Quick 6542 Lume Question

[TeeJay]

Does the glow from the GMT hand reflect off the rehaut to create a larger 'glowing area', like with the DateJust dial?

[freddy333]

The inner flange (rehaut) on older Rolex watches has a brushed finish specifically to cut down on reflections

[TeeJay]

The inner flange (rehaut) on older Rolex watches has a brushed finish specifically to cut down on reflections

Thanks for clarifying I was trying to visualize the visibility of the GMT hand in the dark due to the small size of the head, when I recalled how the case of a DateJust would reflect the dial markers and create the illusion of a larger glowing marker, and I wondered if the same principle might apply to the 6542 GMT hand, but what you've said makes perfect sense, as I'm sure I've read that the 6542 inserts were created to reduce reflection as well I've seen a 6542 on Google with the larger GMT hand, and wonder if that might have been swapped in to improve night readability... Thanks again

[JoeyB]

The small GMT hand does reflect in the bevel of the crystal. It makes it easier for my tired old eyes to see it than the 16710 with the larger arrow and sapphire crystal.

[freddy333]

I've seen a 6542 on Google with the larger GMT hand, and wonder if that might have been swapped in to improve night readability...

Very likely. Poor visibility was the reason Rolex enlarged the pointer mid-way into the 1675 series & have continued to use them.

I can tell you from experience that the small GMT hand is often difficult to see when glancing at your watch.

[TeeJay]

The small GMT hand does reflect in the bevel of the crystal. It makes it easier for my tired old eyes to see it than the 16710 with the larger arrow and sapphire crystal.

Thanks for the additional info Although my project is only 6542-inspired, I'm caught in the dillema of wanting the aesthetics of the build to be 'historically plausible', against pure functionality (and for me, luminous visibility is as much a functional requirement as water resistance ) Of course, it all might become a moot point depending on the size of the GMT pinion of the asian movement (when I actually buy one) I guess I'm just trying to 'mentally build the watch' so I have all the details worked out for when I can begin the actual build (Step One has been achieved: Fitting a DJ Oyster bracelet with hollow end links to my vintage Silix case, which had previously accepted only one other non-stock bracelet )

[TeeJay]

Very likely. Poor visibility was the reason Rolex enlarged the pointer mid-way into the 1675 series & have continued to use them.

I can tell you from experience that the small GMT hand is often difficult to see when glancing at your watch.

I have to admit, most of the 6542s I've found in my research have featured the small GMT hand, as equally, most have had the bakelite inserts, but, I've seen a few which had been refit with the later metal inserts, and then I saw the listed one with the large hand, and wondered if that had been a matter of a customer request rather than an RSC tech simply swapping in a new hand for the sake of it on a service. Does that difficulty in seeing the hand extend to daylight hours as well as night viewing? If the hand is hard to see in general, I might have to sacrifice 'historical plausibility' for practical visibility...

[TeeJay]

As a sub question, am I right in thinking that the original inserts didn't use matte paint, but a gloss finish beneath the bakelite?

[Nanuq]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........

Not to be too obvious here, but if it's dark do you really need your 24-hour hand? Think about it for a minute.....

(caveat: unless your 24h hand is individually adjustable from the hours hand that is!!)

[JoeyB]

Very likely. Poor visibility was the reason Rolex enlarged the pointer mid-way into the 1675 series & have continued to use them.

I can tell you from experience that the small GMT hand is often difficult to see when glancing at your watch.

I was surprised to find that I can see the small arrow hand easier than the large arrow hand. The reflection in the crystal and the longer shaft on the small arrow may be the reason, or the larger arrow 'blending in' with the hour markers, I'm not sure.

[TeeJay]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........

Not to be too obvious here, but if it's dark do you really need your 24-hour hand? Think about it for a minute.....

(caveat: unless your 24h hand is individually adjustable from the hours hand that is!!)

I would be using it for second timezone reading, rather than day/night indicator My overall vision for the project: Rolex watchsmith was supposed to be building a 6542, but got bored and decided to do it a bit differently for a chuckle (Explorer-style 3-6-9 dial and monochromatic insert) I want it to look like a GMTIIC built using the parts available at the time*, but equally need the GMT hand to be night-readable, hense my dillema on which hand would be best suited for my needs, given that strict adherence to formal 6542 specs is not crucial to the project

*a prequel, for want of a better term

[JoeyB]

Of course, it all might become a moot point depending on the size of the GMT pinion of the asian movement (when I actually buy one)

The DG3804B that I have come across are the 2.0mm GMT pinion. Rafflestime has both large and small arrow for that movement.

[TeeJay]

I was surprised to find that I can see the small arrow hand easier than the large arrow hand. The reflection in the crystal and the longer shaft on the small arrow may be the reason, or the larger arrow 'blending in' with the hour markers, I'm not sure.

Does that crystal reflection also include the glow at night, or is it more of an assistance for daytime visibility?

The DG3804B that I have come across are the 2.0mm GMT pinion. Rafflestime has both large and small arrow for that movement.

It would be good if the smaller hand would be useable simply to boost the overall aesthetic of my plan (and I do think that the small hand would look more in keeping than a larger hand) my prime concern, is the visibility

[JoeyB]

As a sub question, am I right in thinking that the original inserts didn't use matte paint, but a gloss finish beneath the bakelite?

