ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Eric88 · 18 September 2010, 01:52 PM

I've seen a number of comments from folks that wish Rolex had AR on the underside or even both sides of the crystal like some other popular brands. Rolex seems to be unwilling to do this aside from a touch of AR under the cyclops for the newest watches.

For a long time, I questioned this as the lack of AR makes the dial of the watch less clear and even kind of dull in comparison to watches that have AR coating. But there is that "Rolex glisten" that causes the entire dial to look like ice when light catches it the right way. This may be the iconic appeal to the non-AR crystal that is somewhat specific to Rolex crystals (at least since they went to sapphire).

I proffer this photo as evidence of the ice effect (photo credit to GJ).

What do you think? Should Rolex stick to what they have or move to a fully or partial AR crystal?

Art 1 · 18 September 2010, 02:00 PM

No.

Speed · 18 September 2010, 02:00 PM

I would be happy with the AR on the Cyclops ala the GMTIIC

Love your photo Eric

stockae92 · 18 September 2010, 02:05 PM

i really would like to see AR coating on the inside, i think its a step up :-)

The GMT Master · 18 September 2010, 06:45 PM

I like the shine personally. I don't think it's something Rolex will consider either, I remember it being said that they think the prominent crystal is an integral part of their design ethos

mike · 18 September 2010, 06:48 PM

I notice it most on the DSSD at certain angles. I'd like to see it myself.

dalip · 18 September 2010, 07:02 PM

Have to say that I really notice it on my PO...love what it does on that watch. For me it pulls attention away from the bezel....

And I like it not being on my rolex....

So...no to rolex doing it.

Colnago · 18 September 2010, 07:02 PM

I like the AR coating beneath the cyclops.....makes the date very easy to read....as for the rest of the crystal, I don't think it's really necessary.....I was through Heathrow a couple of weeks ago and as far as I could see all the new models on display (I mean all of them) appeared to have AR coating applied beneath the cyclops...maybe they've decided because it has been such a hit with the GMTIIc they've put it across the complete range???

dddrees · 18 September 2010, 07:08 PM

With the Cyclops, I can see that. However the Shine is something I really enjoy looking at.

KEEP THE SHINE!!!

EchoBlueUK · 18 September 2010, 08:29 PM

Definitly for the dssd.

Johny · 18 September 2010, 08:31 PM

ar cyclops is fine with me.

Shade · 18 September 2010, 08:49 PM

I don't mind with ar or no ar, but I do like the ar on the date window.

Fiery · 18 September 2010, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stockae92

i really would like to see AR coating on the inside, i think its a step up :-)

+1. But I'd say no for an outside AR coating.

swish77 · 18 September 2010, 10:34 PM

Absolutely not! The AR coating on the outside of a crystal scuffs quite easily (e.g. Breitlings, Omegas), and when you get those annoying scuffs, nicks, marks on the coating there is only one way to get rid of them: replace the crystal (very expensive) or remove all of the AR coating yourself with a Scotchbrite pad and Cape Cod cloth. With all the watch nuts out there (I'm one, too) who obsess over the smallest details and/or imperfections on watches, an AR coating is just one more thing to drive you crazy. Now, if it were only on the inside and protected, that might work.

robsteve · 19 September 2010, 12:58 AM

I think AR would be just one more thing to scratch and detract from the value and appearance of the watch. Since it seems most of the posters here have dive watches, I don't think AR on the outside makes a difference underwater.

Robert

notlostyet · 19 September 2010, 01:14 AM

no i do not think they should because the the shine is iconic

Frogman4me · 19 September 2010, 01:19 AM

AR under the crystal should have been used years ago, I do agree on the outside is annoying to deal with but when you have double AR and it's fresh, the look is simply amazing!

jmsrolls · 19 September 2010, 01:38 AM

The early outside AR coating on the Omega Planet Ocean was susceptible to damage.

The improved coating on the PloProf and newer POs, including the Liquidmetal, is wonderful:

The AR coating under the Cyclops is an improvement but two-sided, full crystal would be better.

Fr. John†

D O C · 19 September 2010, 01:51 AM

Yes, AR coatings have improved over the years. It really depends on WHO is doing the coatings. I know that Zeiss does AR coating for optical lenses and do an excellent, scratch resistent lens, the finest out there probably.

Here's a thought why don't someone have their crystal removed and go to an optical shop and have them send it in to have AR coating, then see out it looks in about 6 months. It would be an interesting experiment.

Gerardus · 19 September 2010, 01:55 AM

AR is okay for me.

Art 1 · 19 September 2010, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notlostyet

no i do not think they should because the the shine is iconic

Not only that it's the look Rolex is after. It's one of the few things Rolex has admitted to.

gold canyon · 19 September 2010, 01:59 AM

[QUOTE=D O C;2070258]Yes, AR coatings have improved over the years. It really depends on WHO is doing the coatings. I know that Zeiss does AR coating for optical lenses and do an excellent, scratch resistent lens, the finest out there probably.

Here's a thought why don't someone have their crystal removed and go to an optical shop and have them send it in to have AR coating, then see out it looks in about 6 months. It would be an interesting experiment.[/QUOTE

I very much like the AR coating under the cyclops on the GMT2C. I'm not comfortable with it on any outside surface. However, it would be interesting to see the AR coating on the underside of the crystal where it would be protected from normal/extreme daily wear potential scratches, etc. Just to see, that is. I like the watch just the way it is but the AR coating would be interesting.

esm · 19 September 2010, 02:01 AM

mmm... why fix it if it aint broken.

so... no for me

View Poll Results: Should Rolex add AR to their crystals?
Blasphemy! Keep it non-AR all the way!	17	30.91%
AR would look nice and they should give it a shot.	38	69.09%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

18 September 2010, 01:52 PM	#1
Eric88 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: 88 keys Posts: 2,241	Should Rolex introduce AR crystals? I've seen a number of comments from folks that wish Rolex had AR on the underside or even both sides of the crystal like some other popular brands. Rolex seems to be unwilling to do this aside from a touch of AR under the cyclops for the newest watches. For a long time, I questioned this as the lack of AR makes the dial of the watch less clear and even kind of dull in comparison to watches that have AR coating. But there is that "Rolex glisten" that causes the entire dial to look like ice when light catches it the right way. This may be the iconic appeal to the non-AR crystal that is somewhat specific to Rolex crystals (at least since they went to sapphire). I proffer this photo as evidence of the ice effect (photo credit to GJ). What do you think? Should Rolex stick to what they have or move to a fully or partial AR crystal?

18 September 2010, 07:02 PM	#7
dalip "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Dalip Location: Mumbai and Perth Watch: Rolex PAM Omega Posts: 18,656	Have to say that I really notice it on my PO...love what it does on that watch. For me it pulls attention away from the bezel.... And I like it not being on my rolex.... So...no to rolex doing it. __________________ ------------------------------------------------------------ *"The liar's punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." George Bernard Shaw*

18 September 2010, 07:02 PM	#8
Colnago "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Real Name: Bill Hart Location: Richmond, NY, UK Watch: Rlx=3, Tdr=3, Om=3 Posts: 3,053	I like the AR coating beneath the cyclops.....makes the date very easy to read....as for the rest of the crystal, I don't think it's really necessary.....I was through Heathrow a couple of weeks ago and as far as I could see all the new models on display (I mean all of them) appeared to have AR coating applied beneath the cyclops...maybe they've decided because it has been such a hit with the GMTIIc they've put it across the complete range??? __________________ Bill "There's only three kinds of people in this world....those that can count....and those that can't" TRF's "JJ's" Bar & NightClub Patron

18 September 2010, 07:08 PM	#9
dddrees "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2010 Real Name: Dan Location: USA Watch: This N That Posts: 34,253	With the Cyclops, I can see that. However the Shine is something I really enjoy looking at. KEEP THE SHINE!!! __________________ When it captures your imagination, that's when you know you have found your passion. Loyal Foot Soldier of The Nylon Nation. Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

18 September 2010, 02:00 PM	#2
Art 1 Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Florida, Canada Watch: Rol/Seik/Tud/Omega Posts: 30,244	No.

18 September 2010, 02:00 PM	#3
Speed "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: USA Posts: 19,706	I would be happy with the AR on the Cyclops ala the GMTIIC Love your photo Eric

18 September 2010, 02:05 PM	#4
stockae92 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Socal Posts: 4,960	i really would like to see AR coating on the inside, i think its a step up :-)

18 September 2010, 06:45 PM	#5
The GMT Master "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Chris Location: England Posts: 8,150	I like the shine personally. I don't think it's something Rolex will consider either, I remember it being said that they think the prominent crystal is an integral part of their design ethos

18 September 2010, 06:48 PM	#6
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	I notice it most on the DSSD at certain angles. I'd like to see it myself.

