Interesting read on Rolex 904L Steel

[djackson410]

Good information. Thanks for sharing.

[RW16610]

Great read, thanks for sharing. Like the others it makes me appreciate my Rolex that much more.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

Thanks for the mention. I pulled this info from various Rolex publications and magazine articles about 904L over the years.

Insofar as pitting, here are some images of what Rolex intends to prevent with 904L:





These are older Rolex models which I believe used 316L and mentioned in this thread that were from a time when stainless Rolex wathches were not safe-queens or desk-divers/desk-pilots.

I keep my watches clean with Veraet and I sweat buckets on them from my weekend warrior bike rides. So far so good.



-Sheldon

Sorry to necro this thread, but I find this more interesting than constant AD conversations.

I just wanted to mention that I’ve seen pitting on older watches, too. What’s interesting is the evidence pointing towards Rolex using 304L, rather than 316L, on some vintage watches, so it’s hard to say if 904L is significantly better than 316L, but it appears that both are better than 304L in that regard.

[WMAN]

What kind of ss is used by high end brands such as AP, PP, VC? Mid tier brands like GS?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by arizonapaul

I thought this was interesting and I certainly didn't know all these cool facts. Below is copied and pasted off the net

If you ever compare a Rolex stainless wristwatch to any other stainless wristwatch, you’ll see differences because Rolex approaches stainless steel differently from other brands. Rolex approaches all its watches from a mindset of lasting durability, and the reason behind Rolex’s use of stainless steel that is different from the rest of the watch industry. Rolex utilizes 904L stainless steel for a number of technical reasons, including its highly polishable property creating a lasting, durable reflection on the watch.



Stainless steel in watches is important because of the proximately to the skin combined with sweat and moisture makes wristwatches a corrosion magnet. In order to keep the case waterproof, the threads that hold the crown and the caseback cannot corrode. Even though stainless steel is formulated to prevent rust and pits from ocean salt water and sweat, Rolex found excess wear in the caseback threads and watch case from salt water seeping into the threads and sitting undisturbed for years between watch services allowing for the steel to pit and gall. Salt and other minerals proved to be catalysts for corrosion and deterioration around the threads that hold the caseback. Noble metal wristwatches such as gold or platinum watches do not have a corrosion issue, but base metal does. Until the widespread use of stainless steel, older watches utilized primitive stainless caseback and some type of base-metal case. Nowadays, most stainless steel wristwatches are made of 316L stainless steel throughout whereas Rolex utilizes 904L stainless steel.

Rolex calls 904L stainless steel a “corrosion-resistant superalloy.” 904L differs from 316L because of extra Chromium, Molybdenum, Nickel, and Copper which gives it improved resistance to acids. 316L is considered a tougher, harder, “marine grade” steel, but it does not have luster and acid resistance of 904L.


Rolex utilizes 904L with the greatest of quality control. Once received from Rolex’s steel suppliers, Rolex casts and scans it using an electron microscope that is capable of detecting the slightest structural or surface defect. Rolex has been known to send steel back when it does not meet their exacting specifications. After casting and inspection, the steel is then re-melted in a vacuum to purify it and eliminate any inclusions that would diminish its corrosion resistance and lead to problems in polishing. 904L stainless steel does not machine well as compared other stainless steels. Subsequently, Rolex had to design its own tools to work with the material and utilizes a 250 ton press to stamp the initial cases.

Rolex started using 904L stainless steel in 1985, but it became more prevalent in the Rolex line starting in the early 2000’s transitioning from 316L. Rolex initially started with just making the watch case with 904L and kept the bracelet 316L, but since 2006, Rolex utilized 904L in both the bracelet and case. When comparing a modern Rolex with other modern Swiss watches, the visual difference is clearly noticeable. 904L has a high polish, looks warmer, and ages exquisitely. Yes, Rolex thinks of everything, including the metal that gets strapped onto your wrist.

