1655 relumed or original?

[Alexander88]

Hello dear forum,

I have asked before about my 1655 from 1974, if the luminous material can be original or if it was relumed.
Now I have managed to upload some better photos.

I would really appreciate if you share your guesses with me here.

I am having a hard time judging this. I haven't seen many 1655s whose luminous material looks like this, very thick and „puffy“.
Under UV you can‘t see anything unusual.

One thing to note is that the watch comes from a tropical climate.

Thank you in advance.

Alex

[Alexander88]

Another picture

[Dan S]

I am seeing some damage to the lume on the dial, but I couldn't say whether it was relumed or not from those photos but the dial isn't really bothering me too much. I am wondering about the hands, also. Not just the lume, but the paint. They look very new.

[springer]

Invest in a UV light, take the watch in a darkened room and light up the dial with the UV light. Take pics while the UV is on and post the pics up here. That would help.

Your pics should looks like the first photo below.

[Filipão]

This is what you're looking for:

White is tritium, all other parts and dial paint will display as purple.

On 1st. pic you can spot my pearl/pip to have been painted, not glowing white.

On 2nd you'll see the missing bit on the seconds' hand.

[Alexander88]

The watchmaker at my Rolex dealer already checked the watch with his UV lamp. He said that the tritium was original and not processed.

I'll buy a UV lamp anyway and upload photos again.

Thank you very much for your help.

[rpstrimple]

Do you know if the hands have been replaced?

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by Alexander88

The watchmaker at my Rolex dealer already checked the watch with his UV lamp. He said that the tritium was original and not processed.

I'll buy a UV lamp anyway and upload photos again.

Thank you very much for your help.

Problem solved! Jokes aside, that watchmaker might be fully capable of making that determination...or maybe not. Experience has taught me that more often than not, they don't know. Your mileage may vary, and obviously it's 100% dependent on skill level of watchmaker (regardless if he's employed at a Rolex dealer or not).

For me, I see a lot of evidence of brushing/intervention around many of the lume plots. That might explain the cracked appearance of the lume if it's original, or it might be residue left over from a relume.

If I had to bet- I'd say relumed, or at least tampered with (attempted to clean lume possibly?). I might be wrong-- that's happened once or twice (that I can recall--there might be more times, I'll need to check with my wife).

[Alexander88]

Here is a picture under UV light. The orange hand glows very brightly under UV.
The luminous material does not glow at all.
After the light is off, nothing glows. Not even for a second.
Some of my watches, for example 1675 from the 70s still glow very shortly after UV.
The lume itself, however, is very well applied, very straight and neat, only relatively thick, swollen.

[Alexander88]

@southtexas the dial itself is in really excellent condition. Live, even under the magnifying glass, you can't see any brush marks or other blemishes.
I am quite a terrible photographer. The plexiglass is scratched, reflective and so on.

[coolbreeze]

Hey OP, here is a photo of my MK4 for your reference.

[Filipão]

Originally Posted by coolbreeze

Hey OP, here is a photo of my MK4 for your reference.

Good pic, great example.

[Saki.]

The dial is original and untouched. My 1655 MK I also no longer reacts with UV.
The luminous material, especially in the MK II, as here (by the way, very nice dial), is already thickly applied anyway. If a high humidity in addition in tropical regions, it comes more often to such reactions. I myself have seen 1655 in Southeast Asia, which looked the same.
Dials, which are relumed, look different. You can see here the traces of natural aging, the luminous material is otherwise very cleanly applied.
Everything in order Alex, in my opinion.