The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 19 November 2018, 10:01 PM   #1
rambo99
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Tokyo
Watch: SD43,PAM1616,Hulk
Posts: 3,567
Why rolex do not apply anti-reflective coating on their watches?

which makes it difficult to read time on direct sunlight. anybody knows why they do not apply anti-reflective coating on the sapphire crystal, like panerai do. any pros and cons?



rambo99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 10:16 PM   #2
VicLeChic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Real Name: Victor
Location: Spain
Watch: YM 116622 - SD43
Posts: 2,598
They do it to get more attention in spite of detracting from legibility.
VicLeChic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 10:22 PM   #3
rambo99
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Tokyo
Watch: SD43,PAM1616,Hulk
Posts: 3,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by VicLeChic View Post
They do it to get more attention in spite of detracting from legibility.
really?
rambo99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 10:25 PM   #4
Harry-57
2024 Pledge Member
 
Harry-57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Real Name: Harry
Location: England
Posts: 10,676
Yes. It makes them twinkle. The cyclops is AR coated.
Harry-57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 11:03 PM   #5
ecdc
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: US
Posts: 502
I so wish they'd use AR coating on the underside of the crystal. Top-side coating gets too smudged. But underside? It makes a HUGE difference for legibiity and there is zero downside. Do you want your watch to "sparkle" or do you want to be able to read the time easier? I would prefer the latter.
ecdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 11:07 PM   #6
subtona
"TRF" Member
 
subtona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Real Name: gus
Location: East Coast
Watch: APK & sometimes Y
Posts: 26,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecdc View Post
I so wish they'd use AR coating on the underside of the crystal. Top-side coating gets too smudged. But underside? It makes a HUGE difference for legibiity and there is zero downside. Do you want your watch to "sparkle" or do you want to be able to read the time easier? I would prefer the latter.
It’s rolex, it’s not about what you want, it’s about what they want for you.
__________________
subtona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 11:12 PM   #7
zjd168
"TRF" Member
 
zjd168's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: US
Posts: 2,698
mot sure if the legibility is indeed an issue, at least not to me.
zjd168 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 11:12 PM   #8
beshannon
"TRF" Member
 
beshannon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Brian
Location: Northern Virginia
Watch: One of Not Many
Posts: 17,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by rambo99 View Post
which makes it difficult to read time on direct sunlight. anybody knows why they do not apply anti-reflective coating on the sapphire crystal, like panerai do. any pros and cons?
Because they do not want to be like Panerai
__________________
IWC Portugieser 7 Day, Omega Seamaster SMP300m, Vacheron Constantin Traditionnelle Complete Calendar, Glashutte PanoInverse, Glashutte SeaQ Panorama Date, Omega Aqua Terra 150, Omega CK 859, Omega Speedmaster 3861 Moonwatch, Breitling Superocean Steelfish, JLC Atmos Transparent Clock
beshannon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 11:24 PM   #9
ecdc
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: US
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by subtona View Post
It’s rolex, it’s not about what you want, it’s about what they want for you.
Yeah, I know. But still...my Daytona ticks in 1/8 second increments. Yet the hash marks along the dial for the chrono second hand are in 1/5 second increments. I'd like it if Rolex would at least make those hash marks in 1/4 second increments instead. Why would Rolex want me not to be able to precisely use my watch as it's intended? And as long as Rolex got that wrong (no one can reasonably disagree that such a thing is nonsensical), I'm saying they got the "no underside AR coating" thing wrong, too.

I would pay extra at service time for a new crystal with underside AR coating.
ecdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 11:25 PM   #10
jrs146
"TRF" Member
 
jrs146's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Real Name: Josh
Location: Lost in time
Watch: Me Nae Nae
Posts: 9,823
I bet there are more service issues when AR is applied. Maybe that comes into play. But otherwise who knows?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
"Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own."
-Jerome J. Garcia, Robert C. Hunter
jrs146 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 11:32 PM   #11
Harry-57
2024 Pledge Member
 
Harry-57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Real Name: Harry
Location: England
Posts: 10,676
I'll take a NR coating any day. But if the lack of it on Rolex was an issue, I would have kept my money.
Harry-57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 11:37 PM   #12
Bigblu10
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Real Name: Jaime
Location: Here
Posts: 5,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry-57 View Post
Yes. It makes them twinkle. The cyclops is AR coated.
No. The AR is under the cyclops
Bigblu10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 11:38 PM   #13
Tomas Eriksson
"TRF" Member
 
Tomas Eriksson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Stockholm
Watch: 15707CE
Posts: 2,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by subtona View Post
It’s rolex, it’s not about what you want, it’s about what they want for you.
Words of wisdom, haha
__________________
State of the union: 5066A,15400ST,15707CE,116610LN,26470OR and a few other…
Tomas Eriksson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 11:49 PM   #14
harvey
"TRF" Member
 
harvey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: rolexforums.com
Posts: 5,437
The answer is no one really knows. It is one of the things that annoys me about Rolex references.
harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 11:50 PM   #15
joli160
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
joli160's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NL
Watch: Yachtmaster
Posts: 14,759
Because it is ugly imo and it takes away the jewellery aspect
__________________
Day Date 18238, Yachtmaster 16622, Deepsea 116660, Submariner 116619, SkyD 326935, DJ 178271, DJ 69158, Yachtmaster 169622, GMT 116713LN, GMT 126711.
joli160 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 November 2018, 11:56 PM   #16
nektar
"TRF" Member
 
nektar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Louisiana
Watch: 114060
Posts: 1,678
That would slow down the production lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
nektar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 November 2018, 12:12 AM   #17
asiparks
"TRF" Member
 
asiparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Portland, OR
Watch: ing the Detectives
Posts: 1,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by joli160 View Post
Because it is ugly imo and it takes away the jewellery aspect
far from ugly, it increases contrast and allows the white gold indices and hands to sparkle, rather than the blank slab of crystal.

No worries, Rolex were late to the party with substantial bracelets, ceramics, decent lume and power reserves>40 hrs, so I'm sure they'll catch up with the AR shortly...probably give it a fancy name too.....
__________________
Eagels may soar, but weasels are seldom sucked into jet engines...
asiparks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 November 2018, 12:14 AM   #18
asiparks
"TRF" Member
 
asiparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Portland, OR
Watch: ing the Detectives
Posts: 1,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by beshannon View Post
Because they do not want to be like Panerai
hmm, who else doesn't AR their crystals..? Oh yeah, Invicta....
__________________
Eagels may soar, but weasels are seldom sucked into jet engines...
asiparks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 November 2018, 12:16 AM   #19
rambo99
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Tokyo
Watch: SD43,PAM1616,Hulk
Posts: 3,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by asiparks View Post
far from ugly, it increases contrast and allows the white gold indices and hands to sparkle, rather than the blank slab of crystal.
sure, i would prefer anti-reflective coating.
rambo99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 November 2018, 12:26 AM   #20
jsausley
"TRF" Member
 
jsausley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: North Carolina
Watch: 214270/116710BLNR
Posts: 813
They don't use anti-reflective coating because a watch that reflex light tends sparkles/shines more.
__________________
214270 | 116710BLNR
jsausley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 November 2018, 12:59 AM   #21
Carondelet
"TRF" Member
 
Carondelet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: USA
Watch: Air King, 116900
Posts: 586
I can't really speculate why they do or don't use AR on their crystals.

What I can say is that for me, I personally don't have any issue with the lack of AR coating. Neither my Rolex nor my Seiko have AR coating and I've never had legibility issues. I've taken my Alpinist into the Rocky Mountains and actually used the compass bezel for funzies. I've also swam with it in the Indian Ocean on a sunny day and didn't have legibility issues either. My Air King will soon go on those kinds of adventures with me and I am sure I won't notice the lack of an AR coat.

