Meteorite Dials - Slice v. Slab?

[miamiclay]

It has been pointed out to me that the New York Times’ “T” magazine of August 22 contains, on page 102, the following:

“Rolex, the Swiss watchmaker, has used meteorite for its dials in the past, backing thin slices of it with brass, but now, the company has reimagined its iconic Cosmograph Daytona with a face made from a solid slab of chemically treated fallen star.” (Emphasis added)

Is the new Meteorite Daytona dial indeed a “solid slab,” while all prior meteorite dials are mere thin slices?

Seems very unlikely to me, but otoh, what do I know?

[sj24k]

One man’s slice is another man’s slab.

Haven’t seen that article, but imagine they are just slicing it thicker vs. using a thinner slice with a backing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[77T]

The comment you shared from that article is a bit of hyperbole. I can’t comment on the lack of a brass dial plate but I do know that the thickness can’t be slab like. Just slightly more meteorite doesn’t really matter if it is true.

The space allotted to the dial dictates that a meteorite-alone dial couldn’t be any thicker than the combined thickness of earlier meteorite & brass dials.

Maybe @Bas has seen some Rolex knowledge base tech bulletin on the new Daytona meteorite dial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[dannyp]

I think this change can be entirely attributed to the sub-dials. Previously, the sub-dials were also meteorite, but clearly not from the same piece, so there had to be some kind of backing (in order to have the main dial and sub-dial inlays). Now the sub-dials are painted black, so they can be applied atop a single piece of meteorite.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by 77T

The comment you shared from that article is a bit of hyperbole. I can’t comment on the lack of a brass dial plate but I do know that the thickness can’t be slab like. Just slightly more meteorite doesn’t really matter if it is true.

The space allotted to the dial dictates that a meteorite-alone dial couldn’t be any thicker than the combined thickness of earlier meteorite & brass dials.

Maybe @Bas has seen some Rolex knowledge base tech bulletin on the new Daytona meteorite dial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Same construction as the other meteorite dials, thin slice of meteorite on a brass plate. Some holes for the subdials, cannon pinion/hour wheel and indexes.

[77T]

Thanks Bas - much appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Boaters]

Interesting..

[padi56]

Originally Posted by miamiclay

It has been pointed out to me that the New York Times’ “T” magazine of August 22 contains, on page 102, the following:

“Rolex, the Swiss watchmaker, has used meteorite for its dials in the past, backing thin slices of it with brass, but now, the company has reimagined its iconic Cosmograph Daytona with a face made from a solid slab of chemically treated fallen star.” (Emphasis added)

Is the new Meteorite Daytona dial indeed a “solid slab,” while all prior meteorite dials are mere thin slices?

Seems very unlikely to me, but otoh, what do I know?

Whether a solid slab or slice on brass its still a thin slice dial construction would be the same either way, but one thing to watch out for with some meteorite dials is rust. Ni-Fe meteorites are almost pure iron and most will rust pretty easily if they're not treated/coated sealed . You can identify a meteorite by its Widmanstatten pattern. But Rolex uses for there dials meteorite made from the Gibeon meteorite, the Gibeon had a very high nickel content, so it's very stable and basically won't rust. And the main cost is not so much the material around $5-$6 a gram for best top quality slices or slabs, its mainly the labour process costs to produce a near perfect dial every time, but they are all different and unique when finished.

[miamiclay]

Thanks all!

It’s weird, I wonder what made them think there had been any change in the meteorite dials.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by miamiclay

Thanks all!

It’s weird, I wonder what made them think there had been any change in the meteorite dials.

Well there’s been one obvious change: as I noted above, the sub-dials used to also be pieces of meteorite. Not sure what that’s done to overall construction but with the previous layout it has to be multiple pieces addicted to a backing.

[Eric-London]

Originally Posted by padi56

Whether a solid slab or slice on brass its still a thin slice dial construction would be the same either way, but one thing to watch out for with some meteorite dials is rust. Ni-Fe meteorites are almost pure iron and most will rust pretty easily if they're not treated/coated sealed . You can identify a meteorite by its Widmanstatten pattern. But Rolex uses for there dials meteorite made from the Gibeon meteorite, the Gibeon had a very high nickel content, so it's very stable and basically won't rust. And the main cost is not so much the material around $5-$6 a gram for best top quality slices or slabs, its mainly the labour process costs to produce a near perfect dial every time, but they are all different and unique when finished.

Thanks for this info Padi. Wish I had 10% of your knowledge on all things Rolex.
You are the reason I spend so much time reading these forums.

[Xerxes77]

In the end same thing…

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Eric-London

Thanks for this info Padi. Wish I had 10% of your knowledge on all things Rolex.
You are the reason I spend so much time reading these forums.

Thank you much appreciated .