lanikai Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 the 316L is popping up on various brand reps, through various dealers now .. It would seem that this has more resilient properties than the 316F which has been used in the reps.. do the genuine brands have this in use ?? China, being the producer of everything metallic from forks and knives .. is this steel now their bread and butter for the steel industry???.. I'm just thinking out loud. Handling the 1665 vintage with 316L it would seem to be stronger.. but that means a little more difficulty in modding the case ?? anyway.. here's some info on the 316L Stainless Steel 316L Material Notes Type 316L stainless steel in a molybdenum bearing austenitic. It is more resistant to general corrosion and pitting than conventional nickel chromium stainless steels such as 302-304. It has the following characteristics: - Higher creep resistance - Excellent form-ability. - Rupture and tensile strength at high temperatures - Corrosion and pitting resistance Shapes vary based on the type of industrial application, e.g. wire, ribbon, strip, sheet and foil sizes to be used in cookware, cutlery, hardware, surgical instruments, major appliances, industrial equipment, and building material in skyscrapers and large buildings. For example, stainless steel cylinders and tanks are manufactured in 316 grade stainless steel, have proved to offer exceptional resistance in acidic and hard water areas. Market Applications Chemical, pharmaceutical industry Surgical and medical tools, surgical implants Paper industry digesters, evaporators & handling equipment Petroleum refining equipment Textile industry equipment, textile tubing Scrubbers for environmental control Duct works, feed-water tubes, sewage water filters Heat exchanger tubes, ozone generators There are many industrial processes that require a higher level of resistance to corrosion than Type 304 can offer and therefore Type 316 is the answer. What does the L mean? L-grades have 0.03% carbon maximum. L-grades are resistant to sensitization in short-term exposures or heat treatments. L-grade often have slightly lower (typically 5,000 psi less) minimum strengths than standard stainless steels. Most standard grades of stainless steel have 0.08% maximum carbon and are suitable for use in non-welded parts and equipment; in case of welded applications these parts are used for light-gauge applications thought's from the metallurgist here ??? about the "form-ability" ??? AC Lani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z3k0 Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 I'm confused - isn't it other way round ? I mean 316L is used (at least based on dealers descriptions) since I first opened Trusty's site more than 3 years ago And I've seen 316F just in latest rollie reps (ones with rolex-copy movements). Anyhow, I would also like to know difference. regards, Ivan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfreeman420 Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Rolex uses 904 steel which has a brighter appearance with more sheen. I think the 316F that is being advertised now is being made to look more like the genuine Rolex steel. If it does, I don't care what they call it it is a big improvement for our reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted October 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 I'm confused - isn't it other way round ? I mean 316L is used (at least based on dealers descriptions) since I first opened Trusty's site more than 3 years ago And I've seen 316F just in latest rollie reps (ones with rolex-copy movements). Anyhow, I would also like to know difference. regards, Ivan Ma bad.. yes ..the new steel being used is 316"F".. it is a Chromium-Nickel steel, ergo it should be shinier and denser.. although I wonder how it compares to 20 plus year old vintage gens (steel).. AC L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bike Mike Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 316F has a higher Carbon content, almost 3X as much as 316L and a little more Silicon. Without getting into precipitation of Chromium, grain structure and boundries, blah blah blah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted October 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 That would be awesome BM... we got such a wealth of members here.. awesome !!!! AC Lani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shundi Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 316F has a higher Carbon content, almost 3X as much as 316L and a little more Silicon. Without getting into precipitation of Chromium, grain structure and boundries, blah blah blah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tudorking Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 I look forward to that Bike Mike, Tudorking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swdivad Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 My issues is, as it comes form China, who knows what you are getting! It very well could be a low grade austenitic chromium-manganese 200 series for all we know. Those would be my issues as well... I'm a mechanical engineer and just finished a large project where it was specified that NONE of the material used (this was structural steel) would be sourced from China... Reason being was that the steel certifications received for other projects were not consistent with what was supplied and the steel often peeled... Not good at all for a structural project for sure Bottom line is that you just can't trust most things coming out of there... Sometimes it's goo/right... sometimes bad/wrong... But one thing you can be sure of... it will be consistently unconsistent for now, until they understand the concept of getting it right the first time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 316F has a higher Carbon content, almost 3X as much as 316L and a little more Silicon. Without getting into precipitation of Chromium, grain structure and boundries, blah blah blah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demsey Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 