First Rolex does not manufacture its own steel its got from a third party in billots,and there is nothing magical about 904L SS today now called Oyster steel to make it sound a bit more exclusive. It was mainly a brag factor and marketing by Rolex as they were once the only watch manufacturer using it. Today several other companies use 904L SS in watches XOSKELETON for one,but in the real world 904L steel was developed to be used in high salt/acid factories like for instance vinegar pickling factories factories that use acid products etc.And the only difference between 904L and 316L is simply this,the main difference between 316L over 904L it has slightly more Molybdenum(Mo)approx 2% more, approx 1-2% more Crome (Cr), 1% copper(Cu), and approx 10- 15% more nickel and that's it all quite cheap commodities.And today far more 316L is sold than 904L, now if it was the other way round 904L would be cheaper than 316L.There are some slight disadvantages to 904L it will scratch and show scratches more easily than 316L.The only advantage is, its a bit more corrosion resistant, but in the real world with today's mainly pampered watches its doubtful if any real advantage over the industry norm 316L.And the internet myth that 904L is harder than 316L its not true, its how the metal is finally tempered defines its overall hardness, so 316L can be harder than 904L.Most all high end brands like say Patek use the industry 316L, if there was any real advantage dont you think all the major brands would use it,marketing is a wonderful tool myself often call it brain washing.And some pitting on some of the vintage watches were mostly from watches used as real working tools and were not serviced ,with today's mainly pampered watches they could make them from glass.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by WMAN

What kind of ss is used by high end brands such as AP, PP, VC? Mid tier brands like GS?

316L is used by essentially everyone.

[Meyrin]

A very interesting read, thank you! So if I've understood thing correctly then my 1996 14060 Submariner´s case is 904L, but the bracelet is 316L. Personally I don't really see any difference even looking at the watch up close. And the bracelet has a lovely deep sheen to it, especially after its weekly bath!

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Sorry to necro this thread, but I find this more interesting than constant AD conversations.

I just wanted to mention that I’ve seen pitting on older watches, too. What’s interesting is the evidence pointing towards Rolex using 304L, rather than 316L, on some vintage watches, so it’s hard to say if 904L is significantly better than 316L, but it appears that both are better than 304L in that regard.

I’ve never heard of this before where does the idea that they may have used 304L come from?

[PO 2500D]

What this thread proves is the power of Rolex marketing, as had been said there is nothing special/expensive about 904l vs 316l, typical applications of 904l include tanks, valves, heat exchangers, flanges and manifolds...

At a factory gate price I doubt there is more than $1-$2 worth in our watches, but of course the real value is added elsewhere in the manufacturing process.

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by Syed117

Thanks Padi.

I'll take tougher over shinier/more acid resistant any day.

You would like this?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[~Ocho1~]

good read

[RogerOP]

Originally Posted by PO 2500D

What this thread proves is the power of Rolex marketing, as had been said there is nothing special/expensive about 904l vs 316l, typical applications of 904l include tanks, valves, heat exchangers, flanges and manifolds...

At a factory gate price I doubt there is more than $1-$2 worth in our watches, but of course the real value is added elsewhere in the manufacturing process.

Yep. We have all fallen for the marketing hype no matter what version of Rolex we have.

In my honest opinion anything more than a DJ/DD or OP at RRP feels like a bit of a rip off when you dig behind marketing hype and compare against the competition and ignore the brand names

For example my Seiko SJE073 dial with applied writing on the dial is 20x more higher finish than my Rolex’s. I’m sure that goes for the rest of the movement inside the watch too.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I’ve never heard of this before where does the idea that they may have used 304L come from?

304L SS was used back in the 1950s into the 1960s.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Sorry to necro this thread, but I find this more interesting than constant AD conversations.

I just wanted to mention that I’ve seen pitting on older watches, too. What’s interesting is the evidence pointing towards Rolex using 304L, rather than 316L, on some vintage watches, so it’s hard to say if 904L is significantly better than 316L, but it appears that both are better than 304L in that regard.

904L is indeed significantly better than 316L when it comes to the critical issue of corrosion resistance.
Keep in mind that the age old problem with Caseback corrosion is a real problem with vintage watches and water resistance. It's common wherever the machining process cuts across/through the grain structure of the metal thus exposing the Achilles heel of the material and facilitating the corrosion in the first instance. After that, the corrosion never stops 24/7. Add any amount of elevated heat and the corrosion is accelerated.
It's never seen or detected until components are disassembled and the contributing factors can't necessarily be simply washed away either.
The same applies to the difference between 304 and 316L except 304 can have tell-tale signs of corrosion on the exterior which is in the form of small rust spots.

