Why rolex do not apply anti-reflective coating on their watches?

[rambo99]

which makes it difficult to read time on direct sunlight. anybody knows why they do not apply anti-reflective coating on the sapphire crystal, like panerai do. any pros and cons?

[VicLeChic]

They do it to get more attention in spite of detracting from legibility.

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by VicLeChic

They do it to get more attention in spite of detracting from legibility.

really?

[Harry-57]

Yes. It makes them twinkle. The cyclops is AR coated.

[ecdc]

I so wish they'd use AR coating on the underside of the crystal. Top-side coating gets too smudged. But underside? It makes a HUGE difference for legibiity and there is zero downside. Do you want your watch to "sparkle" or do you want to be able to read the time easier? I would prefer the latter.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by ecdc

I so wish they'd use AR coating on the underside of the crystal. Top-side coating gets too smudged. But underside? It makes a HUGE difference for legibiity and there is zero downside. Do you want your watch to "sparkle" or do you want to be able to read the time easier? I would prefer the latter.

It’s rolex, it’s not about what you want, it’s about what they want for you.

[zjd168]

mot sure if the legibility is indeed an issue, at least not to me.

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by rambo99

which makes it difficult to read time on direct sunlight. anybody knows why they do not apply anti-reflective coating on the sapphire crystal, like panerai do. any pros and cons?

Because they do not want to be like Panerai

[ecdc]

Originally Posted by subtona

It’s rolex, it’s not about what you want, it’s about what they want for you.

Yeah, I know. But still...my Daytona ticks in 1/8 second increments. Yet the hash marks along the dial for the chrono second hand are in 1/5 second increments. I'd like it if Rolex would at least make those hash marks in 1/4 second increments instead. Why would Rolex want me not to be able to precisely use my watch as it's intended? And as long as Rolex got that wrong (no one can reasonably disagree that such a thing is nonsensical), I'm saying they got the "no underside AR coating" thing wrong, too.

I would pay extra at service time for a new crystal with underside AR coating.

[jrs146]

I bet there are more service issues when AR is applied. Maybe that comes into play. But otherwise who knows?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Harry-57]

I'll take a NR coating any day. But if the lack of it on Rolex was an issue, I would have kept my money.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by Harry-57

Yes. It makes them twinkle. The cyclops is AR coated.

No. The AR is under the cyclops

[Tomas Eriksson]

Originally Posted by subtona

It’s rolex, it’s not about what you want, it’s about what they want for you.

Words of wisdom, haha

[harvey]

The answer is no one really knows. It is one of the things that annoys me about Rolex references.

[joli160]

Because it is ugly imo and it takes away the jewellery aspect

[nektar]

That would slow down the production lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[asiparks]

Originally Posted by joli160

Because it is ugly imo and it takes away the jewellery aspect

far from ugly, it increases contrast and allows the white gold indices and hands to sparkle, rather than the blank slab of crystal.

No worries, Rolex were late to the party with substantial bracelets, ceramics, decent lume and power reserves>40 hrs, so I'm sure they'll catch up with the AR shortly...probably give it a fancy name too.....

[asiparks]

Originally Posted by beshannon

Because they do not want to be like Panerai

hmm, who else doesn't AR their crystals..? Oh yeah, Invicta....

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by asiparks

far from ugly, it increases contrast and allows the white gold indices and hands to sparkle, rather than the blank slab of crystal.

sure, i would prefer anti-reflective coating.

[jsausley]

They don't use anti-reflective coating because a watch that reflex light tends sparkles/shines more.

[Carondelet]

I can't really speculate why they do or don't use AR on their crystals.

What I can say is that for me, I personally don't have any issue with the lack of AR coating. Neither my Rolex nor my Seiko have AR coating and I've never had legibility issues. I've taken my Alpinist into the Rocky Mountains and actually used the compass bezel for funzies. I've also swam with it in the Indian Ocean on a sunny day and didn't have legibility issues either. My Air King will soon go on those kinds of adventures with me and I am sure I won't notice the lack of an AR coat.

That being said - I would not object to having it on my Rolex or Seiko - it's just not an issue for me personally.


----no wait - scratch that, not having AR coating does make it trickier to take pretty pictures!

[Fallranger]

I agree I think it makes them pop more. AR is great for legibility but detracts from the sparkle.

[denmanproject]

Originally Posted by subtona

It’s rolex, it’s not about what you want, it’s about what they want for you.

Rolex new slogan

[keithl]

Originally Posted by rambo99

which makes it difficult to read time on direct sunlight. anybody knows why they do not apply anti-reflective coating on the sapphire crystal, like panerai do. any pros and cons?

I believe their reasoning is because it changes the color of the dial, ever so slightly.

[artschool]

I believe it is left uncoated because a Rolex is a tool watch and a diver could use the reflective surface of his watch to signal a rescue helicopter etc.

[ecdc]

Originally Posted by artschool

I believe it is left uncoated because a Rolex is a tool watch and a diver could use the reflective surface of his watch to signal a rescue helicopter etc.

That's a stretch, but let's go with it. What about a Daytona? Why does it need a shiny crystal?

[Art 1]

A few years ago James Dowling interviewed a Rolex executive and asked that question. The reply was that that is the look Rolex wants, the shinny effect from the glass.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by ecdc

Yeah, I know. But still...my Daytona ticks in 1/8 second increments. Yet the hash marks along the dial for the chrono second hand are in 1/5 second increments. I'd like it if Rolex would at least make those hash marks in 1/4 second increments instead. Why would Rolex want me not to be able to precisely use my watch as it's intended? And as long as Rolex got that wrong (no one can reasonably disagree that such a thing is nonsensical), I'm saying they got the "no underside AR coating" thing wrong, too.

I would pay extra at service time for a new crystal with underside AR coating.

16520 Daytona w Zenith movement 36,000.

[ecdc]

Originally Posted by subtona

16520 Daytona w Zenith movement 36,000.

Nope. Rolex modified it to be 28,800.

[For the Lulz]

I'm glad they don't actually.

Although, that said... I wouldn't mind if it was applied on the internal of the glass.

The reason being is that I have an Omega Seamaster 300M 2016 (Ceramic) and it's fantastic... BUT. the sapphire crystal is coated with AR, on both sides...

Meaning that you can actually scratch the AR ontop of the surface and it looks like a scratch... so why bother with sapphire?

Fortunately, on mine I only have micro-scratches that you have to really look for... but I have seen on other peoples when it is applied to the external side of the sapphire they've received some nasty scratches...

But if it was only applied on the reverse side, I see no issue!