Is my brand new Rolex DJ ruined?

[November]

It seems the majority of members consider this to be a positive outcome, and if you're happy with the result that's all that really matters.

From an outsider's perspective, I find this to be far from an equitable outcome. While gold might be more resistant to corrosion (making it "suitable" for diving), it's also far more "suitable" for, and far more likely to be worn in a hot tub. Considering how technical and thoughtful Rolex is around it's sport line (Rolex currently markets the DJ as such), it's hard to believe Rolex didn't consider this and develop an alloy around it.

With that said, Rolex should most certainly make this know through its maintenance manual WRT alloys that react with swimming pool treatment agents (since again this is the most likely environment for a modern Rolex watch). The absence of any cautions around this type of reaction indicates to me that this ABSOLUTELY should not have happened, and you either a) got a "bad batch" and should get a new bezel / center links, or b) we aren't getting the full story.

I'm not a lawyer or a chemist but to me some things just aren't adding up here; it's possible we just aren't getting all of the information around the what/why. Absent an official response from Rolex acknowledging the situation and why this wouldn't be covered under warranty, I would encourage you to push for new center links / bezel, or at the very least a new bezel. IMHO your brand new watch, after a few months, is officially scarred with the equivalent of a full generation of wear. Not cool. I would not be happy about this at all...

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by November

It seems the majority of members consider this to be a positive outcome, and if you're happy with the result that's all that really matters.

From an outsider's perspective, I find this to be far from an equitable outcome. While gold might be more resistant to corrosion (making it "suitable" for diving), it's also far more "suitable" for, and far more likely to be worn in a hot tub. Considering how technical and thoughtful Rolex is around it's sport line (Rolex currently markets the DJ as such), it's hard to believe Rolex didn't consider this and develop an alloy around it.

With that said, Rolex should most certainly make this know through its maintenance manual WRT alloys that react with swimming pool treatment agents (since again this is the most likely environment for a modern Rolex watch). The absence of any cautions around this type of reaction indicates to me that this ABSOLUTELY should not have happened, and you either a) got a "bad batch" and should get a new bezel / center links, or b) we aren't getting the full story.

I'm not a lawyer or a chemist but to me some things just aren't adding up here; it's possible we just aren't getting all of the information around the what/why. Absent an official response from Rolex acknowledging the situation and why this wouldn't be covered under warranty, I would encourage you to push for new center links / bezel, or at the very least a new bezel. IMHO your brand new watch, after a few months, is officially scarred with the equivalent of a full generation of wear. Not cool. I would not be happy about this at all...

Rolex did well with a free polishing service they weren't obliged to perform.

There are a great many people who wear their watch in their hot tub without this happening, so this situation may not be as predictable as you claim. They can't describe all possible scenarios in their warranty booklet. This falls under the generic abuse isn't covered by the warranty language.

[AJMarcus]

The chlorine and who knows what else was in the tub did a number on your watch for sure. Gold is a very soft material. That’s why SS is so popular. It’s durable. Gold was historically used only in dress watches on a leather strap never submersed in water.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by AJMarcus

The chlorine and who knows what else was in the tub did a number on your watch for sure. Gold is a very soft material. That’s why SS is so popular. It’s durable. Gold was historically used only in dress watches on a leather strap never submersed in water.

SS is more popular mainly due to price point. If a solid gold Rolex cost the same as a SS one which one do you think would outsell the other? Gold of course. You likely have never owned a PM Rolex otherwise you would know gold watches hold up just like SS other than the PCL scratches and scuffs. Besides, gold coins and bars have been recovered sitting on the bottom of the ocean floor in salt water virtually in perfect condition. There was simply something very reactive and harsh in that hot tub water that caused the issue. Pretty sure lots of Rolex owners around the world wear their gold watches in the ocean, pool, and hot tub with no issue.

[Jg422]

Glad rolex took care of it. The bezel doesn’t look overly polished at all from the picture. Just wondering were they able to get all surfaces of the gold in the bracelet restored? Just wondering if maybe they actually replaced the bezel and bracelet.? Either way congrats on a happy ending lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Randy63]

Originally Posted by november

it seems the majority of members consider this to be a positive outcome, and if you're happy with the result that's all that really matters.

