lanikai Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 I sent 2 mags to Chief for the GMTIIc mag to be AR'd this was more to gauge if the hypothesis was correct in the mag being single sided ..( it was done ...top... the AD told me Bottom... but they give out all type of misinfo) ... and the outcome was great in that there will be adjustments to the final run... which should be spot on after the initial "Pilot" run.. it was worth it..!!! After receiving back the mags it appeared that the coat did not take... chief mentioned that it may be mineral... it did take.... but it was done "single sided" as all reports from TZ...and the AD said it was singled.. this obviously was false.. the glare is coming from the bottom... and conversely would come from the top.. Well the only way to tell was to put it on the actual surface area... so you can see the ":hue" but again ... it being singled ... and having such a curve.. it will take chiefs well known double AR to make it as the genuine.. as rolex is giving out misinformation .. for obvious reasons.. the second "find" was the UV glue on the underside.. this was soaked in acetone... and under a loupe the glue was not visible .. but it is now after the coating The acetone seems to have been erroneously reported. not by anyone here.. more miss info.. so stronger solvent needs to be used .. this UV glue is strong stuff ... I may be delayed a couple of day's as unless I get all the glue off .. the results will be .... (I don't need to say) airplane paint remover would definitely work but I rather have gotten used to ma fingers to :roll eyes: Morale of the test run.... leave it to RWG and the Team Work here to have the information that the genuine sites BS about... excuse the crazy pics they were not done for beauty.. had to get the fading sun for natural lighting.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerthat Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Lanikai, We all should be very thankful to your and your dedication to this project and getting it right the first time for the rest of us! Thanks for all of the hard work. Cheers, M I sent 2 mags to Chief for the GMTIIc mag to be AR'beards was more to gauge if the hypothesis was correct in the mag being single sided ..(top... the AD told me Bottom... but they give out all type of missing) ... and the outcome was great in that there will be adjustments to the final run... which should be spot on after the initial "Pilot" run.. it was worth it..!!! After receiving back the mags it appeared that the coat did not take... chief mentioned that it may be mineral... it did take.... but it was done "single sided" as all reports from TZ...and the AD said it was singled.. this obviously was false.. the glare is coming from the bottom... and conversely would come from the top.. Well the only way to tell was to put it on the actual surface area... so you can see the ":hue" but again ... it being singled ... and having such a curve.. it will take chiefs well known double AR to make it as the genuine.. as rolex is giving out misinformation .. for obvious reasons.. the second "find" was the UV glue on the underside.. this was soaked in acetone... and under a loupe the glue was not visible .. but it is now after the coating The acetone seems to have been erroneously rep[ortereported. not by anyone here.. more miss info.. so stronger solvent needs to be used .. this UV glue is strong stuff ... I may be delayed a couple of day's as unless I get all the glue off .. the results will be .... (I don't need to say) airplane paint remover would definitely work but I rather have gotten used to ma fingers to :roll eyes: Morale of the test run.... leave it to RWG and the Team Work here to have the information that the genuine sites BS about... excuse the crazy pics they were not done for beauty.. had to get the fading sun for natural lighting.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted August 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Lanikai, We all should be very thankful to your and your dedication to this project and getting it right the first time for the rest of us! Thanks for all of the hard work. Cheers, M "WE" are RWG... it is what make "US" the "BEST OF THE REST" ... we are all here to do the deed !!! .. now chief is better equiped to get us the best AR'd mags.. bet ya it'll be better than the genuine.. after he is done !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cib0rgman Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Lani, Impressive work you are doing now. I received my GMT from PT looks fantastic in not the correct hand stack but is good as it gets until the AR is done. Fantastic can't wait to see this once is done. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jot9011 Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Lanikai, We all should be very thankful to your and your dedication to this project and getting it right the first time for the rest of us! Thanks for all of the hard work. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Lani - There is clearly (no pun intended) something about the appearance of the gen GMTIIC cyclops that differs your test run & I am doubtful that it is attributable to double-coating (AR). Wish I knew what it is???????? But good work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted August 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Lani - There is clearly (no pun intended) something about the appearance of the gen GMTIIC cyclops that differs your test run & I am doubtful that it is attributable to double-coating (AR). Wish I knew what it is???????? But good work. Well if you view single Ar coating as opposed to double it is like night and day (no pun intended) .. the genuine cannot be single .. no way on Gods green earth.. especially with the huge convex on top... well regardless.. we shall see Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