That being said - I would not object to having it on my Rolex or Seiko - it's just not an issue for me personally.


----no wait - scratch that, not having AR coating does make it trickier to take pretty pictures!
Carondelet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 November 2018, 01:10 AM   #22
Fallranger
"TRF" Member
 
Fallranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Real Name: Nate
Location: Ohio
Watch: Hulk (116610LV)
Posts: 296
I agree I think it makes them pop more. AR is great for legibility but detracts from the sparkle.
Fallranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 November 2018, 01:21 AM   #23
denmanproject
"TRF" Member
 
denmanproject's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Real Name: Wayne
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by subtona View Post
It’s rolex, it’s not about what you want, it’s about what they want for you.
Rolex new slogan
denmanproject is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 November 2018, 02:04 AM   #24
keithl
"TRF" Member
 
keithl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Real Name: Onemoretime
Location: Atlanta
Watch: GMT Master II
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by rambo99 View Post
which makes it difficult to read time on direct sunlight. anybody knows why they do not apply anti-reflective coating on the sapphire crystal, like panerai do. any pros and cons?



I believe their reasoning is because it changes the color of the dial, ever so slightly.
keithl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 November 2018, 02:13 AM   #25
artschool
"TRF" Member
 
artschool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: uk
Posts: 1,215
I believe it is left uncoated because a Rolex is a tool watch and a diver could use the reflective surface of his watch to signal a rescue helicopter etc.
artschool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 November 2018, 02:29 AM   #26
ecdc
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: US
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by artschool View Post
I believe it is left uncoated because a Rolex is a tool watch and a diver could use the reflective surface of his watch to signal a rescue helicopter etc.
That's a stretch, but let's go with it. What about a Daytona? Why does it need a shiny crystal?
ecdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 November 2018, 02:30 AM   #27
Art 1
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida, Canada
Watch: Rol/Seik/Tud/Omega
Posts: 30,244
A few years ago James Dowling interviewed a Rolex executive and asked that question. The reply was that that is the look Rolex wants, the shinny effect from the glass.
Art 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 November 2018, 02:53 AM   #28
subtona
"TRF" Member
 
subtona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Real Name: gus
Location: East Coast
Watch: APK & sometimes Y
Posts: 26,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecdc View Post
Yeah, I know. But still...my Daytona ticks in 1/8 second increments. Yet the hash marks along the dial for the chrono second hand are in 1/5 second increments. I'd like it if Rolex would at least make those hash marks in 1/4 second increments instead. Why would Rolex want me not to be able to precisely use my watch as it's intended? And as long as Rolex got that wrong (no one can reasonably disagree that such a thing is nonsensical), I'm saying they got the "no underside AR coating" thing wrong, too.

I would pay extra at service time for a new crystal with underside AR coating.
16520 Daytona w Zenith movement 36,000.
__________________
subtona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 November 2018, 02:58 AM   #29
ecdc
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: US
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by subtona View Post
16520 Daytona w Zenith movement 36,000.
Nope. Rolex modified it to be 28,800.
ecdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 November 2018, 03:01 AM   #30
For the Lulz
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Real Name: Simon
Location: Transient
Watch: DateJust 41 (soon)
Posts: 21
I'm glad they don't actually.

Although, that said... I wouldn't mind if it was applied on the internal of the glass.

The reason being is that I have an Omega Seamaster 300M 2016 (Ceramic) and it's fantastic... BUT. the sapphire crystal is coated with AR, on both sides...

Meaning that you can actually scratch the AR ontop of the surface and it looks like a scratch... so why bother with sapphire?

Fortunately, on mine I only have micro-scratches that you have to really look for... but I have seen on other peoples when it is applied to the external side of the sapphire they've received some nasty scratches...

But if it was only applied on the reverse side, I see no issue!
For the Lulz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Wrist Aficionado

My Watch LLC

WatchesOff5th

DavidSW Watches

Takuya Watches

OCWatches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.