18 September 2010, 08:29 PM	#10
EchoBlueUK "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,543	Definitly for the dssd.

18 September 2010, 08:31 PM	#11
Johny "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: john Location: Scotland Watch: sub 16610Lv Posts: 13,523	ar cyclops is fine with me. __________________ "AFTER DARK" BAR AND NIGHT CLUB GM.

18 September 2010, 08:49 PM	#12
Shade "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: Norman Location: Jakarta Watch: All of 'em.. Posts: 2,926	I don't mind with ar or no ar, but I do like the ar on the date window.

18 September 2010, 10:34 PM	#14
swish77 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Aaron Location: CT/NYC Watch: ing the time! Posts: 6,987	Absolutely not! The AR coating on the outside of a crystal scuffs quite easily (e.g. Breitlings, Omegas), and when you get those annoying scuffs, nicks, marks on the coating there is only one way to get rid of them: replace the crystal (very expensive) or remove all of the AR coating yourself with a Scotchbrite pad and Cape Cod cloth. With all the watch nuts out there (I'm one, too) who obsess over the smallest details and/or imperfections on watches, an AR coating is just one more thing to drive you crazy. Now, if it were only on the inside and protected, that might work.

19 September 2010, 12:58 AM	#15
robsteve "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 776	I think AR would be just one more thing to scratch and detract from the value and appearance of the watch. Since it seems most of the posters here have dive watches, I don't think AR on the outside makes a difference underwater. Robert

19 September 2010, 01:14 AM	#16
notlostyet Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: roy Location: sunny spain Posts: 93	no i do not think they should because the the shine is iconic

19 September 2010, 01:19 AM	#17
Frogman4me Banned Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Maryland Posts: 6,268	AR under the crystal should have been used years ago, I do agree on the outside is annoying to deal with but when you have double AR and it's fresh, the look is simply amazing!

19 September 2010, 01:38 AM	#18
jmsrolls Banned Join Date: May 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,185	The early outside AR coating on the Omega Planet Ocean was susceptible to damage. The improved coating on the PloProf and newer POs, including the Liquidmetal, is wonderful: The AR coating under the Cyclops is an improvement but two-sided, full crystal would be better. Fr. John†

19 September 2010, 01:51 AM	#19
D O C "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: Jim Location: US Watch: Rolex 116710LN Posts: 600	Yes, AR coatings have improved over the years. It really depends on WHO is doing the coatings. I know that Zeiss does AR coating for optical lenses and do an excellent, scratch resistent lens, the finest out there probably. Here's a thought why don't someone have their crystal removed and go to an optical shop and have them send it in to have AR coating, then see out it looks in about 6 months. It would be an interesting experiment. __________________ ROLEX 116710 LN GMTII "Random" ROLEX 16710 GMTII Pepsi "P" ROLEX 16622 SS/PL YM 29mm "V"

19 September 2010, 01:55 AM	#20
Gerardus "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Real Name: Gerardus Location: often in the air Watch: ♕ Posts: 12,129	AR is okay for me. __________________ ♕126610 ♕126333 ♕116300

19 September 2010, 01:59 AM	#22
gold canyon "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Southwest Watch: R O L E X Posts: 1,188	[QUOTE=D O C;2070258]Yes, AR coatings have improved over the years. It really depends on WHO is doing the coatings. I know that Zeiss does AR coating for optical lenses and do an excellent, scratch resistent lens, the finest out there probably. Here's a thought why don't someone have their crystal removed and go to an optical shop and have them send it in to have AR coating, then see out it looks in about 6 months. It would be an interesting experiment.[/QUOTE I very much like the AR coating under the cyclops on the GMT2C. I'm not comfortable with it on any outside surface. However, it would be interesting to see the AR coating on the underside of the crystal where it would be protected from normal/extreme daily wear potential scratches, etc. Just to see, that is. I like the watch just the way it is but the AR coating would be interesting.

19 September 2010, 02:01 AM	#23
esm "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Eric Location: Location,Location Watch: this, bro... Posts: 15,340	mmm... why fix it if it aint broken. so... no for me

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)