Faded 1675 Advice: Hands Look Great, But UV Raises Questions?
 

Hi all,

After 10 years away from the watch world, I’m back—and my first big purchase was a 1978 Faded 1675! I picked it up from a very reputable dealer, someone I trust and who would work with me if I decided to return it. That said, I’m hoping to get some advice from the community on a detail I’m second-guessing—whether it’s something I should be concerned about, or just enjoy the watch and move on.

I truly love the piece: the bezel is exactly what I was looking for, the dial and hands look nearly perfect, and the bracelet wears beautifully. So what’s the catch? While chatting with a dealer friend, he admired the watch and then took a look at it under UV light. That’s when he mentioned, “Did you know these might be service hands?”

To clarify—they don’t glow after exposure, and under UV they behave similarly to the dial plots (no ongoing lume), though they do appear a few shades whiter under the light. They’re likely tritium and period-correct, but perhaps not original to this exact watch.

My best guess is one of two things:
a) The hands were relumed by Rolex a few years after manufacture, or
b) They’re period-correct replacements, possibly from a different supplier, which would explain the slight lume color variation.

So—what do you all think? Is this a non-issue and I should relax and enjoy the watch? Or is it something worth further consideration?

One factor I’m weighing is potential impact to value. I feel I paid under market at $10.8k, but if this detail would significantly affect collectability or future resale, I’d rather know now. Appreciate any insight—thanks in advance! :banghead:

Attachment 1497468

Attachment 1497469

I wouldn't necessarily expect hands from 1978 to glow after UV excitation. And if they behave similarly as the lume dots on the dial, that's a good sign. I guess it depends how different the lume on hands and dial looks to the eye. If they are badly mismatched, that can detract from the appeal of the watch, which is the major issue.

Hi Dan, I attached some photos I think after you posted, to be clear, the dial and hands react in terms of looking brighter under the blacklight/uv, but neither continue to glow at all once no longer being under the uv light. Hope that's helpful. And they look nearly the same color to the naked eye, maybe the hands are a shade lighter in some angles, but mostly look very well matched.

The hands match close enough, have the same non glow under UV as the dial and there is the minor surface corrosion on the hands common to that time period. If they are service hands, you are not going to do any better than that. There is a pretty good chance that their original hands.

The hands are reacting differently in the photo under UV perhaps, but I very much doubt that Rolex would have relumed them. They replace hands.

I suppose someone might have done that but again unlikely.

What led your dealer friend to state they were service hands?

If you are happy with the new (to you) 1675 then that's the best measure - visually it looks OK judging from the natural light photo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it looks right for the age of the watch. If they are OEM replacement hands they look great. Very cool watch and a fair price. Enjoy and move on.

Appreciate everyone’s time and thoughts and expertise on this, feeling a lot better about the situation, and hope everyone has a great weekend!

Looks original mk 5/6 dial and orig. oxidised handset to me - this dial often came with a bowed out on the side 12 and 9 hr marker that sometimes get called out as relume btw.

Hands and dials do not come in sets, so they can vary widely over time.barring sosme other hidden clues.

The degradation of the plots and hands appear similar enough to say they likely came together,

Thanks for calling this out as well TuRo, there was a bit of concern that it was a relume due to the 12 o’clock marker but glad you weighed in on it.ive looked at some more mark V dials and have noticed others that are a bit bowed out a tiny bit as well.

Dave, the dial is referred to as a Mark 5b which is slightly different than the Mark V GMT 1675 variation.

Also, I'm not sure what type of UV light you used for the photo, but normally the markers and hands have a much whiter glow under UV.

Here are some examples. The first photo is a GMT 16750 tritium dial with relumed hands. The second photo is a GMT with full tritium hands and dial. The third photo is a Mark II matte tritium dial. The fourth photo is a comparison between a relumed GMT dial and a tritium GMT both being examined under the UV light.

Thanks for the extra detail Springer, cool to know its a 5B! As for the UV light, in the real world they light up almost a light green, like your final example photo on the right, the hands are also bright but a bit more white. In my photo I think the iPhone automatically like normalized something so it doesn't look very bright.

UV light can vary in intensity/brightness, which can affect how the tritium appears in photos.

Still, I don't love how the OP's dial appears under the UV and would want a closer look to determine if the dial/hands have been relumed.

As Springer notes, original tritium usually has a whiter appearance under UV, as in this photo of my 5512 (3.7 million).

Yeah in real life they glow closer to this, my photo is just terrible :twit: