14060 Submariner serial numbers help

[jmb221]

I acquired a 14060 submariner with a U21 serial number. Some sources place production in 1997 and others in 1998. It has the T25 dial though i think its behaving like a luminova (still unsure).

It charges in light but only lasts a couple mins time before dimming significantly (i've heard tritium can do this too just because of the paint). It doesnt last long enough to convince me it's luminova - How long should luminova charge last?

Anyway do the numbers in the serial number tell me any more details about the watch?

[Tools]

U serials were first seen in late '96 and made for a few years, easily into the Luminova era.

Yours has a tritium dial so it is likely in the earlier part of the production run.

It is always the "paint" that glows. Tritium is a colorless radioactive compound that excites the paint at all times and so if the tritium is active, the paint glows. The paint will still glow for a very short period when excited. If it is Luminova it will glow brightly for several hours after exposure to light.

[freefly]

If it's a T-dial that charges with light exposure, I would say that it's been re-lumed at some point.

[jmb221]

I don't believe 'relume' is all that common is it?

I've read some of the early luminova ones still used t25 dials because they had in stock, i was thinking this is the more likely case but again i'm still not convinced what lume i have.

For the serial number, i get that the letter is the generation but do the numbers have any meaning? like production number? or options code?

[schaumburgla]

I have had a couple U see GMT's & Sub's with "Swiss T<25" that are in fact Luminova from the factory, not re-lumed, so this watch is correct. Although would have to see pics to be 100% certain. But it's very likely ok.

Justin

[swish77]

Originally Posted by freefly

If it's a T-dial that charges with light exposure, I would say that it's been re-lumed at some point.

Not necessarily. Quite common for original tritium dials from the '90s to still have a little glow left. My all-original 14060, also a U-serial, still has a faint uniform glow from the tritium on the dial, hands and bezel insert pearl. You don't notice it right away in the dark, but once your eyes adjust, it's definitely there.

Originally Posted by schaumburgla

I have had a couple U see GMT's & Sub's with "Swiss T<25" that are in fact Luminova from the factory, not re-lumed, so this watch is correct. Although would have to see pics to be 100% certain. But it's very likely ok.

Justin

Yes, that's true, but those are service replacement dials, and the glow from the luminova on them would be much stronger and easier to identify as such. The tritium dials from the '90s that still glow a little are pretty faint, in my experience anyway.

[U5512]

My U-serial Sub has "Swiss Made" and luminova dial and hands.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by jmb221

. . .
For the serial number, i get that the letter is the generation but do the numbers have any meaning? like production number? or options code?

The letter is not a generation number, it is just part of the serial number, which is meaningless except to identify that particular cased watch.

Letter prefixes were begun after Rolex finished up with their 6 digit number combinations in ~1987, and are not meaningful in any way except for the general "dating" that enthusiasts have discovered, and even those are not 100 percent accurate.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by jmb221

. . .
For the serial number, i get that the letter is the generation but do the numbers have any meaning? like production number? or options code?

The letter is not a generation number, it is just part of the serial number, which is meaningless except to identify that particular cased watch.

Letter prefixes were begun after Rolex finished up with their 7 digit number combinations in ~1987, and are not meaningful in any way except for the general "dating" that enthusiasts have discovered, and even those are not 100 percent accurate.

[jmb221]

The funny thing to me is that if it is luminova it is the worst darn lume i've ever seen. It takes a bright light to get a decent glow and it only lasts minutes. Can anyone with confirmed luminova relate to this?

[swish77]

Originally Posted by jmb221

The funny thing to me is that if it is luminova it is the worst darn lume i've ever seen. It takes a bright light to get a decent glow and it only lasts minutes. Can anyone with confirmed luminova relate to this?

Can you post some photos? That would help determine whether it's luminova or not. Based on your description, I would guess it's tritium. The glow from luminova would be brighter and would last longer than aging tritium.

Here's my U-serial 14060, all tritium. Luminova will have a whiter appearance than tritium, which takes on a warmth in tone as it ages.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by jmb221

I acquired a 14060 submariner with a U21 serial number. Some sources place production in 1997 and others in 1998. It has the T25 dial though i think its behaving like a luminova (still unsure).

It charges in light but only lasts a couple mins time before dimming significantly (i've heard tritium can do this too just because of the paint). It doesnt last long enough to convince me it's luminova - How long should luminova charge last?

Anyway do the numbers in the serial number tell me any more details about the watch?

The low U serial (U2 as opposed to, say, U8 or U9) and the almost dead lume indicate that you have one of the last tritium dials.

[freefly]

Originally Posted by swish77

Not necessarily. Quite common for original tritium dials from the '90s to still have a little glow left. My all-original 14060, also a U-serial, still has a faint uniform glow from the tritium on the dial, hands and bezel insert pearl. You don't notice it right away in the dark, but once your eyes adjust, it's definitely there.

Yes, but as mentioned, the OP stated that it charges with exposure to light. That indicates that there is some sort of photo-luminescent material present.
He also stated that the charge time was very short. That is what made me think it may be a re-lume job (using sub-par lume material). My second guess would be that it's a standard factory Luminova service dial, as Justin surmised.

Close up pics of the dial (before/after light charge) would help to clarify.

[Andad]

Not a relume, just a little of the original phosphorescence remaining that the weak tritium us unable to activate but exposure to sunlight can activate for a very short time.
This is not uncommon.

[jmb221]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

The low U serial (U2 as opposed to, say, U8 or U9) and the almost dead lume indicate that you have one of the last tritium dials.

So the numbers do mean something? ie lower number is earlier production?

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by jmb221

So the numbers do mean something? ie lower number is earlier production?

Or earlier supply/sale at least (from what I have gathered). Higher serial numbers tend to come with later dated papers than lower numbers in any given letter series for the same model. Same goes for transitional feature changes like dials, movements.

[freefly]

Originally Posted by directioneng

Not a relume, just a little of the original phosphorescence remaining that the weak tritium us unable to activate but exposure to sunlight can activate for a very short time.
This is not uncommon.

I've seen that before on plenty of vintage 60's tritium-dial pieces when Rolex was using zinc-sulfide paint that appeared to have substantial copper impurities.
Some of them even had a green (Cu) tint to the lume itself. That mix seemed to be more resistant to tritium degradation as well, and many still glow quite nicely when exposed to light (photoluminescence).
However, I have never seen (or been able to replicate) this effect in practice on any 80's-90's pieces. I've owned several T-dialed Subs & GMTs from that era, including a few later U & A serials.
Not one would "charge" with exposure to light. Once the tritium (radiation) killed the paint's ability to phosphoresce, that was it. Nothing would make them glow, even for a second.

So, it would seem that whatever paint mix Rolex was using during the 80's-90's was either very sensitive to tritium degradation, or made to be radio-luminescent but not photo-luminescent.

[jmb221]

Thanks for all the replies. I've tried taking pics but my only camera is an old iphone and can't get one in focus for some reason.

Guess time will tell if its tritium or luminova