From an outsider's perspective, i find this to be far from an equitable outcome. While gold might be more resistant to corrosion (making it "suitable" for diving), it's also far more "suitable" for, and far more likely to be worn in a hot tub. Considering how technical and thoughtful rolex is around it's sport line (rolex currently markets the dj as such), it's hard to believe rolex didn't consider this and develop an alloy around it.

With that said, rolex should most certainly make this know through its maintenance manual wrt alloys that react with swimming pool treatment agents (since again this is the most likely environment for a modern rolex watch). The absence of any cautions around this type of reaction indicates to me that this absolutely should not have happened, and you either a) got a "bad batch" and should get a new bezel / center links, or b) we aren't getting the full story.

I'm not a lawyer or a chemist but to me some things just aren't adding up here; it's possible we just aren't getting all of the information around the what/why. Absent an official response from rolex acknowledging the situation and why this wouldn't be covered under warranty, i would encourage you to push for new center links / bezel, or at the very least a new bezel. Imho your brand new watch, after a few months, is officially scarred with the equivalent of a full generation of wear. Not cool. I would not be happy about this at all...

I agree 100%.


Randy

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by November

It seems the majority of members consider this to be a positive outcome, and if you're happy with the result that's all that really matters.

From an outsider's perspective, I find this to be far from an equitable outcome. While gold might be more resistant to corrosion (making it "suitable" for diving), it's also far more "suitable" for, and far more likely to be worn in a hot tub. Considering how technical and thoughtful Rolex is around it's sport line (Rolex currently markets the DJ as such), it's hard to believe Rolex didn't consider this and develop an alloy around it.

With that said, Rolex should most certainly make this know through its maintenance manual WRT alloys that react with swimming pool treatment agents (since again this is the most likely environment for a modern Rolex watch). The absence of any cautions around this type of reaction indicates to me that this ABSOLUTELY should not have happened, and you either a) got a "bad batch" and should get a new bezel / center links, or b) we aren't getting the full story.

I'm not a lawyer or a chemist but to me some things just aren't adding up here; it's possible we just aren't getting all of the information around the what/why. Absent an official response from Rolex acknowledging the situation and why this wouldn't be covered under warranty, I would encourage you to push for new center links / bezel, or at the very least a new bezel. IMHO your brand new watch, after a few months, is officially scarred with the equivalent of a full generation of wear. Not cool. I would not be happy about this at all...

This is a lot of pontification and speculation. The watch came back from Rolex free of charge as far as we know. Now you are suggesting opening up a new can of worms by making demands for a new bracelet/bezel? Pretty sure Rolex would tell you to bugger off if you handled this the way you suggest.

[rmurphy]

Originally Posted by November

It seems the majority of members consider this to be a positive outcome, and if you're happy with the result that's all that really matters.



From an outsider's perspective, I find this to be far from an equitable outcome. While gold might be more resistant to corrosion (making it "suitable" for diving), it's also far more "suitable" for, and far more likely to be worn in a hot tub. Considering how technical and thoughtful Rolex is around it's sport line (Rolex currently markets the DJ as such), it's hard to believe Rolex didn't consider this and develop an alloy around it.



With that said, Rolex should most certainly make this know through its maintenance manual WRT alloys that react with swimming pool treatment agents (since again this is the most likely environment for a modern Rolex watch). The absence of any cautions around this type of reaction indicates to me that this ABSOLUTELY should not have happened, and you either a) got a "bad batch" and should get a new bezel / center links, or b) we aren't getting the full story.



I'm not a lawyer or a chemist but to me some things just aren't adding up here; it's possible we just aren't getting all of the information around the what/why. Absent an official response from Rolex acknowledging the situation and why this wouldn't be covered under warranty, I would encourage you to push for new center links / bezel, or at the very least a new bezel. IMHO your brand new watch, after a few months, is officially scarred with the equivalent of a full generation of wear. Not cool. I would not be happy about this at all...

Ridiculous


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spacebjorn]

Congrats OP!

