Acrylic crystal question

[WatchFanZac]

Hi all,

I have discerned from posts here that among vintage Rolex cognoscenti there is a preference for "original" acrylic crystals over "service replacement" acrylic crystals. While I totally understand the desire to keep a vintage watch as original a possible when it relates to dial, bezel and hands etc I don't fully see how this applies to crystals.

Is there an observable difference between service crystals and the ones the watches had when they left the factory? Have they a different thickness? Are they made from a more modern material that changes their appearance?

If there is no observable difference then haw does one know if the crystal is original or service?

Thanks for your patience I am (relatively) new to vintage Rolex after years as a vintage Omega fan.

Regards,

Zac

[Clay]

Needless to say everyone will and should do what they see as best...The truth be told, if you are like me and wear your watches under any and all conditions, including swimming with them, I think you'd be better off with a Rolex Service Crystal.......
Original crystals, do to their age, tend to develop "stress" cracks where the crystal and gasket meet....And this of course will cause leakage...
Many people like the look of the "Super Dome" crystals, which Rolex no longer makes. And if you intend to keep your watch away from water, then it shouldn't be a problem....
Have your watch properly serviced with a Rolex service crystal and you've got no worries....
Cheers

[Jagatai]

There is a difference between the original super dome and a service acrylic in the profile.
There was a post on here with photos.

[Jason71]

There is also a difference between the original top-hat crystal found on the 1680 and the service replacement. The difference is not as noticeable as the tropic 19, but it is still a little different. I just wish it was as important to Rolex as it is to all of us. If the service replacement crystals were identical to the originals, then I don't believe anyone would have any issue with replacement.

[Beaumont Miller II]

I would reccomend replacing the crystal if necessary to maintain the integrity of the watch and protect the dial. Insist on keeping the original crystal when replaced with the new one. This way you have original parts should someone else desire them.

[Brenngun]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

I would reccomend replacing the crystal if necessary to maintain the integrity of the watch and protect the dial. Insist on keeping the original crystal when replaced with the new one. This way you have original parts should someone else desire them.

X2 Exactly what I did with a recent vintage purchase. Kept the original top hat and had a service crystal installed. I've always worried about humidity not swimming.

[Rikki]

There are no gaskets on the acylic crystals just the sapphire crystals. The plastic crystal are sealed by the crystal bezel against an inner ring on the case this is what makes it waterproof. Because the crystal is under constant pressure form the bezel over time stress cracks will appear under and next to the bezel. One good rap on a door jam can fracture them and cause them to leak so be careful swinging your arm near doors and such. Rikki

[JEC]

Original crystals had a rounded profile and softly bevelled edges. Later crystals (early 80s onward) have sharp bevels.

Problem with keeping the old crystal is that they are very easily broken when installing or removing, particularly around the thin edge that butts into the bezel. You may get lucky and it will come out without trouble, but it may just end up getting broken if you ever try to re-install it.

[WatchFanZac]

I probably should have been more specific in my OP as I realise that some models originally had domed or superdome crystals and can see why you would watnt to keep those original if no more NOS replacements are available.

My querry was not so much about the practical side of water resistance issues (I understand that) but the reason for the preferance and ways to tell if one has an orriginal crystal or replacement.

I was specifically thinking of Subs and GMTs that would have originally had flat toped crystals which seem (to my untrained eye) to be exactly the same as the modern replacement crystals. I am interested in JEC's comment:

Originally Posted by JEC

Original crystals had a rounded profile and softly bevelled edges. Later crystals (early 80s onward) have sharp bevels.

Problem with keeping the old crystal is that they are very easily broken when installing or removing, particularly around the thin edge that butts into the bezel. You may get lucky and it will come out without trouble, but it may just end up getting broken if you ever try to re-install it.

Has anyone got photos which could illustrate the diference in the softly beveled edge vs sharp?

Also Brenngun's comment about an orriginal Top Hat crystal vs a service crystal. Can anyone help me out with photos or a description of what a Top Hat looks like vs a service crystal?

Thanks again to all who took the time to reply to this,

Zac

[mike]

As mentioned by the experts and collectors here there are differences between crystals of a given reference/era.

Many collectors value originality above all else. Personally I agree with those that feel the crystal should be replaced at a certain time. While water certainly is a problem, the silent killer-humidity-has runied many dial/hands sets.

There's a reason Rolex replaces them at service.

[slcbbrown]

I believe acrylic crystals are supposed to be changed at service time. Sapphire crystals are not. If you have an older acrylic crystal Rolex, it should have had the crystal changed several times, already. I've got daily-wear Rolex from the 60's and 50's and never noticed the crystal design changes.

[cruvon]

Think the ideal thing to do would be to keep the original crystal and use a service replacement but guess most of us including myself wait till something is broken to fix it:)

[HL65]

If you are going to wear your watch in water than you should replace with service crystal and keep original as Clay said. Also- if cracks become issue to keep seal integrity you should replace as well- as Mike said. I don't wear mine in water and do have originals on all watches now. I have replaced in past at service on an old model I had though. Here is a shot of the stress cracks that form at base as Rikki deserved from pressure over time.

[DCgator]

I do hope the RSC replaces the original acrylic crystal on my (bought in )1991 tt DJ when I turn it in for service.

[cruvon]

Originally Posted by DCgator

I do hope the RSC replaces the original acrylic crystal on my (bought in )1991 tt DJ when I turn it in for service.

well, is good to keep the original crystal for collectability. Just to be aware, if you take it to a RSC you won't get the original crystal back.

[Clay]

In regard to the "Super Dome Crystals, I am probably one of the few vintage owners who does not like the Super Dome....I could never get used to the fact that when you look at your watch through a super dome, it distorts the watch face...
But the vast majority of people love them.....

[lhanddds]

First, original top hat and second, replacement top hat (notice bevel on replacement).

[cruvon]

Originally Posted by lhanddds

First, original top hat and second, replacement top hat (notice bevel on replacement).

whew, thanks for the pics, didn't know that:)

[JEC]

Something interesting (well, interesting to a collector) I learned this week is that early Daytonas had a dome crystal (not a superdome, but a dome nonetheless); in the 80s they switched to a flat-top beveled crystal. So at a glance you can tell if it is an original or later replacement.

[Jagatai]

Found the thread:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=173458

[Shade]

I am intending to service mine and keep all the originals so I can use my watch in all kinds of situations and not having to worry about it getting damaged due to water or stuffs like that.