Rolex Bracelets: No Longer 904L?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Time to unsubscribe, I guess. The thread didn't need to exist in the first place, and now it's getting a second life for an even worse reason.

Agreed 100%
I'm with you.
And all because people are all empowered to go off a little half cocked.
The expression has been used on this forum previously and no body ever jumped on it.

The best part about it is so far, is that the person who could've legitimately taken offense was pragmatic about the circumstances and rightly took it in good faith.
Then the first person to take exception and ignite a culture war was ultimately big enough to apologise and recognise the context.

There's clearly a generation gap at play here.
I remember when the expression first emerged many years ago now, it was reported to be in a negative context and distasteful.
I personally rejected it.
It has clearly morphed to mean something rather different for a much younger generation and used in a totally different realm

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Ks6pd

For me, I notice no difference between 316 and 904

Agreed.

I also notice no fundamental difference except when looking at vintage Rolex watches.
But pitted casebacks have also been an issue for all brands. And not restricted to divers watches.
It's just not reported to the same degree or assigned the same level of significance as it is for Rolex watches.

Much is made of the hardness differences between the different SS materials.
Nowhere, does Rolex make any claims to having a harder material.
The only information to date relate strictly to the requirement of Rolex for the material to be.
1, more corrosion resistant. Check
2, be able to take a lusturous polish. Check

As to hardness.
It is claimed that 316 is harder than 904.

Interestingly, early this morning i reached over to collect the Omega 316 watch and bring it closer to read the time as the lume had faded away.
Upon returning it to the table it slipped out of my hand in the dark and fell onto my Rolex daily wearer which was turned away from me.
Upon close inspection in the morning light there were new nunga chungas in the 316 Omega in places that were hard to fathom. But never the less they are present where there were previously none before.

I also inspected the 904 Rolex to see what i had done.
The result was not a mark to be seen (anywhere).

Does this mean that 904 is tougher, more scratch resistant and dent resistant than 316?

[Fleetlord]

904 is the ultimate.

The sheen alone elevates ROLEX above the 316L plebeians.

[Old Expat Beast]

All I notice is that 904 seems to scratch very much easier than 316. Otherwise I don't see any difference.

And I think Oystersteel is a silly name.

[fewwords]

Funny how people think 904L (aka UNS NO8904) is any better or more expensive than 316L. Rolex did a good job marketing this.

The difference is just a more slightly better resistance to acids, nothing more.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by fewwords

Funny how people think 904L (aka UNS NO8904) is any better or more expensive than 316L. Rolex did a good job marketing this.

The difference is just a more slightly better resistance to acids, nothing more.

Yup...and it's funny how many folks treat marketing slogans as ironclad facts.