The big question now is..... will you go back in to the hot tub with the DJ again?

[logo]

If you zoom waaaaaay in on the YG gold bezel I can convince myself it was polished and not replaced, as the peaked edges are just SLIGHTLY flattened. That said, if that’s what a polished fluted bezel looks like, then I will have absolutely no reservations about getting it polished if ever the need does arise - really does still look fantastic and hardly different from the original (no one will notice unless they are getting in way too close).

Congrats on getting your watch back!

[November]

Originally Posted by rmurphy

Ridiculous


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

is it? As I wrote my original post, and as I re-read, it seemed relatively logical to me; but than again that might just be my delusional mind playing tricks on me again.

My post was merely meant to give the OP a different perspective around how someone who values their money would view this situation. I made no claims in my post, but rather observations around an event that I've never seen in my 5 years obsessively observing this forum... outside of vintage forums at least.

I'm an owner of several rolex references, and despite owning and appreciating brands such as PP, AP, ALS and HMC, rolex is the group in my stable I couldn't live without. Why? because they're timeless, beautiful, machined with precision, but most of all because they're bulletproof. For that reason, this would not be OK with me. My rolex pieces are the only in my collection that I can strap on, carry-on and forget about. I would expect an issue like this from PP / AP (because of the traditional nature of these brands), but certainly not from rolex.

rmurphy - as a member who holds over 800 posts on this forum I would expect a more supportive opposition to my post. I apologize for having wasted your time and spamming this 16 page thread with my unqualified view.

[November]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

This is a lot of pontification and speculation. The watch came back from Rolex free of charge as far as we know. Now you are suggesting opening up a new can of worms by making demands for a new bracelet/bezel? Pretty sure Rolex would tell you to bugger off if you handled this the way you suggest.

Yes - a new can of worms makes good sense here; we're talking a $5 can (assuming that would be 3.94 pounds for you), or approximately .01% of the cost of the watch to potentially be made whole here. Seems like a pretty solid risk-reward profile to me.

[GJ-PGMTII]

Originally Posted by jinikari01

Rolex if you are reading this. Give us more SS models NOW!!!! LOL.

Rolex - please dont listen to this post. :) ... I just got my SS blro.

[jinikari01]

Originally Posted by GJ-PGMTII

Rolex - please dont listen to this post. :) ... I just got my SS blro.

Hater. LOL. Congrats!
Which AD in Chicago came through for you?

[donq]

This whole thing sounds like more of a hot tub problem than a Rolex problem.

If the tub was maintained properly this would never have happened.

[MILGAUSS88]

A lot of hot tubs use bromide instead of chlorine..
And I believe bromide is more reactive with gold.

There's a compound called gold bromide and if you read the description sounds an awful lot like what happened to your watch.

Gold(III) bromide is a dark-red to black crystalline solid.[1][2][3] It has the empirical formula AuBr3, but exists primarily as a dimer with the molecular formula Au2Br6 in which two gold atoms are bridged by two bromine atoms.[2][3][4] It is commonly referred to as gold(III) bromide, gold tribromide, and rarely but traditionally auric bromide, and sometimes as digold hexabromide. As is similar with the other gold halides, this compound is unique for being a coordination complex of a group 11 transition metal that is stable in an oxidation state of three whereas copper or silver complexes persist in oxidation states of one or two.[5]

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by donq

This whole thing sounds like more of a hot tub problem than a Rolex problem.

If the tub was maintained properly this would never have happened.

I agree with this

[marcusp23]

So...for those of us who don’t want to read 500 posts but want to find out what happened here so we can go in the hot tub with our TT Rolex without risking a ruined watch, could someone let us know what happened, and whether I should be worried/cautious in the future? B/c I kind of wear mine everywhere and am not cautious at all :)

Would be greatly appreciated

[Rocket_Man]

Originally Posted by marcusp23

So...for those of us who don’t want to read 500 posts but want to find out what happened here so we can go in the hot tub with our TT Rolex without risking a ruined watch, could someone let us know what happened, and whether I should be worried/cautious in the future? B/c I kind of wear mine everywhere and am not cautious at all :)

Would be greatly appreciated

From what I recall, the OP wore his gold Rolex into a hot tub with exceptionally high concentration of Chlorine and it tarnished the finish.