In my game(Marine engineering), we were always taught that 304 was better suited to very cold climates when utilized in a limited range of tasks, purely from an economical perspective as it's much more cost effective.
316L has pretty much universally replaced 304 as times have progressed and industry expectations have been raised but we routinely put in place measures every day to mitigate the effects of the hidden aspects of corrosion in assemblies utilising 316L SS.
904L is in another league altogether, without going to the trouble of further refining the manufacturing process as Rolex is reportedly doing in recent times as the article suggests
The effects of perspiration which can be very corrosive(with some people's individual chemistry) along with salt water environments which can also have varying salinity levels and the possibility of elevated temperatures is the perfect nexus to promote cossosion just where a watch is at it's most vulnerable
But if Rolex can justify the added cost to themselves, then good luck and all power to them i say. It's not like they're not passing the cost on to us as end users

Knowing what I know around the issue I'll happily stump up the extra

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by padi56

304L SS was used back in the 1950s into the 1960s.

Quite right.
It was a period in time where the use of SS was starting to become mainstream in industry and for consumer goods.
Then later, 316 and 316L(which is a step up again) started to come through for even more demanding applications. I still remember the old guys poo pooing the idea that anything better than 304 was needed as 304 was the wonder material way back
We didn't know back then, that 316L had it's limitations until there were issues detected on refits when they came up many years later

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by ~Ocho1~

good read

Yes it is indeed
It puts things well and truly in perspective from my end and I wonder what they'll come up with next other than Titanium and it's variants

[fsprow]

Originally Posted by padi56

Paul there is nothing magical about 904L SS today it was mainly a brag factor and marketing by Rolex as several other companies use 904L SS in watches XOSKELETON for one.But in the real world 904L steel was developed to be used in high salt/acid factories like for instance vinegar pickling factories etc.Now the only difference between 904L and 316L is simply this,the main difference between 316L over 904L it has slightly more Molybdenum(Mo)approx 2% more, approx 1-2% more Crome(Cr), 1% copper(Cu), and approx 10% more nickel and that's it all quite cheap comodities.And far more 316L is sold than 904L, now if it was the other way round 904L would be cheaper than 316L.There are some disadvantages to 904L it will scratch and show scratches more easily than 316L.The only advantage is, its a bit more corrosion resistant, but in the real world with today's pampered watches its doubtful if any real advantage over the industry norm 316L.And the internet myth that 904L is harder than 316L its not,but its how the metal is tempered defines its over all hardness, so 316L can be harder than 904L.

100% correct, Peter. PhD in Materials Science here. The only additional corrosion resistance of 904 is in the presence of extremely concentrated acids, as can be found in some industrial applications - for example in heat exchangers handling sulfuric acid. It is more prone to scratches as well.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by fsprow

100% correct, Peter. PhD in Materials Science here. The only additional corrosion resistance of 904 is in the presence of extremely concentrated acids, as can be found in some industrial applications - for example in heat exchangers handling sulfuric acid. It is more prone to scratches as well.

I have to disagree.
The long term effects on 316L in some salt water environments can be catastrophic.
Acids in perspiration are a reality which compound the issues exponentially on Wristwatches. Especially when elevated temps are thrown into the equation as found in the tropics

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by padi56

304L SS was used back in the 1950s into the 1960s.

Thank you Peter, learned something new today

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by PO 2500D

What this thread proves is the power of Rolex marketing, as had been said there is nothing special/expensive about 904l vs 316l, typical applications of 904l include tanks, valves, heat exchangers, flanges and manifolds...

At a factory gate price I doubt there is more than $1-$2 worth in our watches, but of course the real value is added elsewhere in the manufacturing process.

Real value is also determined by the end user as they're the one's who are paying the bill

[aayates]

Paul there is nothing magical about 904L SS today it was mainly a brag factor and marketing by Rolex as several other companies use 904L SS in watches XOSKELETON for one.

