Flat sapphire crystals

[SOG DIVER]

Rolex incorporated the flat sapphire crystal decades ago, one of the
differences from the concave or domed plexi crystals as on my 1680 red Submariner. In a 14060 M or 16610 Submariner, which I also use as modern tool watches-the crystal creates a flash reflection. My line of reasoning is there must have been some fitment logic in Rolex using a flat crystal instead of a domed crystal.
For fly fishermen, hunters and the military-the reflective flat crystal is a serious annoyance in what would otherwise be a sound design. Steinhart and other
watches have made domed sapphire crystals that do not emit a reflection-so it can be done.

I think I will be contacting Montres Rolex, S A in Geneve and see if they might
be willing to respond to my concern over this issue. The worst that they may respond with would be:
"This is the way we make them".

[SearChart]

Good luck, they won't care about your issue.

[brandrea]

Yes, domed sapphires are doable

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Yes, domed sapphires are doable

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

And look; it still has a reflection

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Good luck, they won't care about your issue.

Agreed, it’s a non issue anyway.

Any hunter or military operative concerned about giving away their position via light reflections will have everything that needs to be covered up, covered up.

The onus is on them, not the watchmaker (brand) to ensure they aren’t spotted by enemy combatants or their quarry.

[Vicc]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

Agreed, it’s a non issue anyway.

Any hunter or military operative concerned about giving away their position via light reflections will have everything that needs to be covered up, covered up.

The onus is on them, not the watchmaker (brand) to ensure they aren’t spotted by enemy combatants or their quarry.

lol Why would someone in special ops even wear a luxury watch for a mission..

[JChips]

Originally Posted by Vicc

lol Why would someone in special ops even wear a luxury watch for a mission..

You’ve got a lot of experience with this then, I suppose ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dsmith1974]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

Rolex incorporated the flat sapphire crystal decades ago, one of the
differences from the concave or domed plexi crystals as on my 1680 red Submariner. In a 14060 M or 16610 Submariner, which I also use as modern tool watches-the crystal creates a flash reflection. My line of reasoning is there must have been some fitment logic in Rolex using a flat crystal instead of a domed crystal.
For fly fishermen, hunters and the military-the reflective flat crystal is a serious annoyance in what would otherwise be a sound design. Steinhart and other
watches have made domed sapphire crystals that do not emit a reflection-so it can be done.

I think I will be contacting Montres Rolex, S A in Geneve and see if they might
be willing to respond to my concern over this issue. The worst that they may respond with would be:
"This is the way we make them".

Is is safe to fly fish with a Rolex on? Besides giving away your position I would’ve thought the jerky action involved in casting would damage the movement over time.

Before going on Special Ops I would brush the PCLs and remove any diamonds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aayates]

only wear a rolex sport watch in church; otherwise wash it daily and keep it in a safe...

[Old Farmer]

I weqar my 16610LV fly fishing, down the paddock, in the shed banging and welding away, always long sleeves though.

[Old Colonel]

Originally Posted by Vicc

lol Why would someone in special ops even wear a luxury watch for a mission..

Not special ops, but my father wore his Rolex Explorer through two tours of Vietnam Nam.

If I had had one I would have worn it in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of the Seiko 6309 Diver I did wear.

[G.Montag]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

Rolex incorporated the flat sapphire crystal decades ago, one of the
differences from the concave or domed plexi crystals as on my 1680 red Submariner. In a 14060 M or 16610 Submariner, which I also use as modern tool watches-the crystal creates a flash reflection. My line of reasoning is there must have been some fitment logic in Rolex using a flat crystal instead of a domed crystal.
For fly fishermen, hunters and the military-the reflective flat crystal is a serious annoyance in what would otherwise be a sound design. Steinhart and other
watches have made domed sapphire crystals that do not emit a reflection-so it can be done.

I think I will be contacting Montres Rolex, S A in Geneve and see if they might
be willing to respond to my concern over this issue. The worst that they may respond with would be:
"This is the way we make them".

The flat sapphire crystal is there for the same reason as the polished areas on the bracelet and case. Rolex designs their watches to be shiny.

[G.Montag]

Originally Posted by Old Colonel

Not special ops, but my father wore his Rolex Explorer through two tours of Vietnam Nam.

If I had had one I would have worn it in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of the Seiko 6309 Diver I did wear.

In your father’s days, a Rolex was probably the least expensive durable wrist watch one could buy. These days, you can get a G-Shock.

[DeadPoolSH]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

Rolex incorporated the flat sapphire crystal decades ago, one of the
differences from the concave or domed plexi crystals as on my 1680 red Submariner. In a 14060 M or 16610 Submariner, which I also use as modern tool watches-the crystal creates a flash reflection. My line of reasoning is there must have been some fitment logic in Rolex using a flat crystal instead of a domed crystal.
For fly fishermen, hunters and the military-the reflective flat crystal is a serious annoyance in what would otherwise be a sound design. Steinhart and other
watches have made domed sapphire crystals that do not emit a reflection-so it can be done.

I think I will be contacting Montres Rolex, S A in Geneve and see if they might
be willing to respond to my concern over this issue. The worst that they may respond with would be:
"This is the way we make them".

I would’ve thought the jerky action involved in casting would damage the movement over time

[Goochy]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

Rolex incorporated the flat sapphire crystal decades ago, one of the
differences from the concave or domed plexi crystals as on my 1680 red Submariner. In a 14060 M or 16610 Submariner, which I also use as modern tool watches-the crystal creates a flash reflection. My line of reasoning is there must have been some fitment logic in Rolex using a flat crystal instead of a domed crystal.
For fly fishermen, hunters and the military-the reflective flat crystal is a serious annoyance in what would otherwise be a sound design. Steinhart and other
watches have made domed sapphire crystals that do not emit a reflection-so it can be done.

I think I will be contacting Montres Rolex, S A in Geneve and see if they might
be willing to respond to my concern over this issue. The worst that they may respond with would be:
"This is the way we make them".

Why not just buy a Rolex DeepSea, they’ve got a domed sapphire crystal.

[DeadPoolSH]

Originally Posted by Goochy

Why not just buy a Rolex DeepSea, they’ve got a domed sapphire crystal.

ok i will buy it

[ravenhome777]

This is a very good point. Another reason I don't like modern Rolex. That flash is super annoying. They should definitely produce domed sapphire crystals that have UV coating on them. I'm surprised anyone purchases modern Rolex frankly. They should start serving customer requests better.

[Passionata]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

Rolex incorporated the flat sapphire crystal decades ago, one of the
differences from the concave or domed plexi crystals as on my 1680 red Submariner. In a 14060 M or 16610 Submariner, which I also use as modern tool watches-the crystal creates a flash reflection. My line of reasoning is there must have been some fitment logic in Rolex using a flat crystal instead of a domed crystal.
For fly fishermen, hunters and the military-the reflective flat crystal is a serious annoyance in what would otherwise be a sound design. Steinhart and other
watches have made domed sapphire crystals that do not emit a reflection-so it can be done.

I think I will be contacting Montres Rolex, S A in Geneve and see if they might
be willing to respond to my concern over this issue. The worst that they may respond with would be:
"This is the way we make them".

Just to cut for you a corner,
Rolex execs were asked why the design of their crystals are so and why no AR coating utilized on it ,the answer was that Rolex considers the sapphire crystal as an integrated part of their watch design-saying simple it s designed so to attract attention and reflects the light .
Just FYI Rolex not producing so called tool watches since decades (those are made by Casio called Gshock),Rolex watches are high end luxury timepieces and those watches has nothing to do with the intention of their development in the 50ies ,sixties.Basically the different names ,and heritage isn t more than marketing. Great watches,capable to any task but these modern pieces are rather jewellery than equipments-and i m saying this as a fan ,and w/o anything negative tone in my mind.
Hagwe

[SOG DIVER]

The term tool watch as used by the military and professional divers
refers to the uses watches are put to or through. Not necessarily what Rolex has in mind. Hans Wilsdorf would probably agree if he were still in charge.

As a 50 year owner of a 1680 red Submariner that endured combat and multiple military dives, I can attest to the fact that Rolex has recently made tougher resilient tool watches that are purpose-driven. The heavier Deep Sea versions could be used on diver weight belts. A tough Submariner will suffice with domed crystal.

It might be refreshing for some to read Paul Altieri's "Last of the Best". An excellent article on the Rolex 14060/14060M Submariner.
It is possible to continue the Rolex tradition of very tough watches that might
avoid watch boutiques like the plague. A NATO strap reduces some glare. After all, life is too short to wear just
any shiny watch made for those who take pride in risk avoidance.

[Jetblack57]

I wear three watches for work, a ex military Precista 93, a stainless 16610 sub & my recently acquired 16618, so they are used for what they were designed for....Diving, maybe not for mil ops, but all three are certainly are fit for commercial work.....Just gotta remember to make sure the crowns screwed down...LOL.

[SOG DIVER]

Originally Posted by ravenhome777

This is a very good point. Another reason I don't like modern Rolex. That flash is super annoying. They should definitely produce domed sapphire crystals that have UV coating on them. I'm surprised anyone purchases modern Rolex frankly. They should start serving customer requests better.

Good points. A visit to most Rolex ADs indicate that sports models AKA luxury tool models are rarer than a few years back. My interest is discontinued or vintage Submariners, so I don't visit modern dealers that often. In the older vintage days of the 1960s-Vietnam combat veterans did buy and wear Rolex GMTs and Submariners. The 5513 Submariner was both tough and affordable ($90), through the PACEX and Navy Exchange, as well as R&R locations including Hong Kong. I the 1960's, a Rolex sport /tool watch was not considered a "luxury watch".

Rolex makes their own rules in Geneva, though there are always exceptions.
The DSSD and SDs while having a different crystal and case, are a bit heavy for divers not requiring helium mixed gas nor going much below 150-200 feet.

[Alexjb007]

Rolex usa tratamiento AR en sus nuevos cristales, en la cara interna y en modelos DD con Tristan abombado tratamiento AR a doble cara.

[SOG DIVER]

Exactamente, pero en nuevos cristales...la migra sabe todos. Como no ...reloj...?
One of the more discouraging design features of the modern "sport model" is the lack of drilled lugs. In the earlier references, NATO bands were used as a matter of course to safeguard the watch in really difficult work environments as excessive depth, or
around any application where a spring bar might be lost. Fitting a NATO band is more difficult without drilled lugs.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

Rolex makes their own rules in Geneva, though there are always exceptions.
The DSSD and SDs while having a different crystal and case, are a bit heavy for divers not requiring helium mixed gas nor going much below 150-200 feet.

That is not true, I do scuba diving with my SD43 (and other dive watches); it is not too heavy.

[SOG DIVER]

Notice that I stated a bit heavy, not too heavy. All are well designed and built to withstand
the requirements of a tool watch at depth. The 5513 Submariner reference was the test bed for the mixed gas relief valve later incorporated in the SD reference.

With drilled lugs and reliable calibers, the 5512s through 14060M, SD43 inclusive
are all hallmarks of the range.

Though I am a bit concerned about the 32XX calibers. Has any CW21 or other Rolex
watchmakers analyzed the subtle differences between the 32xx and the 31XX calibers?
Rotor axles and pinions come to mind, as well as the actual metals used and magnetism.
I have been watching The Tech extended poll thread on these calibers .
Look to get the impressions that two Rolex CW21s have on this newer caliber family.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

Though I am a bit concerned about the 32XX calibers. Has any CW21 or other Rolex watchmakers analyzed the subtle differences between the 32xx and the 31XX calibers?

Two objective articles from 2018 and 2019, maybe interesting? The 32xx issues were not known and not documented like today.
http://bhi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/...-the-Month.pdf
https://quillandpad.com/2019/11/19/w...ich-is-better/

[SOG DIVER]

Most interesting.Thanks.
As I respond, a 3130 and 3135 are on my desk, while a gilt-dialed 1960 PCG 5512
with a COSC 1560 caliber also sits with its Submariner brothers.

Early into the dive watch era with affordable 1680 Rolex Submariners started me along in 1971,
1972 in military scuba school cemented my attraction to the brand. Small details like drilled lugs for NATO bands are an important factor. My knowledge of watchmaking
has improved over the years, but I still listen to Rik Dietel and Phillip Ridley on subjects like this.
There is a good chance that I will not own a 32XX caliber family watch, just because I have reached my watch saturation level. But if a relative gifted me an older DRSD or a DSSD...

Wonder if the tech side of Rolex in Geneva is working to determine if the 32XX family
needs a slight change internally. Rolex did make a change to the 14060 reference, resulting in the 14060M. But the 32XX calibers will probably need something less subtle than a Breguet overcoil and a full balance bridge.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by DeadPoolSH

I would’ve thought the jerky action involved in casting would damage the movement over time

You would have to put it on the other wrist for that.

Probably just keep it fully wound though

[SOG DIVER]

Correct, Larry. Never had a problem with Orvis fly rods or the watch movement, once the trout was positioned under the net or in the creel. The older acrylic domed crystals were never a problem for the many 5th Special Forces Gp and Marine NCOs /Os who bought mostly 5513s on leave while in Vietnam.

BTW: Another CW21 chimed in on the 32xx issues: from his experience, creeping oils
sticking to the bearings have been the culprit ALONG with owners exceeding a 9-10 year service interval. Rolex has stated this factor in the factory training sessions
for AD watchmakers. The customer is NOT always right...

Conducting separate subjects in the same thread, oops. I must be needing a service...

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

Correct, Larry. Never had a problem with Orvis fly rods or the watch movement, once the trout was positioned under the net or in the creel. The older acrylic domed crystals were never a problem for the many 5th Special Forces Gp and Marine NCOs /Os who bought mostly 5513s on leave while in Vietnam.

BTW: Another CW21 chimed in on the 32xx issues: from his experience, creeping oils
sticking to the bearings have been the culprit ALONG with owners exceeding a 9-10 year service interval. Rolex has stated this factor in the factory training sessions
for AD watchmakers. The customer is NOT always right...

He's wrong. The 32xx hasn't been out long enough for failures caused by owners exceeding 9-10 year service intervals. It was introduced in 2015.

The oldest 32** movements are only 8 years old so it would be impossible for owners of 32xx to have exceed 9-10 year service intervals.