have a P symbol like the 7T27 (RAF Gen 1) which I've thought as strange.

And they do go puffy, but normally you can see the texture of the original lume is like a weave pattern, the one on yonsson's is most likely original, but after I commented and looked again I have to say I wonder about the application of the plots being slightly uneven and less powdered looking, but more rounded, with edges that are to me a sign of a hand applied lume. I may well be wrong. But, as was mentioned, it's very difficult to be sure. And I don't doubt that any relume done well enough right now that in 20 years or more will be hard to know for sure.

[yonsson]

Really interesting you say that, I have a 6306 with aged dark brown like that I've always suspected is tritium, you don't often see it in vintage Seiko divers but when I have seen it it's usually in 6306s, I've brought it up a couple of times on the SCWF but no one really commented or got into the discussion as to weather it was indeed tritium and when Seiko changed to their own lume compound, it must have been around when they introduced the 6309 diver?

SEIKO started using lumibrite 1996, they were the first manufacturer to use non radioactive lume.
Before that, it was mostly tritium, there are also a few P-dial models.

- - - Updated - - -

It was the hands...

Looks perfect! A very very nice 6306!

[Bodo]

Well in that case I don't know what the L stands for. Just talking about this with someone else it seems as though Seiko didn't ever use tritium, so I may be wrong on what the lume that was used actually was! I thought the T stood for Tritium but the L must be for the promethium if it isn't for Lumibrite....

Anyway, it's just lume....:)

[yonsson]

If it says T on the dial Jason it will stand for Tritium, the 704 L stands for Lumibrite. The 8000T and 8009T dials on the 6105 are also I believe Tritium. The promethium 147 was used in the late 80s early 90s I believe, on dials like the 7002 and possibly the 6309 slim case version. These don't however have a P symbol like the 7T27 (RAF Gen 1) which I've thought as strange.

And they do go puffy, but normally you can see the texture of the original lume is like a weave pattern, the one on yonsson's is most likely original, but after I commented and looked again I have to say I wonder about the application of the plots being slightly uneven and less powdered looking, but more rounded, with edges that are to me a sign of a hand applied lume. I may well be wrong. But, as was mentioned, it's very difficult to be sure. And I don't doubt that any relume done well enough right now that in 20 years or more will be hard to know for sure.

The good thing about tritium is it acts like tritium, there is no faking it. It's still possible to see the glimmer from the phosphate as well as the continuous glow when not "charged". I have had old tunas with tritium which were very puffy, they also had some inconsistencies. SEIKO has a lot of dial variations so they don't look all alike.

[JasonM]

I'm surprised that 70s / 80s 6309s would be tritium, not many age in the characteristic brown way as other manufacturers of the era.

[yonsson]

Well in that case I don't know what the L stands for. Just talking about this with someone else it seems as though Seiko didn't ever use tritium, so I may be wrong on what the lume that was used actually was! I thought the T stood for Tritium but the L must be for the promethium if it isn't for Lumibrite....

Anyway, it's just lume....:)

??? You said it right.
1965-1996 , T= tritium
1996/1997- 2015 L= Lumibrite
2015.... Mostly Lumibrite, some improved lumibrite
P (80s/90s, some models): promethium.

[Bodo]

Yeh but then the 704 L on the 6309 is what's throwing me..ignore me... I need sleep. 704L T of course...

[yonsson]

I'm surprised that 70s / 80s 6309s would be tritium, not many age in the characteristic brown way as other manufacturers of the era.

Depends on the mixture, SEIKOs from the 60s/70s can still have close to white lume and still have the original lume, very strange but true.

[yonsson]

Yeh but then the 704 L on the 6309 is what's throwing me..

It's just a dial code, some other models have R, the SBGX117 has a T, ponder on that. ;)

[JasonM]

Indeed, I've got a 6309 that the lume has gone a really nice grey colour.

[Bodo]

Depends on the mixture, SEIKOs from the 60s/70s can still have close to white lume and still have the original lume, very strange but true.

Do you have a source or evidence of a test that concludes that the 6105 or say the 6306 uses tritium? As the dial codes don't denote anything, and the exciter used to provide glow on these watches is dead, like the 6105 I own has zero glow when left in its box, I'm finding it hard to now believe Seiko did indeed use tritium on these watches, there is evidence promethium was used and that dies a lot quicker, but to say the charge is there when left out of light I'm finding hard to believe. I still have to say I think the 6306 you showed is a relume, no expert, but would you be able to take a macro shot of the 6 o'clock marker, please? Genuinely curious to see.

[Dynam0humm]

A year ago I sold this beautiful 6306 to a friend of mine but today I bought it back. It's the only watch I've bought back, ever.
Mom very glad this one never went through a restoration. ;)

Looks like it was already relumed.

Check out the rh side of the 6 marker and the top lh 12 marker where the relumer got the shakes and then the circular markers where the lume isn't circular. You just don't see that on a factory printed Seiko dial. Then there's the texture as others have already mentioned; Seiko 6306/9 lume is perfectly flat and has a weave sort of finish as if it was pressed on with a fine cloth. This dial has all the hallmarks of applied lume where the indices are domed and have a smooth finish.

Definitely a relume.

[Bodo]

Also, this has been shown to me, so that should put the use of tritium to bed. :)
http://www.thewatchsite.com/29-tokun...nts-seiko.html

[Bodo]

Check out the rh side of the 6 marker and the top lh 12 marker where the relumer got the shakes and then the circular markers where the lume isn't circular. You just don't see that on a factory printed Seiko dial. Then there's the texture as others have already mentioned; Seiko 6306/9 lume is perfectly flat and has a weave sort of finish as if it was pressed on with a fine cloth. This dial has all the hallmarks of applied lume where the indices are domed and have a smooth finish.

Definitely a relume.

I'd have to agree Dave.

[yonsson]

I'd have to agree Dave.

You are swaying all over the playfield, arena you. :D

Ill check the afterglow emission again and get back to you.

[Bodo]

You are swaying all over the playfield, arena you. :D

How so?

Just to be clear, I was wrong about the dial code denoting T and L, but then I had been told quite a while ago that promethium was used and should have remembered. It's also pretty insignificant in my view. However I now know the facts. Something I'll learn from.

However, I called your watch out as a relume straight away, a watch you said you were glad to have back and that it was the only watch you ever bought back ever, and that you were pleased it hadn't been 'restored'.

All this on a thread created by you extolling the virtues of collectors who only want original lume and how everyone else is ruining their watches if they restore them.

Pretty ironic if you ask me, and I have to say pretty hilarious. So I would ask you not to make me out to be the one 'all over the playfield' on a thread that you created that turns out to have massively proved you wrong on every count.

No offence, but don't make me out to be the idiot, please.

[jringo8769]

Well it sounds like the op likes to hear the sound of their own voice and seems to not even know what a relume looks like ....and states they speak for the Seiko community....just cause you can find info online...does not mean u know everything and all of us know nothing....we are not idiots....we love watches just like all who have read and added to this thread....and to insult us with your so called knowledge....you made yourself look rather foolish and closed minded....maybe this will be a good learning lesson for us all....God Bless,John
With all the issues in the world...imagine how much better we can make it versus conversations about virtuous seiko expert who speaks for us all

Sent from my LGL41C using Tapatalk

[yonsson]

How so?

Just to be clear, I was wrong about the dial code denoting T and L, but then I had been told quite a while ago that promethium was used and should have remembered. It's also pretty insignificant in my view. However I now know the facts. Something I'll learn from.

However, I called your watch out as a relume straight away, a watch you said you were glad to have back and that it was the only watch you ever bought back ever, and that you were pleased it hadn't been 'restored'.

All this on a thread created by you extolling the virtues of collectors who only want original lume and how everyone else is ruining their watches if they restore them.

Pretty ironic if you ask me, and I have to say pretty hilarious. So I would ask you not to make me out to be the one 'all over the playfield' on a thread that you created that turns out to have massively proved you wrong on every count.

No offence, but don't make me out to be the idiot, please.

How so? First it was relumed, then it wasn't, now it is again...
Seems like the last posted opinion is your current position.

