Anti-reflective service crystal on older references

[kiwi71]

I had my 16610LV evaluated for service and they are offering an optional anti-reflective crystal replacement. I asked if this was just under the cyclops or the entire crystal and they are saying it is the entire crystal. For some reason I am skeptical as obviously my watch is a much older reference.

Can anyone confirm with certainty that this is being offered now?

If so, would you do the upgrade when the original crystal is still fine and it’s not a “mandatory” part of the service?

[logo]

Yes it’s being offered. I had it done on my 14270.

[subtona]

Nice option.

[Tools]

Depends on if you want the original one, or the service replacement.

Some folks prefer to have "originality", and it is only original once.

[kiwi71]

Originally Posted by logo

Yes it’s being offered. I had it done on my 14270.

Thank you for confirming. Are you noticing a big difference? My original crystal is clear so I’m leaning toward not doing it. I can always have it done later as a separate “upgrade”.

[logo]

Originally Posted by kiwi71

Thank you for confirming. Are you noticing a big difference? My original crystal is clear so I’m leaning toward not doing it. I can always have it done later as a separate “upgrade”.

It takes away the glare and does make the watch easier to see the time in a wider range of light conditions/wrist angles. So it objectively enhanced the watch from that perspective.

Everyone has their own definitions and preferences when it comes to being “original” in vintage Rolex. Personally as long as the crystal material is the same and its OEM I consider that true to original, considering it’s a part that WILL need changing at some point in the watch life if you wear it often.

Here’s mine that has the crystal upgrade, everything else original:

[kiwi71]

Originally Posted by Tools

Depends on if you want the original one, or the service replacement.

Some folks prefer to have "originality", and it is only original once.

Yes, that’s why I’m leaning towards not doing it. I’m not quite the keep everything original and never go to RSC type, but there’s no rush. Replacing the crown and hands are “mandatory” on my estimate though.

[kiwi71]

Originally Posted by logo

It takes away the glare and does make the watch easier to see the time in a wider range of light conditions/wrist angles. So it objectively enhanced the watch from that perspective.

Everyone has their own definitions and preferences when it comes to being “original” in vintage Rolex. Personally as long as the crystal material is the same and its OEM I consider that true to original, considering it’s a part that WILL need changing at some point in the watch life if you wear it often.

Here’s mine that has the crystal upgrade, everything else original:

Very nice, I actually also had a 2005 114270 evaluated as well, but that one they didn’t say needed anything’ except the crown. It didn’t have the crystal as an option. On second glance I guess they found something tiny on the Sub crystal but not enough to make the change mandatory.

[Meyrin]

Originally Posted by kiwi71

I had my 16610LV evaluated for service and they are offering an optional anti-reflective crystal replacement. I asked if this was just under the cyclops or the entire crystal and they are saying it is the entire crystal. For some reason I am skeptical as obviously my watch is a much older reference.

Can anyone confirm with certainty that this is being offered now?

If so, would you do the upgrade when the original crystal is still fine and it’s not a “mandatory” part of the service?

If the crystal isn´t damaged I personally would leave it as it is. You were told that the anti-reflective is on the entire crystal, so inside and outside. I´m not sure if this is correct. Were you told this at a Rolex AD? I think Rolex introduced anti-reflective coating on Submariners around 2020, and then only on the inside, because a-r coating on the outside of the crystal can scratch off, eventually making the crystal look rather nasty!

[kiwi71]

Originally Posted by Meyrin

If the crystal isn´t damaged I personally would leave it as it is. You were told that the anti-reflective is on the entire crystal, so inside and outside. I´m not sure if this is correct. Were you told this at a Rolex AD? I think Rolex introduced anti-reflective coating on Submariners around 2020, and then only on the inside, because a-r coating on the outside of the crystal can scratch off, eventually making the crystal look rather nasty!

Sorry, to clarify I meant the entire inside surface as opposed to only behind the cyclops, not the outside surface. This is from an RSC directly.

[sigma089]

I'd do this in a heartbeat. Rolex AR is really nice and enables you to see the dial better. No reason not to do it imo.

[cdmorenot]

If this is your forever watch and you have no desire or plans on selling it on the basis of value for originality, I'd get the AR crystal.

I have a couple of watches with no AR coating and I don't like them as much as I do the ones that do.

[MrAtomic]

I just had my 1989 16700 GMT serviced at a dealer that includes a RSC. The RSC tech told me that replacement of my original, chipped crystal was non-negotiable, and that it would be swapped with an AR-coated crystal.

I didn't think much about it, but upon receiving the watch I was really struck by the new AR crystal. I think it's is terrific -- to me, a practical and aesthetic improvement to my daily wearer.

[solesman]

please can you post a photo?

Originally Posted by MrAtomic

I just had my 1989 16700 GMT serviced at a dealer that includes a RSC. The RSC tech told me that replacement of my original, chipped crystal was non-negotiable, and that it would be swapped with an AR-coated crystal.

I didn't think much about it, but upon receiving the watch I was really struck by the new AR crystal. I think it's is terrific -- to me, a practical and aesthetic improvement to my daily wearer.

[PepsiBezel]

I would absolutely do it… I’ve been waiting for this to be an option, as the AR coating is one area modern Rolex is “clearly” better than the neovintage…

The AR reduces glare and makes the black dial appear a much richer shade.

