Anti-reflective service crystal on older references

[Yeezy_008]

Slightly off topic, does anyone know whether a 2019 two tone Skydweller 326933 would have the AR coating as standard or not?
Thanks

[kiwi71]

Originally Posted by sigma089

I believe people get too caught up with preserving "originality" on modern watches, because dealers are focusing (rightfully so) on it in vintage watches. You have to remember: these are mass produced tools. A 16610LV while a nice piece is by no means a rare collectible, there are plenty around.

If you are using your watch, I'd just keep them up-to-date wherever possible. Switching crystals is not like switching dials or overpolishing a case. It's switching an inferior part with a more modern one. There's a clear benefit to AR (on the underside of the crystal, where it can't get scratched): you can see the time better in various circumstances. I'd also have them modify the movement with a non magnetic balance if there was an option for that, because it would improve the performance of the watch, without altering its overall appearance.

If you really want to preserve originality for resale purposes, I'd buy a NOS non-AR crystal if they won't return your original one. Put it away and exchange it for the AR one or give it to the new owner, once you sell it. That way you can preserve originality, without sacrificing functionality.

Don't be fooled: vintage dealers are building "original" watches as well. If a crystal was changed, they simply replace it with a period correct one and raise the price accordingly.

Good points, I think this is the most difficult point with a “neo-vintage” Rolex because the watch is still currently all original. However, as I’ve already decided to use RSC and not an independent, and as I mentioned the replacement of the hands is mandatory, the decision has already been made not to go down the path of keeping everything original at all costs.

I was initially leaning towards keeping the original crystal simply because there wasn’t anything noticeably wrong with it (to my eye) and they weren’t requiring me to change it, so why spend the extra money. But since many have made compelling arguments that it may actually increase my enjoyment of the watch, I have decided to do it. And to clarify, the only options I had were to leave the original or upgrade to the new anti-reflective crystal. I did not have an option to change it to a NOS crystal with the AF only under the cyclops.

[logo]

Originally Posted by sigma089

I believe people get too caught up with preserving "originality" on modern watches, because dealers are focusing (rightfully so) on it in vintage watches. You have to remember: these are mass produced tools. A 16610LV while a nice piece is by no means a rare collectible, there are plenty around.

If you are using your watch, I'd just keep them up-to-date wherever possible. Switching crystals is not like switching dials or overpolishing a case. It's switching an inferior part with a more modern one. There's a clear benefit to AR (on the underside of the crystal, where it can't get scratched): you can see the time better in various circumstances. I'd also have them modify the movement with a non magnetic balance if there was an option for that, because it would improve the performance of the watch, without altering its overall appearance.

If you really want to preserve originality for resale purposes, I'd buy a NOS non-AR crystal if they won't return your original one. Put it away and exchange it for the AR one or give it to the new owner, once you sell it. That way you can preserve originality, without sacrificing functionality.

Don't be fooled: vintage dealers are building "original" watches as well. If a crystal was changed, they simply replace it with a period correct one and raise the price accordingly.

Even so, a crystal is an expendable part. They chip, crack etc. and you just replace them when the time comes, like gaskets. Unlike a dial, original case with serial number, tritium hands etc, the crystal whether original or replaced makes nearly zero impact on vintage or neovintage - most the value is in the dial.

There are probably only 1000 examples in existence or maybe less of my 14270 and I doubt the AR crystal would impact its resale at all - someone could swap it to a non AR for $300 if they wanted.

Originally Posted by brandrea

Beautiful

Thank you!

[kiwi71]

Originally Posted by logo

Even so, a crystal is an expendable part. They chip, crack etc. and you just replace them when the time comes, like gaskets. Unlike a dial, original case with serial number, tritium hands etc, the crystal whether original or replaced makes nearly zero impact on vintage or neovintage - most the value is in the dial.

There are probably only 1000 examples in existence or maybe less of my 14270 and I doubt the AR crystal would impact its resale at all - someone could swap it to a non AR for $300 if they wanted.



Thank you!

I assume the crown would also be considered an expendable part in the same way a crystal is? I imagine the threads can only last so long regardless of how gentle the owner may be. That was the only part that was a “mandatory” replacement on both my watches.

[KermitGang]

Particularly the crown tube. Replace as needed to protect the integrity of the watch.

[cascadez71]

For common professional models: Did the AR coating start on the 12 series subs? I recall reading early 12 series GMT did not have it, but now they do?

[928ktgold]

Originally Posted by cascadez71

For common professional models: Did the AR coating start on the 12 series subs? I recall reading early 12 series GMT did not have it, but now they do?

Correct about the 41 sub and newer GMTs

[Eric88]

Originally Posted by PepsiBezel

The LN bezel insert is a great option! Though I do think anodized aluminum looks great with colored bezels, the Cerachrom has an edge for black.

Attachment 1462756

If and when you try to swap your bezel, use a hard plastic pry bar like this one from ifixit (easy to find on Amazon). Don’t mess around with a taped metal knife or such — not worth the risk of scratching lugs.

Attachment 1462757

I've always used an old credit card for bezel removal. Works great and no scratches.

Answering the original thread's question, I am a big fan of the AR crystals, since getting my 126610LN a few years ago. It does improve the legibility of the dial and looks really nice to my eyes.

[TeddyBallGame]

Has anyone had the crystal on their Zenith Daytona swapped for one with AR (or at least know if it’s available)?

I’m about to send mine in for service and sounds like something I’d be interested in.

[alphadweller]

I would accept the AR crystal on my YM pt dial and SD43, would bring out the textured dials nicely, with less reflections. My TT blue Sub41 looks pretty neat, I can appreciate the subtle nuances of the dial better on an overcast day.

[TeddyBallGame]

To answer my question above, I just called Rolex and got confirmation that service crystals for the Zenith Daytona do come with AR coating now.

[Osmin]

Wow. Good news.
2 out of my 3 watches have the AR coating. Would love to see the 116520 Daytona also with it.

[928ktgold]

Originally Posted by NorthernPike

I've been wearing my 16610LV every day since 2008. I took it in for its first full service a few months ago. They said there was slight chipping on the crystal but honestly, I couldn't even see it. They recommended a new AR crystal but it was not mandatory. I said yes, do it. Watch looks great. No regrets.

I’d love to see pics please

[East of Eden]

I have an AR crystal on my 16570 and plan on getting one for my 14060 Sub

[TeddyBallGame]

I just got my 16520 back from service at the Dallas RSC and they replaced my crystal with one that has AR (at my request). Super happy with my decision as it definitely makes a big difference in the legibility of the watch. If you’re on the fence about it, do it!