Seing something on a mackro photo doesn't tell the whole story,
there is no faking radioactive glow. So IF this 6306 has been relumed, then it's relumed with radioactive lume which has gotten puffy. Remember, mackro is mackro, you can't even see the puff or irregularities without mackro/loupe. Knowing 100% isn't possible of course but to my eyes it's not relumed, especially since the lume still has its radioactive properties which corresponds to the other watches I've had from SEIKO dating 60s/70s.

[Bodo]

When did I say 'it wasn't'?

In fact I said 'it's likely to be original' as to be honest I didn't want to cause you offence by being too candid. I raised the issue with many people whom I respect and we have all concluded, some with 100% confirmation, that we are looking at a relume.

With that in mind, I betcha feel pretty silly now?

Again, you started a thread about how anyone who relumes their watch is destroying originality. That a relume is never better than mouldy original lume. And you then went on to pick holes in other people's watches because you couldn't stand to see restored watches that, in your opinion, should not have been restored.

Let's see, my final position? Enjoy the watch. It's still very nice, despite the restoration.

[Der Amf]

Is there a list of brands / models whose originality must be preserved at all costs? I've this Longines watch from the early 70s.



Being 34mm and dressy and Longines it's in no danger of becoming a fashionable choice for vintage collectors any time soon. Does that mean I'm allowed to have the mouldy lume removed from the hands? Everything else about the watch is in excellent condition, the lume is plain disgusting. It'll be coming off whenever the next service proves to be.

[alfat33]

I've found this thread really interesting and informative. I hope all parties can realise that they are operating at a level of knowledge way beyond most of us, so maybe ought to appreciate that and cooperate rather than falling out.

Does that mean I'm allowed to have the mouldy lume removed from the hands?

Yes you are. Can we talk about whether or not to brush the case though?

[yonsson]

When did I say 'it wasn't'?

In fact I said 'it's likely to be original' as to be honest I didn't want to cause you offence by being too candid. I raised the issue with many people whom I respect and we have all concluded, some with 100% confirmation, that we are looking at a relume.

With that in mind, I betcha feel pretty silly now?

Again, you started a thread about how anyone who relumes their watch is destroying originality. That a relume is never better than mouldy original lume. And you then went on to pick holes in other people's watches because you couldn't stand to see restored watches that, in your opinion, should not have been restored.

Let's see, my final position? Enjoy the watch. It's still very nice, despite the restoration.

I don't take it personal for three reasons:
1: I don't know you.
2: It's only a watch.
3: I still think the lume is original.

Do I feel silly? No, the thread is about choosing to relume/restore, I still don't think relumes are a good way to go unless it's to repair (as on the 6215 hour hand). If you buy a watch however, and you can't even see it's been relumed, then it's not even an issue.

[Bodo]

I've found this thread really interesting and informative. I hope all parties can realise that they are operating at a level of knowledge way beyond most of us, so maybe ought to appreciate that and cooperate rather than falling out.



Yes you are. Can we talk about whether or not to brush the case though?

Agreed. I shall bow out, but it has indeed been an educational thread.

[yonsson]

Is there a list of brands / models whose originality must be preserved at all costs? I've this Longines watch from the early 70s.


Being 34mm and dressy and Longines it's in no danger of becoming a fashionable choice for vintage collectors any time soon. Does that mean I'm allowed to have the mouldy lume removed from the hands? Everything else about the watch is in excellent condition, the lume is plain disgusting. It'll be coming off whenever the next service proves to be.

Of course you can do whatever you want, I however would not have relumed those.

[Der Amf]

Yes you are. Can we talk about whether or not to brush the case though?

Since the watch is quite small, it needs all the metal it has and the sharp lines it was blessed with to have decent presence. Also, as I wear it regularly, it's chances of getting re-marked are more than negligible. So there are two good reasons for not bothering with that.

The hands, I hope, won't be regrowing their mould.... The little dollops of lume on the dial haven't gone off. Presumably I would say to the watchmaker, please replace the lume on the hands with paint that matches the dead lume on the dial?

[yonsson]

Agreed. I shall bow out, but it has indeed been an educational thread.

Just don't go personal, and I hope I haven't offended you personally, if I have, then I apologize!
I don't mind that we don't share opinions.