I have no idea, and haven't read a word about that. Mine, both the acrylic (bakelite, Perspex) and Lexan are painted using gloss paint, if that helps any. But the shine is produced by the material.

[JoeyB]

Does that crystal reflection also include the glow at night, or is it more of an assistance for daytime visibility?

It would be good if the smaller hand would be useable simply to boost the overall aesthetic of my plan (and I do think that the small hand would look more in keeping than a larger hand) my prime concern, is the visibility

Just an assistance in daylight. I use a lume that is in keeping with the age of the watch, and not strong or long lasting. Some say the near 60 year old lume would not glow at all, others have said it will.

But if you need to see it at night, I'd suggest a modern super lume. It will only be seen at night and not take away from the look you want, and regardless if small arrow or large, it will glow.

[TeeJay]

I have no idea, and haven't read a word about that. Mine, both the acrylic (bakelite, Perspex) and Lexan are painted using gloss paint, if that helps any. But the shine is produced by the material.

Indeed it's a help, as I want to capture that same depth of color/lustre, but using something in the black spectrum (possibly charcoal grey, rather than jet black) which might be able to shift from light to dark, in the same way as the blue on the other inserts shifts depending on the ambient lighting

Just an assistance in daylight. I use a lume that is in keeping with the age of the watch, and not strong or long lasting. Some say the near 60 year old lume would not glow at all, others have said it will.

But if you need to see it at night, I'd suggest a modern super lume. It will only be seen at night and not take away from the look you want, and regardless if small arrow or large, it will glow.

Thanks I was planning on using Revell Night Color on both the dial and the insert as I've found that has a reasonable glow and duration, but with a creamy daylight color which has a suitably vintage appearance

[freddy333]

I guess I'm just trying to 'mentally build the watch' so I have all the details worked out for when I can begin the actual build

That is exactly how I work as well. I would never even consider beginning a project like these, until/unless I have already mentally built the watch in my head. And this includes establishing what parts I need & exactly how I am going to modify them. Of course, as was the case when fitting the bezel during construction of my Phase I '42, there are always at least 1 or 2 things that come out of left field. But, hopefully, even these can eventually be solved with help from other members .

[TeeJay]

That is exactly how I work as well. I would never even consider beginning a project like these, until/unless I have already mentally built the watch in my head. And this includes establishing what parts I need & exactly how I am going to modify them. Of course, as was the case when fitting the bezel during construction of my Phase I '42, there are always at least 1 or 2 things that come out of left field. But, hopefully, even these can eventually be solved with help from other members .

Absolutely, there's always someone with the experience to resolve most issues (although of course, some of that left field interference is part of the fun of building anything ) Once I resolved the bracelet issue which has always plagued this case (finally resolved by taking a warding file to the end links, then compressing the sides with pliars once fitted so the profiles matched the lugs ) I knew that I really could do something in the 6542 era with the case, so wanted to try and be as period-accurate as possible with the parts, even if not necessarily 100% true to 6542 specs. The GMT hand was the one piece I was mentally wrestling with, for the aforementioned visibility concern, and my desire to have the older-style hand was rather conflicting with my assumptions of its night visibility, and that was when I remembered how the DJ dial reflection actually solved this issue, but having looked at additional reference images, I suspect that the hand (even if it was SuperLumed) is a little too far from the rehaut to create a reflection... I think I might have to mull this one over some more or even just flip a coin to decide, as if I follow logic and function over form, then I would be going with the larger hand for the increased visibility, but this is one instance when I am actually leaning more towards sentimentality and form, so more than a tad conflicted Thanks again for your feedback and insights

[freddy333]

I think that if function trumps accuracy, I would go with the larger 1675-style hand & lume it with Nightcolor. It will be alot more functional in the dark that way.

[TeeJay]

I think that if function trumps accuracy, I would go with the larger 1675-style hand & lume it with Nightcolor. It will be alot more functional in the dark that way.

From what you've said about the visibility of the GMT hand, I think you might be right and to have function take precedence Thinking about it, I could always go all red on the 1675 GMT hand, just to have all the Rolex Rareness in the one piece I'm planning on preparing a 5500 Explorer dial decal so it has a gilt appearance, with the Explorer text blacked out, but Precision in red, so an all red GMT hand might be a nice coordinating detail

[cjjoyce1]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........

Not to be too obvious here, but if it's dark do you really need your 24-hour hand? Think about it for a minute.....

(caveat: unless your 24h hand is individually adjustable from the hours hand that is!!)

Well I can honestly say "yes". When I call my times in or log it and glance down at my watch, I look at the GMT and Minute hand. Much easier for a simpleton like me than going "11pm plus . . where are we. . .5 hours. . .so that's - oh wait, no. . .0400? yeah" In my head.

And, BTW, I have my 1675 with a DG3804 set up like a true 1675. My GMT hand is "fixed" and I rotate my bezel for the timezone.

[TeeJay]

Well I can honestly say "yes". When I call my times in or log it and glance down at my watch, I look at the GMT and Minute hand. Much easier for a simpleton like me than going "11pm plus . . where are we. . .5 hours. . .so that's - oh wait, no. . .0400? yeah" In my head.

And, BTW, I have my 1675 with a DG3804 set up like a true 1675. My GMT hand is "fixed" and I rotate my bezel for the timezone.

That's how I do it too, why else have a rotating bezel