Gold in Rolex watches

[Jim300186]

Hi all I'm fairly new to Rolex ownership I have a ss Daytona and a red hand exporer 2 I was recently told by my brother that he reckons the hands and hour markers are made of gold is this true? I have no idea

[FeelingTheBlues]

I believe it is true for the newer models, unless your watches are vintage the hands (and I believe the rings surrounding the markers) are made of white gold.

[dddrees]

That is true.

[Jim300186]

No they are not vintage both are brand new. That's interesting why do they use gold on a stainless steel watch instead of more stainless steel?

[FeelingTheBlues]

Originally Posted by Jim300186

No they are not vintage both are brand new. That's interesting why do they use gold on a stainless steel watch instead of more stainless steel?

Perhaps because it shines more? I believe it's also more resistant to corrosion.

I'm really not sure about that one so that's my wild guess!

EDIT: Oh...yes...and what Dan said just above!

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by FeelingTheBlues

Perhaps because it shines more? I believe it's also more resistant to corrosion.

I'm really not sure about that one so that's my wild guess!

EDIT: Oh...yes...and what Dan said just above!

Nope, nope, see above Carl.

[dddrees]

Because it sounds a whole lot better.

[joe100]

Rolex started this in the 1980s and the introduction date varied based on model

[kilyung]

Corrosion resistance

[jctrolex]

Originally Posted by kilyung

Corrosion resistance

I don't buy it, it's just a marketing ploy from Rolex so that they can charge a crazy amount of money for a steel watch and make you feel somewhat justified. The steel case is a lot more and constantly exposed to the elements than the markers and the hands that are hermetically sealed inside the case and therefore less prone to corrosion. If there is corrosion it will happen to the case before getting to the markers and hands inside. So by their same logic steel is more corrosion resistant than gold (which we know is not the case)? Why not use steel for the markers and hands then?
I will buy the argument that gold is probably shinier than steel for aesthetic reasons.

[Joey_V]

Originally Posted by jctrolex

I don't buy it, it's just a marketing ploy from Rolex so that they can charge a crazy amount of money for a steel watch and make you feel somewhat justified. The steel case is a lot more and constantly exposed to the elements than the markers and the hands that are hermetically sealed inside the case and therefore less prone to corrosion. If there is corrosion it will happen to the case before getting to the markers and hands inside. So by their same logic steel is more corrosion resistant than gold (which we know is not the case)? Why not use steel for the markers and hands then?
I will buy the argument that gold is probably shinier than steel for aesthetic reasons.

If you look at your vintage "hermetically sealed" Rolexes, you can see that the hands corrode. So, I do buy that they made it WG to make it more corrosion resistant.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Joey_V

If you look at your vintage "hermetically sealed" Rolexes, you can see that the hands corrode. So, I do buy that they made it WG to make it more corrosion resistant.

After seeing Mike's post later, even I realized I was probably mistaken. I also thought about the vintage vintage watches and how common it was to see corrosion.

Sorry Carl,

Dan

[jackruff]

At a guess I presume that thin/fine SS (as in hand, hour markers) would be more susceptible to corrosion than a large chunk so hence corrosion resistant gold to the mostly inaccessible areas.....

[joseluu]

If corrosion destroys 1/10 of a mm of the case nobody would even notice. If if happens to the hands you would have levitating luminova.

[77T]

They make hands of gold rather than fiddle with multiple materials having different luminova deposition characteristics. Overall the supply chain and manufacturing savings in this simplicity overcomes the raw material cost differences.