[Bodo]

Since the watch is quite small, it needs all the metal it has and the sharp lines it was blessed with to have decent presence. Also, as I wear it regularly, it's chances of getting re-marked are more than negligible. So there are two good reasons for not bothering with that.

The hands, I hope, won't be regrowing their mould.... The little dollops of lume on the dial haven't gone off. Presumably I would say to the watchmaker, please replace the lume on the hands with paint that matches the dead lume on the dial?

I'd say so. Mixture of modelling paints, oxide powder of various pigments and then a decent quality fine lume powder should see them matched appropriately and leave a small amount of weak glow so it doesn't stand out too much. That's how I would approach it anyway.

Nice watch, Der Amf.

OK bowing out now...:)

[alfat33]

Since the watch is quite small, it needs all the metal it has and the sharp lines it was blessed with to have decent presence. Also, as I wear it regularly, it's chances of getting re-marked are more than negligible. So there are two good reasons for not bothering with that.

I was kind of joking but I 100% agree with your logic. I have a roughly similar style and age of case with a few light scratches and decided very early in my ownership to leave it as it is, despite seeing some impressive refinishing jobs on here.

[Der Amf]

Mixture of modelling paints, oxide powder of various pigments and then a decent quality fine lume powder should see them matched appropriately and leave a small amount of weak glow so it doesn't stand out too much.

Since all the lume is totally dead, I wouldn't even bother with the lume powder - just a nice match of paint with the clean dead lume on the dial.

Alternatively I could have all the lume removed from both dial and hands and fresh lume put on both. But since that's more faffing about, and since I don't actually like lume..... 😆

[Bodo]

Just don't go personal, and I hope I haven't offended you personally, if I have, then I apologize!
I don't mind that we don't share opinions.

Yonsson, I don't mind you getting personal with me if you want. I really would not be offended by anything anyone says. And you haven't offended me.

I suppose I just wanted to see you admit that maybe you can't tell if something is relumed or original at times and that that aspect of ownership is, like you eventually said, difficult to know for sure, especially with Seiko. More to the point, and like you also said, they are only watches and it is just lume.

These are things to be enjoyed and cherished, but what that means to me is that people should be able to do what they want to their watch if it makes them happy. They should not feel as if they have ruined something because a collector would frown upon it, or that their money will be lost because of some restoration that's being considered.

Some people clearly don't do very good work. Some people clearly go overboard with changes to aftermarket parts and modifications etc, and others salvage and give new life to watches that otherwise might have never seen the light of day again - or suffered as a consequence of being left alone - to be enjoyed once more. It's all entirely up to them. I've told people what to do and what not to do many a time. But really I try to come at it from a bit more of a nuanced point of view, or at least try.

The line that's blurred where a watch one person would leave alone and another would change is down to the individual, and for me that's a healthy thing, but it should in my opinion be done sympathetically and, with regards to reluming, skillfully. That's my stance on it. And I already said that reluming good condition, original lume is where I'd draw the line if it's simply because it doesn't glow any more and would tend to keep everything original if given the chance. Many who see me post elsewhere will know I'm a stickler for that...

Infact I talked someone out of reluming a 6105 proof proof 8110 not long ago because it had a few tiny black spots, otherwise it was lovely. The issue there, though is that the dial might actually end up suffering as a consequence, so it isn't necessarily an easy thing to be absolute about, which is why I think many have countered your initial premise.

A good thread, I enjoyed taking part.

[yonsson]

Well spoken Bodo.

[Seikoholic]

I was alerted to this thread by a colleague. The relume job on the 6105 was done by me.

It was never my intention to be Seiko Jesus, so my apologies for that, if that was anyone's impression of me or how I portray myself. I certainly have never claimed to be anything other than myself. My goal and main focus is always on preservation, whenever possible, on originality. I do the core amount needed to bring a watch back. Typically I will advise against anything that is optional, or not truly needed, when it comes to restoration.

On reluming, I mostly tell people not to consider it, when they inquire. My advice I always give is to buy the best possible watch, in terms of cosmetics, to begin with. I refuse to do a relume if the original lume is good, explaining that a huge amount of the value of a vintage Seiko is bound up in the lume. The only time I'll consider a relume is if the original lume is seriously damaged, or worse is actively degrading, which is then a danger to the watch. This particular 6105 had actively degrading lume, it was coming out of the dial, physically unstable. It was a danger to the watch. One could have considered stabilizing the existing lume by using thinned binder to hold the original lume in place, but the customer wanted to go further. Since the lume was degrading, I was OK doing that for him.

On certain dials I won't do relumes at all – any flat-printed dials, for example. No 6306s, 6309s, H558 “Arnies”, 7548s, 7549's.. none of those. Impossible to replicate the screen-printed hatchy pattern on the 630x's, for one thing. I have never seen a relume job on any of these that I would consider acceptable.

As you know (or should know) Seiko lume is salt-based. It attracts moisture. Ii is what is called a “fleeing medium” - an unstable material in certain situations. Once moisture begins a reaction, it can continue, especially if there is a lot of moisture involved. It can pit dials, markers, it can start affecting the different layers on the dial, and in serious cases, it can begin stripping the dial surface. I've seen this happen. When I see blackened & damaged lume, I don't see “patina” - I see a time bomb.

If the lume is a danger to the watch, it needs to go. It doesn't benefit the watch to have it. It won't get better, it isn't necessarily stable, and it doesn't add value. It's not like a lovely age patina – it's actual damage from water intrusion. Seiko lume almost never “patinas”, gaining color and tone which is attractive and pleasing. That black stuff? It's just damage. Perhaps this perception will change over time, and damaged lume will become, if not prized, at least not a direct hit to the value, but that hasn't happened yet. I don't know anyone who looks at a vintage Seiko with blackened lume and says “such nice patina”.

Reluming a 6105 is difficult. The deep lume wells make the mix of the lume super critical. The process is complicated by the fact that Seiko had a lot of variation with 6105 lume jobs from original. Big grain, mid-size grain, fine grain. Full fill, half fill, hollow fill, over-fill. Flat, or rumpled. I have seen all of these things original. It is a serious challenge to relume any vintage watch, but especially a 6105 or similar (6159, 6217 etc). I have never suggested or stated that my work is perfect – we always have room to improve. My old tutor (an octegenarian who was a Rolex and Omega-trained master watchsmith) often said “the great thing about this job is that you learn something new every day.”. Always learning, always room to improve.

On my own VintaLume – a product I invented to mimic vintage Seiko lume - it isn't that it's perfect, I have never claimed it is – I have yet to see a perfect relume job on a 6105 or 6159 from anyone. It is that my VintaLume mimics the glow (or lack of it) of vintage lume. I came up with this mix specifically to address situations where a watch (usually a 6105) has bad hand lume but good (or at least acceptable) dial lume. The mis-match between new full glow lume and the old dial lume was jarring and weird. So, I created a new mix that mimics the daytime color of vintage lume, and only has a tiny amount of glow. My worry about doing this is that it can be abused, resold as original. It's a slippery slope. I rarely use VintaLume at all. The vast majority of jobs in my shop will not get any reluming. It's rare for me to pull out my luming supplies at all. Usually when I do, it is for doing hand reluming, as those are the first things to go when moisture gets in.

Here is a photo of my own 6105 daily wearer. This watch came to me from the original owner, who pulled it out after it sat for a quarter-century in a drawer. He had to send his Rolex in for service, so got out his old 6105, and wore it into the ocean. It flooded, and he let it sit for a few months. Everything inside was destroyed. A relume on this watch was necessary, unavoidable, along with the full mechanical restoration needed to bring this watch back to life. I would argue that this watch is now is better shape restored, both in terms of functionality and cosmetics, in every way, than it was when it was "original" as it came to me. This lume job is a half-glow - visible glow at night and correct daytime color. I went for the rumply finish often seen on mid-70s examples. Again, it's not perfect, but I am happy with it. It is such a huge improvement both cosmetically and functionally over what was there before - blackened actively corroding lume. We have a saved watch here, and I wouldn't sell it for any money. It's my daily, I wear it every single day. It is a living watch.

https://imgur.com/a/AwRmZ (the image function doesn't seem to want to work directly with Imgur)

