Reply With QuoteThey should use the same paint.Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton
It looks more pleasing.
One reads this often enough, but is it a fallacy?
I reproduce this Rolex image of a Submariner 5513 printed in their 1989 UK catalogue :
If hands and dials were produced by different people, in different places and at different times, why should they match ?
H
They should use the same paint.
It looks more pleasing.
Same for the speedmaster, different companies producing the hands and the dials, and not necessarily using the same tritium paint, so slight variations to be expected.
I can for sure imagine many people being reassured by perfectly matching hands and dials on vintage subs even though quite a few of them will have been repainted with matching paint
But the colour balance on the photo is completely out of whack, the steel case looks like it is made of bronze, there is so much brown in it.
I agree there is no match between the hands and dial, but would a brand new Rolex ever have had yellowed indices when sold? Not really, that takes time to develop.
I would also point out that the 10 index is way more yellow than the 5 or 7, both of which make a reasonable match to the hands.
So I think it looks much better when they match, and this is more of an example of photographic (or even print-aging) problems than an example of Rolex selling mismatched hands and dials.
D
Do people say they should match anyway? I know a few dealers match them prior to sale for aesthetic reasons but don't recall anyone say they should match necessarily.
No matter the effort
Because mismatched hands and dial from new make me think the following conversation has happened:
"F**k sake Steve, you've used the wrong paint."
"Aw man... Tam... I've used the wrong paint."
"Eh? Hold on, let me have a look. Ach, close enough."
Here is the full page, which should help illustrate that it is the specific watch's dial and hands which do not match, rather than a localised print anomaly :
Sure some people have said that non matching hands or dial would be a sign of service replacement, which could have an impact on value of a vintage piece. Haywood’s saying that non matching hands/dial could be completely original from factory.
That bezel print looks off. The 50 being cut off at the top. Vintage Rolex look to have the quality control of Seiko. And that’s the model they selected for the catalog photoshoot too.:
H
As has been said - different manufacturers for hands and dials mean different colours. They age differently. The particular watch shown I would have expected a better colour match though....
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Lume on hands and dial ages differently on many old watches, regardless of whether it started off identical. That's the beauty of modern luminova , it doesn`t change.
By coincidence I`ve just spent the morning trying to 'age' a new handset for an Omega Bond watch from the mid-90s to get somewhere close to the dial lume, the original hr hand is in reasonable condition and the original lume is aged but it's a lot different from the dial, I`ve managed to get the new hands a tad closer to the dial plots and called it quits.........these jobs are a proper pain in the arse, old aged lume sends folk misty-eyed but I hate it.
Gawd, is this now yet another iteration that will attract a higher price/desirability?.........
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I was talking about this recently, with respect to Speedmaster Pros.
Mine, from the 1980s I believe, has a lovely Cotswold stone aging on the indices, but hands like Liberace's teeth.
It was a bargain buy from SC and I was not in the slightest bothered by this; I assumed a set of service replacement hands in the dim n distant.
But I have seen so many similar models that had the same mismatch, some with one-owner known provenance, so imhp it must be a from-new feature.
Helps with the visibility!
Sorry, a bit down the ladder from the subject of the OP's initial, er, OPinings, but the same phenomenon all the same.
I bought my 16750 new in 1986. The hands and plots seemed to match then, but by the late '90s they didn't. The plots had gone for a subtle vintage look, the hands were still bright white. I think they've yellowed slightly since then, but they haven't caught up. They've never been replaced.
Similar conversation a few years ago here: https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...Tritium-patina
And here : https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...-dial-question
And here : https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...s-on-GMT-16750
You should have covered those prices. Now my evening is in ruins
Last edited by thieuster; 2nd September 2023 at 22:53.
I could spoil your week and post other pages showing GMT-Masters, or steel and 18ct manual-wind Daytonas !
Hard to think that items which sold when I was old enough to vote might now be worth up to a hundred times more.
£50 for a Milsub on a Portobello market stall to £300k/£400k has served those early collectors rather well.
Print fading of the original catalogue photolithograph owing to more light coming from the left.Here is the full page, which should help illustrate that it is the specific watch's dial and hands which do not match, rather than a localised print anomaly :
Look at the difference in colour temperature between the steel of the GMT and that of the Sea Dweller.
Last edited by procrustes; 3rd September 2023 at 18:58.
That certainly exaggerates it, but the Mercedes part of the hour hand should be closer in colour to the lumed hour plots near it if that was the case.
Just look at the hands of any Explorer1 model 1655 and they have all mismatched hands. The dial has "patina" whilst the hands look brand new.
interesting, i've noticed this on vintage sm300s and always assumed it was a replacement handset.
Definitely, look at this and as far as I know both original.
Sent from my Mi 9 SE using Tapatalk
Service replacement metal bezel.Definitely, look at this and as far as I know both original.
I would not touch that one with a bargepole. Both the dial and bezel have been replaced and to be honest that is how I would like to wear it. The problem is that for some reason known only to the Gods, watch owners are expected to wear a watch that looks its age and a watch such as yours has been devalued. Someone paid a lot of money to devalue their watch.Definitely, look at this and as far as I know both original.
Sent from my Mi 9 SE using Tapatalk
It is a service bezel, original hands and dial.
Sent from my Mi 9 SE using Tapatalk
Dial and hands looked good to me, don’t know what Mick was on about. I like the Mark 1 with the straight second hand personally.
I've got the original bezel somewhere but it's battered.
Sent from my Mi 9 SE using Tapatalk
Then it is bloody unusual, everyone I have seen has a dial with "patinaed" batons and those look like it has just come off the production line.
The patination is more marked to the naked eye. It's only been serviced once at Rolex with strict instructions to leave dial and hands alone. Bezel and bracelet replaced, originals which I still have. Old bracelet needs refurbishing.
Sent from my Mi 9 SE using Tapatalk
If you adjust the warmth and vibrancy on that photo to take the bronze effect off you see the plots upper left quarter different lower right quarter which I assume is to do with the lighting or camera angle, therefore I’m going to go with can’t tell from that photo ( but personally I’d prefer they matched).One reads this often enough, but is it a fallacy?
I reproduce this Rolex image of a Submariner 5513 printed in their 1989 UK catalogue :
If hands and dials were produced by different people, in different places and at different times, why should they match ?
H
Ok that makes it clearer. My wife thinks I was bonkers buying mine. The hands and date wheel are bright white and the batons are a slight off yellow. The bezel is completely worn and the thing looks its 43 years.
Mine has an original as new replacement bracelet which most "experts" don't notice. I am almost tempted to take a file to it just to make it look its age.
Can't know what the original colour tones would have been, but here it is with white balance adjusted to have the case something close to normal. It does somewhat settle down the difference between the plots and the hands, but they are still notably different. The 9 through 1 plots look distinctly darker, while the 3 through 7 plots perhaps closer to the hands? Could it have been the lighting of the original image that caused some plots to look darker?
The 11 o'clock plot looks almost cream coloured whilst the 5 o'clock plot looks white.Can't know what the original colour tones would have been, but here it is with white balance adjusted to have the case something close to normal. It does somewhat settle down the difference between the plots and the hands, but they are still notably different. The 9 through 1 plots look distinctly darker, while the 3 through 7 plots perhaps closer to the hands? Could it have been the lighting of the original image that caused some plots to look darker?
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Gents, while I have the advantage of having the catalogue in front of me, I did provide you with this further image of the whole page :
It seems clear to me that the watches to left and right have consistent, evenly coloured luminous material on dials and hands.
The dial, hands and even bezel pip on the 5513 in the middle do not match each other and it is neither a photographic nor printing issue. The white text on the dial is as white as that on the Sea-Dweller.
H
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 6th September 2023 at 23:22.
As someone who has handled thousands of Rolex watches, is this something you’ve seen regularly in real life?
Yes, but many WILL have been service replacement hands.
Sorry, I meant original plots and original hands not matching, when new/nearly new. I have never had a tritium Rolex so can’t comment from experience. Mismatched lume seems wrong to me but I don’t have experience of Rolex (or others) through the ages.
I am a child of the 70s and so was not buying new Rolex in the relevant decades. By the mid-1990s I believe things were more consistent, but "matching lume" is one of many factors probably never considered or examined before the internet gave us a platform on which to make a deal of it.
Mine definitely matched when new (in 1986). But the same hands and dial didn't match 12 or 13 years later.
I don't remember ever seeing a new GMT, or a Sub with mismatched hands back in the '80s and I stared at a lot of them in well-lit jewellers' displays.
This experience is common and important.
Preferring the look of luminous that matches in the dial and hands is one thing.
It is quite another to insist that when they don't match they must have been replaced.
Posting Permissions
