Thought this would be interesting to our Rolex comunity

[lenfried29]

Don't know if this was previously posted(probably many times) but want to share this article who don't know:
https://www.fourtane.com/2015/10/19/...ason-for-904l/

[Easy E]

Thanks.

[gccmd]

Interesting read. Thanks for the link.

[jstan9]

Wonderful article! Thanks for sharing it!!

[hchj]

Author is a member too I think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[brandrea]

I didn’t realize Rolex has been using 904 since 1985 in the Seadweller ... interesting.

Thanks for the post

[guycord]

I’m going to call partial BS on this. I’m going to call 904L as a USP marketing thing.

If corrosion occurs primarily on the watch back through contact with salty perspiration, then a) a lot more non-Rolex’s would have this problem and b) so would other areas of the bracelet and case.

My guess is that it is the finish of the watch back that is causing a metallurgical problem I.e corrosion as the relatively rough finish provides ample opportunity for a metal-water-oxygen boundary to form. Add NaCl and corrosion will accelerate.

However, if the case back was more highly polished, I doubt you would see that problem on any stainless steel 904 or otherwise.

My 20year old Breitling Chronomat (daily beater) which has seen daily exposure to hot, humid, mildly corrosive environment shows no signs of pitting.

The problem is a Rolex thing not a Stainless steal grade thing

[padi56]

Originally Posted by guycord

I’m going to call partial BS on this. I’m going to call 904L as a USP marketing thing.

If corrosion occurs primarily on the watch back through contact with salty perspiration, then a) a lot more non-Rolex’s would have this problem and b) so would other areas of the bracelet and case.

My guess is that it is the finish of the watch back that is causing a metallurgical problem I.e corrosion as the relatively rough finish provides ample opportunity for a metal-water-oxygen boundary to form. Add NaCl and corrosion will accelerate.

However, if the case back was more highly polished, I doubt you would see that problem on any stainless steel 904 or otherwise.

My 20year old Breitling Chronomat (daily beater) which has seen daily exposure to hot, humid, mildly corrosive environment shows no signs of pitting.

The problem is a Rolex thing not a Stainless steal grade thing

Have to agree plus the countless millions of other watches that use the industry norm 316L, like say Patek they dont have any problems.Most case pitting was many many years ago when Rolex watches were used as tool watches.And many were not serviced at the proper times,with today mainly pampered Rolex watches you could make them from glass.If you dont have your watch in a high acid environment 24/7 then no real advantage no matter the SS.At one time it was a brag factor by Rolex as they were the only ones using it, but now a few others in the watch industry have jumped on the 904L band-waggon.

[jagwap]

All the information of the different grades of steel is on the internet. And yet there is plenty of non factual claims on the internet for the "super-alloy" 904L. Contrary to many posts on this and other forums, it is not harder tgan 316L, and is in some areas it scratces easier.

Technically is is more corrosion resistant, but as others have said, this is not particularly relavent to the average user. I imagine that is a different story for deep professional divers, where the pressure will accelerate the reactions. But that isn't worth anything to us except bragging rights, so, not worth anything.

The one area I can believe is that 904L polishes differently. So our Rolex look a bit more bling than other non-PM watches.

So as always Rolex know best: they know we are attracted towards shiney.

[Etschell]

i prefer the luster of 904. but constructively other than another differentiator i dont think it makes much difference.

[Rashid.bk]

This thread is funny. Love to see the Rolex haters come out with all their data.
....bad marketing, 904L is the same as toilet paper, Fossil uses 316L and has no problem...lolsss

[jagwap]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

This thread is funny. Love to see the Rolex haters come out with all their data.
....bad marketing, 904L is the same as toilet paper, Fossil uses 316L and has no problem...lolsss

I'm not a Rolex hater, I'm an owner. I just find people who believe in markering and have blind faith in a brand because of it an interesting subset of the easily led.

Lies, damned lies, statistics, specifications, marketing, management, politicians, priests. I think that's the right order.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by jagwap

I'm not a Rolex hater, I'm an owner. I just find people who believe in markering and have blind faith in a brand because of it an interesting subset of the easily led.

Lies, damned lies, statistics, specifications, marketing, management, politicians, priests. I think that's the right order.

Easy, don't buy it. Who cares about marketing, or better. It is just another alternative. Every manufacturer boasts something. Pick one and enjoy.
Whether you're cruising around in an AMG or M...either beats walking and both have won plenty. I'd take either over a moped in the rain.

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by hchj

Author is a member too I think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yes! Nice write up.

[kauffee]

It’s not just marketing. Sure, you can claim that most Rolex watches are now luxury pieces and not used as tool watches, but from a technical perspective modern Rolex are better tool watches than they’ve ever been. Solid clasps and bracelets, higher depth ratings, wear-resistance ceramic... they are definitely better tool watches than ever and 904L’s corrosion resistance is a part of that.

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by kauffee

It’s not just marketing. Sure, you can claim that most Rolex watches are now luxury pieces and not used as tool watches, but from a technical perspective modern Rolex are better tool watches than they’ve ever been. Solid clasps and bracelets, higher depth ratings, wear-resistance ceramic... they are definitely better tool watches than ever and 904L’s corrosion resistance is a part of that.

This is very true.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by kauffee

It’s not just marketing. Sure, you can claim that most Rolex watches are now luxury pieces and not used as tool watches, but from a technical perspective modern Rolex are better tool watches than they’ve ever been. Solid clasps and bracelets, higher depth ratings, wear-resistance ceramic... they are definitely better tool watches than ever and 904L’s corrosion resistance is a part of that.

understood. but a lot of people flip rolex and never have the pleasure of seeing the effects of aging.