Talking of Swiss watches, originality, and value – one thing often found with vintage Swiss is that they are not original, yet they are still valuable. People talk about a vintage Swiss watch having “fat lugs” - meaning the case has not been refinished or excessively refinished. It is rare to find any vintage Swiss watch now where it has not had casework done. Yet this doesn't seem to affect the value of them too much. They're just as sought-after, seemingly. On that note, I don't do casework at all on Seiko watches, because has been basically impossible to do correctly, to have it look right. I do have a casework partner now who can do it, but he doesn't refinish cases – he remanufactures them using the same techniques Seiko originally used to make the cases. His work is astonishing, but for the most part I still will recommend that the owner leave their original finish be.

If anyone has any questions for me, about myself or my work, feel free to contact me directly (rather than in a space where I am explicitly absent) and I'll be happy to talk about anything. If you're unsatisfied with me or what I do or how I do it, talk to me about it directly. I am always happy to talk watches. You can contact me at kleinvintagewatchrepair.com, or view any of my videos at youtube.com/user/spkslk, or follow me (or yell at me) on instagram @kleinvintagewatch

Spencer

[Mitch]

I was alerted to this thread by a colleague. The relume job on the 6105 was done by me................................................ ....

Very interesting.

Can you give anything definitive on the timeline of the development and composition of Seiko lume from the 60's onwards?

It appears that Seiko may have have been using a zinc sulphide/copper mixture with a tritium exciter up to about 1990 then a mixture with Promethium for a short while then Lumibrite from the mid 90's. Zinc sulphide is luminescent and can be activated by sunlight but is very short lived and tritium can be added as an exciter to extend the visible period.

So it could be that 60's lume will still operate when exposed to sunlight due to the zinc sulphide but will fade very rapidly as the tritium exciter has decayed beyond any ability to 'excite' the mixture.

Lumibrite probably uses strontium aluminate as its base and this will last about ten times longer and be far brighter than a zinc sulphide base.

Have Seiko ever used a mark on the dial or case to identify the lume. e.g. 'T' for tritium?



Mitch

[Seikoholic]

Very interesting.

Can you give anything definitive on the timeline of the development and composition of Seiko lume from the 60's onwards?

It appears that Seiko may have have been using a zinc sulphide/copper mixture with a tritium exciter up to about 1990 then a mixture with Promethium for a short while then Lumibrite from the mid 90's. Zinc sulphide is luminescent and can be activated by sunlight but is very short lived and tritium can be added as an exciter to extend the visible period.

So it could be that 60's lume will still operate when exposed to sunlight due to the zinc sulphide but will fade very rapidly as the tritium exciter has decayed beyond any ability to 'excite' the mixture.

Lumibrite probably uses strontium aluminate as its base and this will last about ten times longer and be far brighter than a zinc sulphide base.

Have Seiko ever used a mark on the dial or case to identify the lume. e.g. 'T' for tritium?



Mitch

Hi Mitch - I can't talk about the chemistry, really, because I don't really know. When it comes to lume, I'm more concerned with the art / appearance side, versus the science side. I do know that the generally not-ok grey look of the 7002s is due to Seiko's use of Promethium-3, and that came into being with them, in the late 1980s. There was a transitional lume seen on very late 6309-729x's, mostly the hands, that has a strong green look to it, but the handsets themselves are the same as the earlier 6309 handsets. This is definitely an area where I would enjoy learning more from someone who knows. I have heard about the different radioactive elements used in vintage lumes, and mostly this has made me very careful when working with any degraded lumes. Breathing in vintage lume in powerderized form is not a good idea. I recently restored a WW2 aircraft clock made by Junghans, with nice brown radium lume. Yummy. I really try to avoid that kind of thing.

It would be good to really understand the chemistry of the old Seiko lume - perhaps a way could be found to safely neutralize the blackening / corrosion via chemistry and return the lume to white. I did know a guy who claimed that he could bleach lume white again, but that just seemed like a total wild card with unknown potential side effects, I've never fiddled with it.

In the period I focus on - Seiko's golden age of '64-'88 - I have not ever seen a "T" mark on the dial.