I still think it looks /feels better than the 306L I have on other watches. If this is just mktg/brag factor, then it seems some (Padi) might re-think the brand, and move on to "real", more honest watches where no one talks about anything investment, composition, etc.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Meyrin

A very interesting read, thank you! So if I've understood thing correctly then my 1996 14060 Submariner´s case is 904L, but the bracelet is 316L. Personally I don't really see any difference even looking at the watch up close. And the bracelet has a lovely deep sheen to it, especially after its weekly bath!

On your Sub, the probability is very high to almost certain that the Mid-case is 904L.
Like all these things, it's usually a transitional thing and i would wager that Rolex simply started out with the diver watches

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by aayates

Paul there is nothing magical about 904L SS today it was mainly a brag factor and marketing by Rolex as several other companies use 904L SS in watches XOSKELETON for one.

I still think it looks /feels better than the 306L I have on other watches. If this is just mktg/brag factor, then it seems some (Padi) might re-think the brand, and move on to "real", more honest watches where no one talks about anything investment, composition, etc.

I fully expect Titanium to be the next big thing in watches.
It has a lot going for it. Especially when it's polished up by the likes of Grand Seiko.
Now Omega are making their ultimate diver watch out of it along with cheaper variants in 904L.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by padi56

304L SS was used back in the 1950s into the 1960s.

This 1972 brochure hints at that possibility of 304L being used all the way into the 70s, which is possibly why they label the Sub as having "special stainless steel," but not the GMT:

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I’ve never heard of this before where does the idea that they may have used 304L come from?

Some older models definitely used 304L, like this Milgauss. My bet is most of the Rolex watches did into the '70s, which is why the ad I posted above shows "special stainless steel" for some of the Sub models. My guess is that "special" steel was 316L.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I have to disagree.
The long term effects on 316L in some salt water environments can be catastrophic.
Acids in perspiration are a reality which compound the issues exponentially on Wristwatches. Especially when elevated temps are thrown into the equation as found in the tropics

I wonder how many of todays watches no matter the metal are used in high salt water or even fresh water except for perhaps a shower or dip in the pool.Myself used my trusty 16600 SD for many years mainly around Asia and middle east Red Sea.And a Citizen Aqualand 11 for hundreds of hours underwater as dive guide, PADI, BSAC instructor..One with 904L other 316L and no problems with either,most all what you see on the net regarding pitting.Is simple down to this not being serviced and not washed and cleaned regular.

[Onikage]

Informative stuff. Another steel added to my wristwatch steelary!

[APPRF]

Interesting video from The Timeless Watch Channel relating to topic. From min 48:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G74Uuh4dk0I

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by APPRF

Interesting video from The Timeless Watch Channel relating to topic. From min 48:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G74Uuh4dk0I

Thanks for the heads up
The theories around the surface conditioning and the composition of the steel are all correct.
All metals are made within a tolerance range of the elements. In effect, there's always some variation to the recipe and it qualifies to be within spec as long as any alloying element is not outside the tolerance range
Surface conditioning(as opposed to outright polishing) is another matter that relates to the final appearance of the finished item. Surface conditioning can mean a number of processes are used including what we commonly refer to as a brushed finish, or another type of finish that's found on the inside of the milled Deployant clasps that's a bead blashed finish. Either way, there are different grades and types of abrasive which are used to tailor the end result.

Personally, I have noted a change in the typical brushed finish from the early 2000's which was coarser and the brushed finish later in the 2000's which was finer(more satiny) and it coincided with the introduction of the wider lugs on the new references as they were introduced.
This directly co-relates to the discussion he was having with the relevant people.
In summary everything was absolutely correct around his discussions

[Mystro]

Working with both steels over the years with correcting minor scratches and bringing out a flawless polish, I will say 904l does seem to polish to a higher luster and depth. It almost glows. It is softer and can be fickle if you don’t do it correctly but you can do more variations because of that. 316L is slightly more scratch resistant from my experience and is less fussy to polish marks out. The trade off is the depth of the polish isn’t as deep as 904l. There is a trade off with both steels.

I can confirm that you can get brushed 904L brushed steel to vary on its finishing “satin” glow even while maintaining the oem grain and it does vary especially on who at RSC is doing the work. Rolex models will have this variation depending on the final step. I can add this extra “satin” glow to the brushed finish or make it more muted. There is lots of little tricks you can tweak and still have a factory grain polish.