WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have noticed a minor fault/depression on the dial of my Rolex black dial Submariner (the new Submariner "ceramic" version) ..... the centre of the dial has a 5-6mm diameter round depression/dip from the hole where the hands protrude through the dial. Its not easy to see with the naked eye, you need to catch the light in just the right way and then the dip from the reflection of the light is visible. Does your Sub have the same issue ? .... I'd be very surprised if this is particular to just my Sub, I suspect its just a feature of the manufacturing technique although I must admit that I would have expected better given the overall quality of the dial in general.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
I just had a look on mine

are you sure it's not the reflection of the centre of the hands that you're seeing?




the shininess of the dial subtly reflects the underside of the hands which gives the impression of shapes/depressions on the dial
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Hi and thanks for your response & photo. You have an interesting theory but its not just the reflection of the hands as seen in your photo, you really need to position light source directly onto the dial centre (directly from above) and then you can see a light curve on the dial that indications a slight depression of roughly 5-6mm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,127 Posts
My GMTc has this too. I don believe it's a fault, and recall reading there was a reason for it, but can't recall what it was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I really cannot imagine any practical reason for it. If these watches were really handmade then it would be easier to accept but let's face it, we all know that hey are not handmade and its the very high end mechanised production techniques that "should" prevent such imperfections.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
It's not an imperfection if it is on all of them. It is a design feature. The fact that you don't like it is valid, but it isn't relevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
In order for something to be a "design feature" there has to be some logical reason behind it, for example, if the hands were curved such that the depression on the dial was required for clearance but clearly since the hands are not curved this cannot be the case. No doubt there may be some other logical rationale that I'm unaware of so I'm hoping that someone more knowledgeable than me could shed some light, rather than just accepting it as a "design feature".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
That's a fair comment. But regardless, you simply don't like it, true?

Not all design features have a reason. How about the twisted lugs on Omega?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
You cannot compare this issue with the twisted Omega lugs (on the Speedy Pro that I presume you are referring to), in that case the twisted lugs are an obvious aesthetic "design" feature (of great beauty IMHO) but in this case the "imperfection" (as I will continue to call it until someone can provide the rationale;-) is far from obvious, far from aesthetic and far from beautiful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
I look forward to some explanations then :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
You cannot compare this issue with the twisted Omega lugs (on the Speedy Pro that I presume you are referring to), in that case the twisted lugs are an obvious aesthetic "design" feature (of great beauty IMHO) but in this case the "imperfection" (as I will continue to call it until someone can provide the rationale;-) is far from obvious, far from aesthetic and far from beautiful.
There is a logical explanation. The paint of the dial is very thick. Due to liquid cohesion, the paint is very thin on the outside of the dial. Its also thin around the holes in the dial due to cohesion. So no its not because of design, but because of nature.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,948 Posts
There is a logical explanation. The paint of the dial is very thick. Due to liquid cohesion, the paint is very thin on the outside of the dial. Its also thin around the holes in the dial due to cohesion. So no its not because of design, but because of nature.
I put my Sub-C under a bright halogen lamp and was able to see the "depression" pointed out by the OP. I also clearly saw that it is indeed a result of liquid cohesion. If the dials were solid ceramic, this likely would not appear. But even a ceramic coating will respond this way.

This is why I've always said that watch buyers should inspect their new purchases, under a loupe, before they put down their cash. Thereafter, they must relinquish all magnifying glasses and refrain from minutely inspecting their watches in search of flaws. If we inspected our spouses with such scrutiny - or worse, they inspected us - we would find life less pleasant. ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,127 Posts
There is a logical explanation. The paint of the dial is very thick. Due to liquid cohesion, the paint is very thin on the outside of the dial. Its also thin around the holes in the dial due to cohesion. So no its not because of design, but because of nature.
You are correct, it is also around the edge of the dial. You can also see this effect around the date, where the opening has a nice, smooth, rounded edge. I believe this only happens on the glossy dials.

Other non-glossy dials are painted differently (i.e sunburst, matte) so the indent does not occur and the date opening is usually a bevelled edge.



...but in this case the "imperfection" (as I will continue to call it until someone can provide the rationale
is far from obvious, far from aesthetic and far from beautiful..
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For me it gives the dial some depth, almost like the meniscus on the surface of a liquid. I like painting with glossy oil based paints for this same reason.

Sure, it is likely the result of nature, but what is wrong with allowing nature to play a role in the design? Considering this is consistant on all similar dials, and also considering the indentations are very uniform in appearance, I am pretty sure Rolex does not consider it an imperfection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Yes liquid cohesion is certainly the most obvious explanation but again, I do not see this as unavoidable, for example the effects of cohesion could easily be avoided simply by drilling the centre hole AFTER the dial paint has cured as is clearly achieved on the high gloss dials of other "high end" watch brands. Overall its difficult to seriously argue that this is nothing short of sloppy manufacturing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,948 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,127 Posts
Yes liquid cohesion is certainly the most obvious explanation but again, I do not see this as unavoidable, for example the effects of cohesion could easily be avoided simply by drilling the centre hole AFTER the dial paint has cured as is clearly achieved on the high gloss dials of other "high end" watch brands. Overall its difficult to seriously argue that this is nothing short of sloppy manufacturing.

Considering how easy it would be to avoid this at a very low cost, and the otherwise typically high precision and tight tolerances Rolex has on virtually all other components, I have a tough time believing it's not intentional.

A possible reason they may intentionally make the dial this way is to create added "flashiness". The indent in the centre and around the edge of the dial will cause light to reflect at different angles. It is speculated that Rolex does not use AR coating for similar reasons.

However anything is possible.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top