Should Rolex add anti-reflective coating?

[glamorama]

It was said the SD did not have a cyclops because the glue cold not hold it at the depth SD was rated for. Now apparently there are glue that can hold it so Rolex put it on. Maybe this is true or maybe it was just because most customers wanted the cyclops. Who knows..



Anti-reflective coating on the outside of crystal is not a good idea since it can scratch off. On the inside I'm not sure what the issue was but let's assume for this exercise that any negative properties in reliability has been solved.



Would you like to see Rolex introduce anti-reflective coating on the inside of crystal?

[Andad]

Yes, I’m all for an anti reflective coating under the crystal.

[joli160]

Not a fan of AR coating, makes it look like any other brand on the market. Some things should be left alone

[Psmith]

Under the crystal yes, absolutely.

[Gerardus]

Yes, only under the glass

[Blackdog]

Frankly it is amazing how long it takes Rolex to embrace some obvious advances in the industry.

Inside AR should be in use for years now, and domed sapphire on divers should be the norm.

And FWIW, I think that the story on how they can now add the cyclops to the SD when they couldn't before is just BS.

[abozz]

We, the Rolex coustomer, are very tradicionalist, you can check on this forum the scandal because Rolex put his traditional cyclops on the date of a non traditional cyclops model (SD).

Enviado desde mi SM-G975F mediante Tapatalk

[glamorama]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

Frankly it is amazing how long it takes Rolex to embrace some obvious advances in the industry.

Inside AR should be in use for years now, and domed sapphire on divers should be the norm.

And FWIW, I think that the story on how they can now add the cyclops to the SD when they couldn't before is just BS.

Originally Posted by abozz

We, the Rolex coustomer, are very tradicionalist, you can check on this forum the scandal because Rolex put his traditional cyclops on the date of a non traditional cyclops model (SD).

I tend to agree. Small small steps that only really get accepted after 10 years when next generation comes out with another 'outrageous' change.

[Roddypeepa]

I thought it was on the inside layer but not the outside therefore giving a little sparkle which they desire as it makes them show off a little under lights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andad]

Originally Posted by abozz

We, the Rolex coustomer, are very tradicionalist, you can check on this forum the scandal because Rolex put his traditional cyclops on the date of a non traditional cyclops model (SD).

Enviado desde mi SM-G975F mediante Tapatalk

And then the AR coating only under the cyclops.

[Harry-57]

Non AR is a part of the Rolex look. AR on whole underside sounds logical and sensible but its omission hasn't stopped me loving and collecting Rolex watches.

[1William]

On the inside of the crystal.

[peterpl]

100+

AR under the crystal so it wont scratch but it will make the dial pop 1000x better in direct lighting. I dont know why Rolex have not done that yet.

[alphadweller]

No, AR either gets scratched or peels off, in which case it looks bad on the outside and can be a problem on the inside if flakes fall on the dial.

[fooey]

Originally Posted by glamorama

It was said the SD did not have a cyclops because the glue cold not hold it at the depth SD was rated for. Now apparently there are glue that can hold it so Rolex put it on. Maybe this is true or maybe it was just because most customers wanted the cyclops. Who knows..



Anti-reflective coating on the outside of crystal is not a good idea since it can scratch off. On the inside I'm not sure what the issue was but let's assume for this exercise that any negative properties in reliability has been solved.



Would you like to see Rolex introduce anti-reflective coating on the inside of crystal?

Love this Daytona. Wish I could fine a NOS one

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[DoctorA]

Yeah, why not....... that will automatically make ALLLLLL existing “non-coated” watches collectible

[glamorama]

Originally Posted by Roddypeepa

I thought it was on the inside layer but not the outside therefore giving a little sparkle which they desire as it makes them show off a little under lights.

No there is none on either side.

Originally Posted by fooey

Love this Daytona. Wish I could fine a NOS one

They are just not available. Last one I saw on C24 was something like €21k and the ad said they were only mfg for 3-4months in 2016. I guess they just used up the old dials from 116523.

Originally Posted by DoctorA

Yeah, why not....... that will automatically make ALLLLLL existing “non-coated” watches collectible

[S.Explorer]

No AR coating is the Rolex look and is more rugged as the coating will be softer than the crystal. As far as I am aware, once a crystal's AR coating is scratched, the crystal must be replaced.

Not sure if inside only AR coating would make much of a difference but I like the bling as it is.

My Breitling has AR both sides and that suits it more.

[heath.1967]

i think rolex crystal is already very good

[116710er]

+1 for AR Coating on the inside.

Definitely not on the outside. I have watches with AR coating on the outside and once they get all scuffed up, they look like hell. Maybe the heavy patina folks might like that look?..dunno

[Krash]

never

[MikeyV]

I have a DJ41 and a Blue Pelagos.

I HATE the AR coating on the Pelagos. It really interferes with the way the light enters and illuminates the dial and rehaut. Plus, I believe it's on the outside, and mine has scratched. I'm thinking about having it polished off. not sure if possible.

IMHO.

[Megalobyte]

Rolex likes the bling and sparkle a non AR crystal gives.