[kiwi71]

Originally Posted by MrAtomic

I just had my 1989 16700 GMT serviced at a dealer that includes a RSC. The RSC tech told me that replacement of my original, chipped crystal was non-negotiable, and that it would be swapped with an AR-coated crystal.

I didn't think much about it, but upon receiving the watch I was really struck by the new AR crystal. I think it's is terrific -- to me, a practical and aesthetic improvement to my daily wearer.

You guys are swaying me. I do intend this watch to be a forever watch and pass it to my son.

[kiwi71]

Originally Posted by PepsiBezel

I would absolutely do it… I’ve been waiting for this to be an option, as the AR coating is one area modern Rolex is “clearly” better than the neovintage…

The AR reduces glare and makes the black dial appear a much richer shade.

I came back around to the 5 digit sub because I believe the case shape/size is the best, especially for my wrist size. However, I don’t really like the faded patina look of older vintage subs. That’s why I went with a 2008 LV. I get the engraved rehaut and the maxi dial of the modern references but with the case I love. I may try to learn how to swap out the bezel for black once in a while.

[0nly5iv3Digits]

Personally not a fan of the aesthetic of new AR crystals. My understanding is Rolex have phased out the "cyclops only" AR crystals. If you decline, you'll be getting AR cyclops only - likely just "off the shelf" stock from a discontinued batch. I'd go with the more "period-correct" crystal. These older style crystals are surely to be in short supply soon. Going to go against the herd and say I wouldn't go "whole crystal" AR. It is, however, a matter of personal preference.

[MrAtomic]

Originally Posted by solesman

please can you post a photo?

This is embarrassing, but I've been defeated by the photo-posting process. If someone could PM some directions, I'd be happy to do so. In the meantime I'll keep trying the "search" function -- I'd like to think I can figure this out.

[MrAtomic]

Originally Posted by 0nly5iv3Digits

Personally not a fan of the aesthetic of new AR crystals. My understanding is Rolex have phased out the "cyclops only" AR crystals. If you decline, you'll be getting AR cyclops only - likely just "off the shelf" stock from a discontinued batch. I'd go with the more "period-correct" crystal. These older style crystals are surely to be in short supply soon. Going to go against the herd and say I wouldn't go "whole crystal" AR. It is, however, a matter of personal preference.

0nly5iv3Digits, I've learned a ton from your posts -- thank you. I also grew up supergeeked on Miami Vice, so your avatar is *chef's kiss*

My AD experience was different than yours. The RSC technician told me that, at least in my case, crystal replacement was "either/or." Since my stock crystal had some slight chipping, if I wanted the watch overhauled, either I accepted the new AR crystal or he had to refuse the overhaul. According to him, the old crystals simply aren't available, at least for a 16700 GMT.

Now, if Rolex has instructed technicians to preemptively replace old crystals with new, AR crystals, that's a different story. In my case, it seemed like the very slight chipping necessitated replacement, which meant an AR crystal.

[Harry-57]

I'd take the AR any day. It's nice to know that it's now being fitted. A pity if you're desperate to preserve the originality but things move on. They don't do an original bracelet for the 116610 any longer. I don't think the modern service item is better in any way, but it's not the original.

[Jonny8]

Originally Posted by kiwi71

I came back around to the 5 digit sub because I believe the case shape/size is the best, especially for my wrist size. However, I don’t really like the faded patina look of older vintage subs. That’s why I went with a 2008 LV. I get the engraved rehaut and the maxi dial of the modern references but with the case I love. I may try to learn how to swap out the bezel for black once in a while.

I’d get the AR.

In regards to the black insert it is very easy to do. I also went for a 16610LV as I love the maxi dial and the case.

[Lesnerelli23]

Both my Rolex watches are forever keepers (116610LN, 114270) and 100% yes I will do this when they go for service!!!! I don’t care about keeping “original” I care more for function since I won’t be selling either of them.

I have a couple watches with AR and I absolutely love it and would be ecstatic to have it on the Rolex! Enhance those beautiful dials even more!

Do it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

[subtona]

I do appreciate legibility.

Always saw it as something the 14060 would have benefitted from.

And as recently posted, I hacked off my cyclops because of the glare.

So yes. Sign me up

[928ktgold]

I would love this on my 2008 16610LV. I got it done on my 2019 BLNR through RSC for cheap about $300

[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.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by logo

It takes away the glare and does make the watch easier to see the time in a wider range of light conditions/wrist angles. So it objectively enhanced the watch from that perspective.

Everyone has their own definitions and preferences when it comes to being “original” in vintage Rolex. Personally as long as the crystal material is the same and its OEM I consider that true to original, considering it’s a part that WILL need changing at some point in the watch life if you wear it often.

Here’s mine that has the crystal upgrade, everything else original:

Beautiful

[PepsiBezel]

Originally Posted by kiwi71

I came back around to the 5 digit sub because I believe the case shape/size is the best, especially for my wrist size. However, I don’t really like the faded patina look of older vintage subs. That’s why I went with a 2008 LV. I get the engraved rehaut and the maxi dial of the modern references but with the case I love. I may try to learn how to swap out the bezel for black once in a while.

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.

IMG_5854.jpeg

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.

IMG_1426.jpeg

[kiwi71]

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 always love seeing photos of the LV with LN bezel, such a cool, unique look. Thanks for the advice on the tool. Just out of curiosity, is your LN bezel aftermarket or did you manage to source an OEM?