[Itsguy]

As you know (or should know) Seiko lume is salt-based. It attracts moisture. Ii is what is called a “fleeing medium” - an unstable material in certain situations. Once moisture begins a reaction, it can continue, especially if there is a lot of moisture involved. It can pit dials, markers, it can start affecting the different layers on the dial, and in serious cases, it can begin stripping the dial surface. I've seen this happen. When I see blackened & damaged lume, I don't see “patina” - I see a time bomb.

If the lume is a danger to the watch, it needs to go. It doesn't benefit the watch to have it. It won't get better, it isn't necessarily stable, and it doesn't add value. It's not like a lovely age patina – it's actual damage from water intrusion. Seiko lume almost never “patinas”, gaining color and tone which is attractive and pleasing. That black stuff? It's just damage. Perhaps this perception will change over time, and damaged lume will become, if not prized, at least not a direct hit to the value, but that hasn't happened yet. I don't know anyone who looks at a vintage Seiko with blackened lume and says “such nice patina”.

Very interesting, and I certainly didn't know that. I was wondering why an old Rolex gets the beautiful creamy lume, while old Seikos seem to get the Black Death! Beyond a certain point it cetainly looks like damage rather than a beautiful patina to my untrained eye, and as you suggest few would find it appealing, particularly if complete disintegration is bound to follow.

However clearly some people do value originality highly enough to be able to see blackened lume as appealing, at least in comparison to anything noticably unoriginal. Stabilising it in the early stages sounds like a good option. Interesting how subjective attractiveness can be, there will always be a point where one person's patina is another's damage, so this discussion will never be fully resolved.

You can see why Grand Seiko often avoid lume altogether on the basis that it can only go wrong in the long term. I can't help thinking that vintage Rolex collectors will be smiling quietly to themselves at this point in the discussion though!

[S.L]

Very interesting, and I certainly didn't know that. I was wondering why an old Rolex gets the beautiful creamy lume, while old Seikos seem to get the Black Death! !

Don't take that as gospel please.

[yonsson]

"Ticking time bomb", if that is your point of view and the common opinion then I can understand why this thread seems to upset, that also explains all the relumed SEIKOs. There is always a calculated risk with damaged and/or lume with "Black Death", especially on the hands, but it's not like the watch will explode because of the lume.

Old lume can of course drip from hands if you are unlucky but to say a 50 year old watch is "active" and a ticking "time bomb", well, I don't agree the slightest.

[Seikoholic]

Very interesting, and I certainly didn't know that. I was wondering why an old Rolex gets the beautiful creamy lume, while old Seikos seem to get the Black Death! Beyond a certain point it cetainly looks like damage rather than a beautiful patina to my untrained eye, and as you suggest few would find it appealing, particularly if complete disintegration is bound to follow.

However clearly some people do value originality highly enough to be able to see blackened lume as appealing, at least in comparison to anything noticably unoriginal. Stabilising it in the early stages sounds like a good option. Interesting how subjective attractiveness can be, there will always be a point where one person's patina is another's damage, so this discussion will never be fully resolved.

You can see why Grand Seiko often avoid lume altogether on the basis that it can only go wrong in the long term. I can't help thinking that vintage Rolex collectors will be smiling quietly to themselves at this point in the discussion though!

My advice to customers is always to err on the side of caution, because this stuff can't be undone. "When in doubt, don't". The only exception I make is when we're in a situation where the lume is dangerous to the watch. I don't know that using any stabilizing mixture (say a thinned-out binder to soak into the lume) will actually do anything to isolate and stabilize the lume. It might, I don't know. I've never tested it. I did once test trying a very thinned-out lume mixture on a badly-blackened 6105 (this was years ago), but all it did was to make the blackened lume glow slightly. Didn't improve the appearance, just made the bad appearance visible at night. The dial was already mostly wrecked so I felt OK about experimenting.

Who knows what the future holds. Everything Seiko is going up in value it seems. The day may come that blackened lume is acceptable in part because that's what is available at an affordable price point, as all the really good undamaged ones will be in safes.

[Seikoholic]

"Ticking time bomb", if that is your point of view and the common opinion then I can understand why this thread seems to upset, that also explains all the relumed SEIKOs. There is always a calculated risk with damaged and/or lume with "Black Death", especially on the hands, but it's not like the watch will explode because of the lume.

Old lume can of course drip from hands if you are unlucky but to say a 50 year old watch is "active" and a ticking "time bomb", well, I don't agree the slightest.

When Seiko lume is seriously damaged, it will start coming out of the hands especially (but the dial as well) breaking off in pieces, powderizing. It will get into the movement. That is not good. Having an abrasive salt-based dust (with radioactive trace elements) loose inside a watch movement is bad. This seems to me to be common sense.

[Seikoholic]

[QUOTE=S.L;4458818]Don't take that as gospel please.

Those early 6306's and 6309's, from '76 and '77 especially, had creamy tan dial lume from new. They came that way. I have only rarely seen any of them with developed brown/tan patina. When I have seen it, it is not even, but variable and mottled.

[S.L]

[QUOTE=Seikoholic;4458834]

Don't take that as gospel please.

Those early 6306's and 6309's, from '76 and '77 especially, had creamy tan dial lume from new. They came that way. I have only rarely seen any of them with developed brown/tan patina. When I have seen it, it is not even, but variable and mottled.

SP450 had a fairly short production span and there are a some around that are still crispy white.

[paskinner]

I am still struck by the fact that these old watches are not remotely in the condition intended by the manufacturer. It's not fashionable right now, but there is a strong case for saying a properly restored watch , using manufactures genuine parts, is the more 'authentic' watch.
Nothing but fashion dictates that watches with knackered parts are more 'real.' And fashion always moves on.

[yonsson]

When Seiko lume is seriously damaged, it will start coming out of the hands especially (but the dial as well) breaking off in pieces, powderizing. It will get into the movement. That is not good. Having an abrasive salt-based dust (with radioactive trace elements) loose inside a watch movement is bad. This seems to me to be common sense.

A daring risk I'm willing to take, I have had no problems what so ever so far. :D

[Mitch]

A daring risk I'm willing to take, I have had no problems what so ever so far. :D

But yours has had a re-lume hasn't it?

There is no way the lume on your watch came out of the factory misapplied like that.

Not that I think that is an issue, you can only see the uneven application under magnification and it looks miles better than if it was black and mouldy. If you had a classic car would you leave the original rust?



Mitch

[yonsson]

But yours has had a re-lume hasn't it?

There is no way the lume on your watch came out of the factory misapplied like that.

Not that I think that is an issue, you can only see the uneven application under magnification and it looks miles better than if it was black and mouldy. If you had a classic car would you leave the original
Mitch

I don't consider "Black Death" rust, but of course I prefer mint.
Regarding the 6306 I still think it's the original lume but obviously I can't be 100% sure.
If a relume is very good and you don't know about it, then a it's a non issue. As I said, it acts like radioactive lume meaning good initially for a short time, and a very faint afterglow even if not charged.

[ac11111]

Bit late to this chat: I agree with the posts which says keep original as much as possible unless it is really bad and would make it significantly better with sympathetic restoration

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[Seikoholic]

[QUOTE=S.L;4458889]

SP450 had a fairly short production span and there are a some around that are still crispy white.

I have seen both white and tan, but the majority of all 630x's from '76 and '77 I have ever seen have tan dial lume and white hand lume. I show an example of this at the beginning of this video: https://youtu.be/eM56p-a-Giw

That said, here is an original unrestored Scubapro 450 from 1979 showing the tan dial lume and white hand lume, stock: https://youtu.be/wyw-dk2uqyI

[Seikoholic]

Well, this has been interesting, but I should get back to my normal routine. I'm not really much of an internet forum person, honestly. If anyone wants to talk watches or whatever, I am always reachable at kleinvintagewatchrepair@gmail.com. Also at youtube.com/user/spkslk, and on Instagram @kleinvintagewatch. You can also visit the Japanese Watch subreddit at reddit.com/r/JapaneseWatches.

[Jim W]

To remove any doubt about how original 6306 lume should look. Here's a detail pic of a 6306 dial showing clearly the lattice like effect of original printed lume..... This is a Scubapro dial, but the lume would be the same on any 6306-7001.