16800 pumpkin patina¿? Pt 2

[Rolessor82]

Hi guys,

I had another thread that got locked and did not receive any reason. It was a nice conversation without any strong language at all. If it's wrong that I open another one, my apologies to the Forum but I was gonna post better pics (I think) - in fact, one user sent me a private message asking me for more pics, but If it's a new norm here at RolexForums fine with me I respect that.

I just wanted to get thoughts on authenticity of the hands and dial. If all was good and pure.

Here more pics :)

[springer]

My opinion hasn't changed expect to say the dial looks relumed now with the sparkle-glitter effect. I've never seen that on a 1980s tritium watch. My opinion on the relumed hands hasn't changed from your last thread.

[Rolessor82]

Thanks John. Appreciate your opinion.

[PVR]

Since you started a new thread I will also restate my opinion that the dial and hands are genuine and original tritium and not relumed.

Now you have two completely opposite opinions, hope that helps :)

[Rolessor82]

Thank you both. I really appreciate your time and help

[PVR]

Since I know Springers activity and posts carry weight, I feel obligated to support my opinion with facts. And since Springer has stated that he's never seen an 80's tritium dial have any stardust sparkle, I would like to provide an example to him and the other forum members so this misinformation doesn't turn into fact. Not a dig at Springer, just want to provide an example to support my findings from over 20 years doing this..

The photo below is actually the same exact dial that is being posted. It's not as heavily patina'ed but it is a 1980's transitional matte dial for a 16800. I happen to have one sitting in my parts bin. It is not easy to photograph, but under UV you will clearly see multiple plots with that tritium sparkle or stardust within the plot. 80's tritium and ALL tritium will show this stardust. In fact, I even have mid 90's Tritium Zenith Daytona dials that display the same characteristics, so again I must disagree with Springer across the board. ALL tritium can, should and does display this stardust. Since the dial in the original post shows the stardust then its tritium. I see the UV reaction in the pictures so I know its correct.

I will reiterate that in addition to the sparkle, the texture and sharpness in the lume application further supports it is genuine and not a relume. People are quick to call out perfectly good watches with absolutely nothing supporting it but opinion. I hope that I supported my opinion with photographical evidence.

Glad to be a part of the vintage community and share some knowledge now and again. :)

[Rolessor82]

That is tritium 1000%. Thank you!

[Rolessor82]

Happy to read your opinions. This what this Forum is about. Great info PVR. Appreciate it !!!

[swish77]

Originally Posted by PVR

80's tritium and ALL tritium will show this stardust.

Compelling evidence. All I'll say it that across the decades there were different batches of tritium from different manufacturers, so it stands to reason there would be varied reactions all these years later. Why, for example, does original tritium on pretty much all vintage Daytonas still react and glow for a little bit after UV is removed, when other sports Rolexes from the same time periods can often be completely dead after the UV is removed? (Rhetorical question.)

One point I don't agree with is that ALL tritium will show the stardust sparkles. Some do, some don't, in my experience anyway. Here are some of my (former and current) vintage Rolexes under UV. A DRSD with a 5512 both about 1973-74 (no sparkles on either), a 1655 from 1978 (some sparkles), and a 1979 6263 (no sparkles).

[PVR]

swish77: You raise an interesting point about the tritium lume on Daytonas. From my observations and studies on lume over the years, Rolex used various types of binders mixed with the tritium. Many of the old "puffy lume" meters first dials were mixed with zinc sulfide. The zinc sulfide has a longer decay rate than all of the other binders. Decay rate is the term used for how long it stays glowing after a light source is removed. Daytonas and Day Date Presidents also had Zinc Sulfide (ZS) Binders.

I can only speculate why they used ZS primarily on small dial plots like Daytonas and Day Dates. Perhaps its because it often turns green or better suited for small plots? The big plots on sport dials always looked sloppy and lumpy so maybe the consistency had to do with it?

They then switched or transitioned into a Phosphor binder. I think what you see glowing under the UV is the Phosphor and not tritium as the tritium died out long ago. It has a half life of 12.5 years which means a watch from 1968 will glow half as bright in 1980. In 1992 it will glow half as bright as it did in 1980 and in 2004 half as bright as it did in 1992.. you get the idea. So in 2022 a watch that was lumed with tritium in 1968 is surely dead. The tritium cannot glow as the half life has been reduced to next to zero after 50+ years.

BUT, you do see the sparkle and you will see the decay glow in the older zinc sulfide tritium mixes. After you look at 10,000 dials it will be much easier to see :)

[PVR]

One point I forgot to add Swish77. You are correct that not ALL genuine tritium dials will show that sparkle. I have indeed seen many that do not, especially tropical watches that have brown dials and had been exposed to high moisture and humidity. But, what I meant to say and let me now clarify is that if you do see that Sparkle/Glitter in the lume then you know it IS tritium.

It is like being a detective. How does it look to the naked eye? How is the texture? How is the application? Is it too high or too flat or too sloppy? How does it look under UV? Do you see the yellow reflection? Do you see any sparkle in the plots? Is the decay rate consistent with the model and year of the watch in question?

You put it all together to come to a conclusion. I have seen some really really good relumes and I have seen some really really bad dial work that was genuine Rolex.

[Rolessor82]

Interesting, wow! Thanks for sharing Aaron.

I borrow an uv light+loupe from a friend. Took more pics. You can see clearly what has been debating here.

Some, not all of the lume plots have sparkle. Most don't. But they do share rhe same characteristics in texture. The hands do have this sparking very present.

Enjoy

[springer]

Regarding my earlier comment, what I should have wrote was I have never seen circa 1980s watches sparkle as much as the OPs. If someone thinks that is common, show some here because I would like to see them. Lume with more than a few to minimal sparkles is not the same as multiple ones as seen in the OPs dial. Most, lume from the 1980s do not sparkle or have very minimal sparkle. Also, on the OP's watch, the brown lume color observed under UV is not consistent with normal 1980s dials.

Based on the photos, the hands are not even close to being original tritium lume in my opinion. It appears something was added to the relume mix to make the lume have a grainy muti-color texture effect and not a solid color which would match the dial markers.

Below are a couple pics of two 16750 dials. Very minimum to no lume sparkle.

I can't explain what happens with the various watches, and why one might look or react a certain way and others might not. I am not a chemist. But, I have owned hundreds of vintage watches, handled and examined many more, and based on my experiences, I believe I have a good idea when something isn't correct or doesn't appear as it should. Most opinions here on TRF are based on photos and not "in hand" examinations which sometimes might alter how something looks or appears once in hand.