Tritium Sea-Dweller 16600 - can original hands look different from dial under UV?

[wxyzed]

Picked up a 90s Sea-Dweller 16600.

In regular light and to the naked eye, the hands and lume plots appear uniform (slightly creamy). But under UV, they appear quite different. Specifically, the lume plots appear dead with sparse flecks of green. The hour and minute hands are mostly dead with more frequent orange/red speckles. And the second hand glows bright green, but then fades about 5 seconds after removing the light.

What do you make of this? Should I expect the plots and hands to behave similarly if they are original, so I should conclude these are replacements? Or not necessarily?

Thanks very much for any thoughts. I'm also searching the forum but haven't found anything quite answering my specific question just yet.

[swish77]

You'd need to post a UV photo so we can see what's going on, but based on your description, something's most likely been changed/replaced/re-lumed.

This is what you want to see to confirm tritium originality/uniformity (mid-'80s Sub).

[wxyzed]

Thanks very much. I've attempted to attach 3 pics.

1 - regular light

2 - shows orange specks on hour/minute hands vs. couple of green specs on lume plots.

3 - shows second hand.

[swish77]

I'm guessing re-lumed, but not 100 percent sure. The seconds hand appears to have been replaced, based on the different color.

There's a ton of "color-matching" and/or patina'd lume being used on vintage Rolexes, to give it that uniform appearance in regular light. The UV light gives a lot more clues.

Who was the seller and how was the watch described?

[wxyzed]

It was a seller on this forum, who has sold watches here before and has decent feedback here and on other platforms. Not a massive amount of feedback but what I found seemed good.

The watch came with box and papers and was generally described as being in excellent condition. I asked about the originality of the dial and hands before purchasing, and the reply was "the authenticator said it is the original dial and hands." I didn't dig further into that.

[wxyzed]

It was a seller on this forum, who has sold watches here before with decent feedback here and on other platforms. Not a ton of feedback but what I found was good.

The watch was generally described as being in excellent condition. I asked about the originality of the hands and dial, and the reply was "the authenticator says it is the original hands and dial." I didn't dig further than that.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by wxyzed

It was a seller on this forum, who has sold watches here before with decent feedback here and on other platforms. Not a ton of feedback but what I found was good.

The watch was generally described as being in excellent condition. I asked about the originality of the hands and dial, and the reply was "the authenticator says it is the original hands and dial." I didn't dig further than that.

The hands and dial might be original. That doesn’t mean they haven’t been relumed.

[springer]

Originally Posted by wxyzed

Picked up a 90s Sea-Dweller 16600.

In regular light and to the naked eye, the hands and lume plots appear uniform (slightly creamy). But under UV, they appear quite different. Specifically, the lume plots appear dead with sparse flecks of green. The hour and minute hands are mostly dead with more frequent orange/red speckles. And the second hand glows bright green, but then fades about 5 seconds after removing the light.

What do you make of this? Should I expect the plots and hands to behave similarly if they are original, so I should conclude these are replacements? Or not necessarily?

Thanks very much for any thoughts. I'm also searching the forum but haven't found anything quite answering my specific question just yet.

Sounds like a typical relume with a faux tritium mix.

Edited since I observed the OP's photo: I have seen hands/dial plots with those type of speckles before - usually found on watches from the early 1990s. It might very well be original. The solid color on the sweep seconds hand could go either way. It appears genuine and might be original to the watch, and it might not - having been replaced in the past.

[TuRo]

Looks fine to me, I have seen many inconsistencies on WGS dials and hands relationships.

[wxyzed]

Thanks all. Greatly appreciated.