So all those 'is it safe' threads are not in vain afterall.

https://info.jewelersmutual.com/the-...-bummer-summer

[Dsmith1974]

Originally Posted by marcusp23

So...for those of us who don’t want to read 500 posts but want to find out what happened here so we can go in the hot tub with our TT Rolex without risking a ruined watch, could someone let us know what happened, and whether I should be worried/cautious in the future? B/c I kind of wear mine everywhere and am not cautious at all :)

Would be greatly appreciated

Usually OK unless the hot tub is 50% water and 50% chlorine

In all seriousness though I guess it goes to show that you only have to take a dip in one tub set up by someone who hasn’t done it right to suffer to the consequences.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BT1985]

Originally Posted by Dsmith1974

Usually OK unless the hot tub is 50% water and 50% chlorine

In all seriousness though I guess it goes to show that you only have to take a dip in one tub set up by someone who hasn’t done it right to suffer to the consequences.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe the person that set up the hot tub knew what took place in it the night before and made the executive decision that extra chlorine was needed...maybe the OP should be grateful all he left with was a tarnished DJ.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dsmith1974]

Originally Posted by BT1985

Maybe the person that set up the hot tub knew what took place in it the night before and made the executive decision that extra chlorine was needed...maybe the OP should be grateful all he left with was a tarnished DJ.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Haha! I’d rather have an untarnished DJ than anything a suburban sex pond could throw at me. 😂

[LeftCoastBias]

Wow. I guess we DO all need those deep sea sea dwellers for a dip in the kiddie pool...


- Sent via iPhone. Please excuse any typos or brevity in my message

[BT1985]

Originally Posted by Dsmith1974

Haha! I’d rather have an untarnished DJ than anything a suburban sex pond could throw at me.

You just gave me a great new formal name for my hot tub.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DTap]

Am I the only one that thought the copper color of the tarnish looked pretty cool?

[Amochosto]

Originally Posted by Dsmith1974

Haha! I’d rather have an untarnished DJ than anything a suburban sex pond could throw at me. 😂

This is probably the best non technical post I have ever read here!

[Amochosto]

Originally Posted by DTap

Am I the only one that thought the copper color of the tarnish looked pretty cool?

You are not the only one, I would have waited til servicing and enjoyed the patina for those 10ish years. But it bothered the op so I fully understand and support him getting it fixed.

[huncho]

Originally Posted by DTap

Am I the only one that thought the copper color of the tarnish looked pretty cool?

maybe if it was on a vintage watch but just looks like a bad fake on a brand new dj41 lol

[dchernikoff]

Just read thru this thread. Highly entertaining and educational -- quite the exciting saga! I'm very happy that the OP was able to get this resolved to his satisfaction, and that Rolex and the AD came thru without any pushback - congratulations! Watch looks "like new" to my untrained eyes at least. And it did seem to me like the right thing for Rolex to do and a great way to build loyalty with a high-value seller from the AD's perspective.

It has also made me think twice about getting a PM Rolex, despite the SS Rolex shortage at ADs being so frustrating. I'm notoriously hard on watches and not the kind of person that thinks first before hopping into a pool or hottub with my watch on -- just doesn't occur to me. Makes SS 'more precious' in my eyes now!

-Dan

[Camel]

Originally Posted by bezler

Was your neighbor's watch authentic? Did he buy it at an AD? We don't believe it, post pictures. And if you do, prove that they're not PhotoShopped. Post more videos. We've been wearing our Rolex watches for decades in hot tubs, no problem. Tell him to post his original paperwork too. We still won't believe him because many of us have been around the forums for years and we've seen it all, scammers and fakes. Did he say it's authentic? Where did he buy it? He said it was from an AD?? Well how would we know that, you think we waste time reading threads? I'm no professional chemist, but I do know that gold mixture can't react, everyone knows that. Any chemist that says otherwise, well he's probably a chemistry expert, and we all know that experts are all wrong. No way that it's real, I just went swimming yesterday and no problem.



Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

Great post