[kauffee]

Originally Posted by Etschell

understood. but a lot of people flip rolex and never have the pleasure of seeing the effects of aging.

I’m not sure what your point is. Rolex should stop innovating and improving their products because some people don’t keep them very long?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by kauffee

It’s not just marketing. Sure, you can claim that most Rolex watches are now luxury pieces and not used as tool watches, but from a technical perspective modern Rolex are better tool watches than they’ve ever been. Solid clasps and bracelets, higher depth ratings, wear-resistance ceramic... they are definitely better tool watches than ever and 904L’s corrosion resistance is a part of that.

With today's mainly pampered Rolex watches most never see water other than perhaps a shower or dip in the pool. So a depth ratings that man or superman will never use in water, not all that important in the real world, unless you belong to the mine is bigger than yours brigade.And as for the corrosion resistance you would have to have the watch in a high acid/salt environment 24/7, with Rolex watch owners today no real advantage no matter the SS.As for ceramic that's been around in watches since the 1960s,but because one brand started the ceramic fashion just a few years back, most others jumped on the ceramic bandwagon.Expect one of my watches a early 2000 SD has seen more water salt and fresh and more abuse than any modern ceramic will ever see.And all with the the older bracelet and clasp and aluminum insert,and now we have more marketing from Rolex they now call 904L oyster steel, its true marketing often baffles brains.

[kauffee]

Originally Posted by padi56

With today's mainly pampered Rolex watches most never see water other than perhaps a shower or dip in the pool. So a depth ratings that man or superman will never use in water, not all that important in the real world, unless you belong to the mine is bigger than yours brigade.And as for the corrosion resistance you would have to have the watch in a high acid/salt environment 24/7, with Rolex watch owners today no real advantage no matter the SS.As for ceramic that's been around in watches since the 1960s,but because one brand started the ceramic fashion just a few years back, most others jumped on the ceramic bandwagon.Expect one of my watches a early 2000 SD has seen more water salt and fresh and more abuse than any modern ceramic will ever see.And all with the the older bracelet and clasp and aluminum insert,and now we have more marketing from Rolex they now call 904L oyster steel, its true marketing often baffles brains.

I don’t disagree with anything you say. But we’ve all seen the photos of case backs with pitting so it clearly does happen. I just don’t understand the logic of “Since nobody abuses their watches anymore we shouldn’t bother improving them.”

[uniqueMR]

Niceee

[padi56]

Originally Posted by kauffee

I don’t disagree with anything you say. But we’ve all seen the photos of case backs with pitting so it clearly does happen. I just don’t understand the logic of “Since nobody abuses their watches anymore we shouldn’t bother improving them.”

Agree but all the case back pitting photos are mostly from way back in the 1980s and was mainly down to the watches never been serviced.Fact no matter the SS if serviced at the correct time say every 5-8 years if used in salt water 5 years.There would be no pitting whether 316L, 904L,or even if they call it oystersteel brands like Patek still use 316L as most of the whole watch industry.

[Dr.Brian]

Originally Posted by kauffee

It’s not just marketing. Sure, you can claim that most Rolex watches are now luxury pieces and not used as tool watches, but from a technical perspective modern Rolex are better tool watches than they’ve ever been. Solid clasps and bracelets, higher depth ratings, wear-resistance ceramic... they are definitely better tool watches than ever and 904L’s corrosion resistance is a part of that.

I’m not so sure you can say that about the ceramic with regard to being a real tool piece that is used as one. You can scratch and dent a non ceramic bezel to death, to the point of being barely legible, and the watch will still function as a tool watch. The same cannot be said of a ceramic insert. They will look factory fresh for a long long time, but if I’m really using it like it was designed, banging it regulary against dive gear, boat engine maintenance, etc. I’d be a little concerned about catastrophic failure. Of course most people desk dive and worry about scratches on the bracelet clasp, so it’s not an issue.

[MCO1]

Rolex is known for evolving their watches and making them better. Ceramic and 904 steel cannot be argued they are improvements on paper. However, considering the fact there are many perfectly useful Rolex's from the 50's and 60's and even older still in use improvements are relative at best.

[kauffee]

Originally Posted by padi56

Agree but all the case back pitting photos are mostly from way back in the 1980s and was mainly down to the watches never been serviced.Fact no matter the SS if serviced at the correct time say every 5-8 years if used in salt water 5 years.There would be no pitting whether 316L, 904L,or even if they call it oystersteel brands like Patek still use 316L as most of the whole watch industry.

Ok, so why did Rolex undertake the expense and hassle of switching to 904L? If you are arguing it's all purely marketing, then the goal would be to sell more watches. But has anyone really bought a Rolex over another watch because they use 904L? I just can't see anyone looking at a Submariner and a Seamaster side-by-side and saying, "I'll pick the Rolex because it uses 904L steel."

So I maintain that Rolex really believes it's a functional improvement.

[BNA/LION]

Thanks for sharing!

[horonet17]

Thanks for sharing. There was a post a while back showing the metal color/polish differences between 316 and 904 on two Explorer 114270s. The 316 was warmer looking and the 904 cooler (more blue toned).

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[lenfried29]

IMHO marketing is a part of business of any company and is nothing wrong with this.
Whether marketing or not, Rolex improving they watches all the time. And I strongly believe that modern Rolex watches has longer lifetime than ever before. I wish every company have such a standard as Rolex. And guys, we're owners of such a high quality standard time pieces. Isn't it amazing!!!

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by kauffee

I’m not sure what your point is. Rolex should stop innovating and improving their products because some people don’t keep them very long?

no my point is people dont see a benefit to 904 because they never had issues with 316.

i prefer 904. but i can get why people think it is simply marketing.

[fastfreddie]

Machineability. 316 does not respond to high speed working.