Rolex caseback corrosion

[Alexander88]

Hey guys,

maybe a not so smart question, but does corrosion/case pitting continue to spread on its own? Corrosion is only at the edge of the caseback. Wouldn't be so good if it spreads to the case.

Thank you very much.

Alex

[Dan S]

I don't think many people have scientifically documented this empirically on watch cases, but based on general materials science principles, the future of that corrosion will probably depend a lot on the conditions it is exposed to. If you are able to keep it clean and dry, most likely you won't see noticeable further deterioration. However, the pitted areas do serve as preferential sites for further corrosion, so if they are exposed to moisture (especially salt water such as perspiration), you could certain see things get worse.

[Alexander88]

Thanks Dan. It is an old 1665 that I want to buy. I have been sent pictures. Attached is a picture in detail. Corrosion is only on the inside of the caseback.
Is it possible to buy something like this? Maybe I am too much of a perfectionist. The Sea-Dweller is otherwise very nice. Of course, I don't want to go diving or swimming in the sea with a 1665 anymore.

[Dan S]

This type of pitting is not uncommon on casebacks and on the back of the case itself of these 316 stainless references. They were susceptible to corrosion from salt water and perspiration, and supposedly some individuals have particularly corrosive perspiration.

From what I am seeing in the photos, the pitting, while significant, is limited to the outer part of the flange that does not contact the gasket. You say that the corrosion is only on the inside of the caseback. Have you seen a photo of the back of the case with the gasket removed? Often there is pitting inside the groove, and you want to get a good look at that.

However, if everything else is solid, the corrosion I am seeing on the caseback may not hinder the watch from passing a pressure test, in which case it is really a cosmetic issue on a part of the watch that can't be seen.

One final note. I often see people suggesting in threads like these that this type of porous pitting can be successfully repaired by laser welding. In my experience, the best repair people are generally not willing to take on this type of work because of the challenges in restoring this sort of porous surface. It is not easy to completely fill this sort of damage or to get good bonding between the damaged surface and new material.

[Filipão]

As Dan says, leave it alone and don't bother. I've experienced that on all my old steel Subs and SDs. One heavily pitted SD has even passed Rolex Portugal depth certification.

[Alexander88]

Thank you very much for your great support.
It is not easy to find a perfect dial combined with a very good case.
I also noticed that a lot of 1665s have this corrosion. But I think if the condition of the rest of the watch is otherwise good, you can neglect this corrosion.

[harry in montreal]

I think if it’s dry it should not continue. I think the corrosive effect of salt is inert when it’s dry. This must have been occurred in seawater exposure. I swim with my old Tudor subs but wash them and rinse them in the shower afterwards. I also think old porous gaskets can trap moisture, but I’m just hypothesizing.

[TuRo]

Yes agree - no biggy, worth washing off every time exposed to salt water/sweat etc but if it's going to be a land lover watch now will be fine...

Btw I think Gerhard (Xeramic) has stated in the past that 1665 seems to be worse than other models in this regard to pitting in his experience.

[Alexander88]

Perhaps this susceptibility of the 1665 to corrosion is simply due to its actual use in the sea. I have also noticed that many 1665s rust.
Thank you again for this interesting exchange of experiences with you.

[Filipão]

Originally Posted by Alexander88

Perhaps this susceptibility of the 1665 to corrosion is simply due to its actual use in the sea. I have also noticed that many 1665s rust.
Thank you again for this interesting exchange of experiences with you.

Probably, mines have sailed a lot.

[hutch300]

I think it has to do with the iron content in those particular cases. I remember reading that somewhere, don't take me as fact/expert. Something worth looking into.

[Xeramic]

Originally Posted by TuRo

Yes agree - no biggy, worth washing off every time exposed to salt water/sweat etc but if it's going to be a land lover watch now will be fine...

Btw I think Gerhard (Xeramic) has stated in the past that 1665 seems to be worse than other models in this regard to pitting in his experience.

Hi Paul,

Not quite - in fact, I've said the contrary :
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...6&postcount=51

Regarding the topic: there's a wealth of deep information about in this VRF thread: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...si-t36586.html

Best,
Xeramic

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by Xeramic

Hi Paul,

Not quite - in fact, I've said the contrary :
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...6&postcount=51

Regarding the topic: there's a wealth of deep information about in this VRF thread: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...si-t36586.html

Best,
Xeramic

Doh - my mistake