I was going to put a spare Rolex Daytona bracelet I have through the paces to determine exactly what we are dealing with and post the results here. I would love reading that post. I wonder how it compares to 20 plus year old vintage gens (steel).. Excellent point. I think it were in your 1665 thread 'Lanikai; that Freddy made comment; the steel is wrong for this vintage with regard to 'color'. I can see it now; "For Trade; An MBK 1665 pre-316F steel Sea Dweller, correct color and feel............" Sigh. In '04 I bought two TWB LV's from Eddie Lee. I swear as I remarked them then, they were 'brighter' than any Rolex rep bracelet I have bought since and to date. I thought they were onto something then as the nickel content in gen Rolex SS is higher, hence the 'brightness'. Reading this thread I have to guess that 'one batch' of 316 (440?) just happened to be mixed that way. I think the 316F is the way to go for latterday Rolex only. Or not. sidebar: Reading this thread with regard to 'quality control' of Chinese steel, and as we hammer again and again on irate noobs with crooked cyclops, or stripped bracelet screws; "These are replica, contraband, there is NO point of assembly CQ..........." I have to say there is NO point of assembly CQ in any damn thing coming out of China. Everytime a hand tool or appliance comes apart in my hand, I roll the darn thing over; "Made in China". I hate to have accepted that from a personal financial/investment POV, but it really is the one weak link in China emerging as a manufacturing super power. They gotta get ahold of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bike Mike Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 sidebar: Reading this thread with regard to 'quality control' of Chinese steel, and as we hammer again and again on irate noobs with crooked cyclops, or stripped bracelet screws; "These are replica, contraband, there is NO point of assembly CQ..........." I have to say there is NO point of assembly CQ in any damn thing coming out of China. Everytime a hand tool or appliance comes apart in my hand, I roll the darn thing over; "Made in China". I hate to have accepted that from a personal financial/investment POV, but it really is the one weak link in China emerging as a manufacturing super power. They gotta get ahold of that. +1 But don't hold your breath waiting for this day to come. I have been to a couple automotive manufacturing plants over in China. QC could be cared less about. Google....Florida, China Drywall. What a mess! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrippa Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 I'd say it'll be at least another couple of decades before China is anywhere near the remainder of the developed world in regards to QC and business practices in general. Just like the Chinese cuisine is born from centuries of widespread starvation (hence they eat anything at all), Chinese business practices are a result of centuries of abject poverty for vast swathes of the country. Hence making a buck right here and now, in any way possible and with as little effort as possible, is still far more important for most, than cultivating good business relations and showing consistency in quality. Considering how deeply ingrained this still is in the Chinese soul, it'll likely take ages before it's no longer a problem in terms of their business relations with the world outside China. Then again, as China slowly improves their quality and consistency, the West appears to grow accustomed to, and be increasingly happy with, the amazingly low quality of goods we're now being offered across the board, so maybe China won't have to improve that much after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfreeman420 Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 although I wonder how it compares to 20 plus year old vintage gens (steel).. I believe the older Rolexes are 316L while the modern ones are 904L, although the vintage gens still look brighter than a lot of our modern reps......... Btw, i do remember back in the day dealers used to advertise 440 surgical grade steel. I still see this advertised on lower grade reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 The visual difference between Rolex 904 steel and standard steel on reps gets grossly exaggerated in this forum all the time. It's something that only a compulsive-obsessive watch nerd could EVER notice... and only having the watches side-by-side & in the direct strong light exposure. Here's my Chinese Rolex and Swiss Rolex side-by-side. Yes, there is some difference but it's completely meaningless (imho). And it was really tough to find a correct light exposure where I was able to show any difference at all. More I think the quality and sharpness of the bracelet brushed finish makes more difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 I believe the older Rolexes are 316L while the modern ones are 904L, although the vintage gens still look brighter than a lot of our modern reps......... Absolutely correct. The transition from 316L to 904L was somewhere around 1986/87 (9M s/n) before the R serial was rolled out. e.g. in terms of Submariners, the 1680 and 16800 were both 316L. The 168000 was the first to use 904L in that range, which of course carries us to the present steel used in 16610's, etc. BT- I absolutely agree- The color/tone/etc. is less dramatic in difference than the shape and finish of the actual links, end links and graining of the brushing. Those are more critical in comparison... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 BT- I absolutely agree- The color/tone/etc. is less dramatic in difference than the shape and finish of the actual links, end links and graining of the brushing. Those are more critical in comparison... Indeed. The gen has more rounded edges on the middle links and they feel a little bit different when you have the watch in hand. I don't know exactly why... maybe it's those rounded edges or the gen middle links have been machined to more exact measurements. The gen bracelet also feels a little bit lighter. Yes, lighter. I guess you can't quite make the rep bracelet feel exactly like the gen (that silky feel). But with some modifications (polishing, oiling and hand filing the link edges, etc) you can make reps so close that it simply doesn't matter. The SEL fitting is always the biggest problem. WM9 Sub v1 had superb SELs and they fit pretty much perfect on my 16610 v2. I have no idea why George and co. decided to downgrade the SELs to v2. I just don't swallow the "huge color problem" on the reps. It goes to the compulsive-obsessive Twilight Zone territory (imho). But then again maybe we're all there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bike Mike Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Absolutely correct. The transition from 316L to 904L was somewhere around 1986/87 (9M s/n) before the R serial was rolled out. e.g. in terms of Submariners, the 1680 and 16800 were both 316L. The 168000 was the first to use 904L in that range, which of course carries us to the present steel used in 16610's, etc. BT- I absolutely agree- The color/tone/etc. is less dramatic in difference than the shape and finish of the actual links, end links and graining of the brushing. Those are more critical in comparison... Other then the slight difference in look, Rolex moving to 904L is pure marketing. 904L is still a Austenitic grade stainless like 316L, however it has the addition of molybdenum and copper added with ferric carbide (carbon in iron) to greatly increase corrosion resistance. 904L is used extensively in the chemical industry. So you should rest assured that if one day you fall into a vat of chloride or sulfuric acid, your Gen Rollie will be unharmed! As for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Other then the slight difference in look, Rolex moving to 904L is pure marketing. Exactly. It's just something that they use in their advertising to justify the outrageous cost. There are no practical benefits at all. And besides, the higher nickel content in 904L can cause allergic reactions to people with sensitive skin. The sad thing is that there's virtually ZERO difference in feel, wrist presence and appearance between my WM9 and genuine. The best Rolex reps really are that good these days. Many people who have bought the gens simply can't compare them objectively because they become "gen snobs" and fan boys. Go to the Rolex Forum if you want to see those bozos... and how they put down "Chinese junk". Then go to their "fake report" forum and observe how little they actually know about the models. Last time I visited their "experts" reported a few 100% legitimate vintages to Ebay... losers. The real expertise is here. That's why I like this forum... we have none of those people among the veteran posters. We appreciate the design and watch models themselves... watch is a watch. And Rolex is Rolex... Mercedes of the watch brands (and probably my favorite watch brand) and it doesn't have to prove anything. It's the King. And they're superb watches technically... the movements and quality are second to none. But asthetically the gens don't offer much extra (over the best replicas). You gotta be a real hardcore WIS to appreciate the remaining 5%. The precious metal versions are a different story though... but that has nothing to do with Rolex itself, only the materials used. PS: As Dems said, there really can be some difference in steel quality between the TW/WM9 models and the standard Chinese versions. Not aesthetically but many people have reported how much harder the steel is (when they have drilled the lug holes). I guess Tribal and Ubi can verify this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 One other aspect that 904L has over 316L is it's knack for causing my skin allergies to kick up thanks to the additional nickel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted October 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 One other aspect that 904L has over 316L is it's knack for causing my skin allergies to kick up thanks to the additional nickel. Same, same.. scratching ma wrist all day long .. it's not always the case with my gens. .. but every now and again.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfreeman420 Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 The visual difference between Rolex 904 steel and standard steel on reps gets grossly exaggerated in this forum all the time. It's something that only a compulsive-obsessive watch nerd could EVER notice... Hey, i notice it and it actually bugs me. Especially when side by side with a gen Rolex...... Wait a minute am i a cumpulsive-obsessive watch nerd? Pot/kettle By-Tor Anyhoo, I polish all my new reps with a cape cod cloth. This makes the brushed effect less pronounced and shinier just like on the gens. I also find that the rep watches are filthy which adds to the dullness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Hey, i notice it and it actually bugs me. Especially when side by side with a gen Rolex...... Wait a minute am i a cumpulsive-obsessive watch nerd? Pot/kettle By-Tor Yes, pot kettle indeed. None of us are completely sane (when it comes to watches). I had new members in mind... those who might get wrong impressions from our compulsive-obsessive "that's a dead giveaway" statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FxrAndy Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 On the discussion of corrosion and what we actually get, who remembers "the muck"s test of the SSD against the gen during a saturation dive, the rep did start to corrode and it pinged up the question as to what steel it was made of! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmb Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 By-Tor, I can vouch for the wide variation, in at least hardness, even in the super cheap reps. Some will, as you say, drill like butter wile others are real "bit busters"! It's a lot easier on the tooling budget to drill lug holes in the "soft" ones... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.