Anti-reflective coating... Like it or not and why?

[2th Dr]

Always wondered what others thought about it. Make any difference to you or how a watch would look with or without it?

[salem65]

I can't tell the difference between one that has single or double coating or no coating at all. Just like all the anti-glare on eye glasses, I still cannot tell the difference. So, it doesn't matter to me if there is anti-reflective on the crystal or not.

[kilyung]

It makes a huge difference soi like it but I don't like when it gets scratched so I'd only want the under glass coating.

[Johny]

i had an a/r cyclops crystal fitted to my lv recently. it looks great and the date is a lot easier to read.

[77T]

Since I have mostly vintage pieces currently I don't have an AR crystals - on the sapphire models I understand its value though.

[2th Dr]

I'm also curious why Rolex doesn't use it. I think it makes ANY dial really pop! But once it's damaged, at least for me, it becomes a focal point.

[withthesword]

AR coating on the underside of Rolex's sapphire has always been one of the things i wish they would do.

[dddrees]

Not that big of fan.

I like the glisten of the Rolex crystal, and I've heard about a few watches that had it and it started to peel or scratch.

My understanding is that it generally does better underneath the crystal than on top of.

[Jocke]

Originally Posted by Johny

i had an a/r cyclops crystal fitted to my lv recently. it looks great and the date is a lot easier to read.

Any pics?

Paul need one too, the he can see his date.

[Bangel]

Originally Posted by withthesword

AR coating on the underside of Rolex's sapphire has always been one of the things i wish they would do.

Me too.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by 2th DR

I'm also curious why Rolex doesn't use it. I think it makes ANY dial really pop! But once it's damaged, at least for me, it becomes a focal point.

I agree. My PO's dial looks like it's in hd. I think the real reason Rolex doesn't use it is just for bling since the crystal shines and reflects light so much. I do like the shiney look of my Rolex but I'm also captivated when looking at my PO's crystal clear dial.
An even compromise for Rolex would be to just apply it to the underside.

My vote is that I like it more.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by 2th DR

I'm also curious why Rolex doesn't use it. I think it makes ANY dial really pop! But once it's damaged, at least for me, it becomes a focal point.

As far as AR under the cyclops, I only wish they had thought of it sooner.

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by 2th DR

Always wondered what others thought about it. Make any difference to you or how a watch would look with or without it?

Mark, I like it on my Breitlings but don't think it would look so good on a Rolex. If you know what I mean.

[2th Dr]

I personally like it but somehow some of it rubbed off my new Perrelet that I wear at work and it is definitely noticable. Now I'm thinking of removing the rest of it.

[Johny]

Originally Posted by Jocke

Any pics?

Paul need one too, the he can see his date.

will post some later jocke....right now i am at my flute lesson. :thumbsu p:

[benlee]

My Omega PO has double AR. To me, it significant enhance readability even at odd angles.

[tinger]

Seiko's new proprietary 'super-clear coating' is awesome. You dont see/notice the glass at most angles. Super clear and no color/blue tint.

[watchf]

Its great on the cyclops. It does make a slight difference on the crystal when I had a 2500 PO but its not a deal breaker or anything significant to me at all. In fact having the coating on the outer glass itself is a big negative due to potential scratches wearing off the coating making the crystal look awful.

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by kilyung

It makes a huge difference soi like it but I don't like when it gets scratched so I'd only want the under glass coating.

This