promotersf Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Awesome Lani, looking forward to getting it...and I don't even own a GMTIIC yet... but you gotta jump on these special projects because when they're gone...they're gone dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdzsmith Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Lani, We all owe you... big time. This is a special place, and it's people like you who make it that way. Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Two things could be effecting the AR results here: (a) The mag thought to be sapphire is actually mineral - we've seen rep makers do this to us before without us knowing; AR lab screwed up and coated the flat side instead of the domed side. Good news is that if (a) is true then it will be solved with lanikai's new mags which came off sapphire lenses vs. these mags for the trial which came off rep crystals. And if is true then we can prevent it from happening again by simply having the lab coat BOTH sides. We know that on sapphire this coating will absolutely make a crystal disappear, so after working out the bugs we'll be in good shape. I think you will still catch reflections due to the large curvature of a magnifier compared to a crystal, but results should be much improved over what we attained in the trial run. Thanks guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted August 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Two things could be effecting the AR results here: (a) The mag thought to be sapphire is actually mineral - we've seen rep makers do this to us before without us knowing; AR lab screwed up and coated the flat side instead of the domed side. Good news is that if (a) is true then it will be solved with lanikai's new mags which came off sapphire lenses vs. these mags for the trial which came off rep crystals. And if is true then we can prevent it from happening again by simply having the lab coat BOTH sides. We know that on sapphire this coating will absolutely make a crystal disappear, so after working out the bugs we'll be in good shape. I think you will still catch reflections due to the large curvature of a magnifier compared to a crystal, but results should be much improved over what we attained in the trial run. Thanks guys! Thanks Chief.. we are covering all details and chiefs AR speaks for itself.. you all may want to take a look at the Omega section and the PO crystal I posted that Chief ar'd last winter.. it is by far better than the genuine !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Two things could be effecting the AR results here: (a) The mag thought to be sapphire is actually mineral - we've seen rep makers do this to us before without us knowing; AR lab screwed up and coated the flat side instead of the domed side. I am definitely NOT knowledgeable on AR coatings, so take this with a huge grain of salt, but I had a conversation with a Rolex trained watchmaker this evening as to what precautions there are regarding what I can or cannot use to clean the gen GMTIIC crystal? Specifically, I asked if Rolex had issued any warnings against the use of ammoniated cleaners like Windex (with ammonia) in regards to the GMTIIC's bezel or crystal. None that he was aware of. And he went at a GMT in the store with a bottle of Windex without any ill effects. This is interesting because AR-treated CRT monitors or eyeglasses always come with explicit warnings NOT to use Windex or other cleaners containing ammonia, because the ammonia removes the AR coating. And I know it does, at least in the case of CRT monitors & eyeglasses, because I have damaged a couple monitors & an expensive pair of sunglasses (& I received quite a hefty bill from my optician to have the lenses redone). Whether the AR used on Rolex cyclops is different than the AR used on CRTs & eyeglass lenses is different, I cannot say. But it does make me wonder if there may be something else going on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted August 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Optical guy in Kailua does my sunglasses to aviator specs (Ray Ban) he charges me 35 usd.. his lenses are exactly like the the specs from Ray Ban.. but he does not know AR... I have "learned" not to believe "everything" that the Rolex AD's tell me .. they have proven to be only about sales... but we will have to "Hurry up and Wait" on this one freddy.. Edit add; thank you freddy !!! .. you just gave me a "thought" i'll take the mag to my optical guy and see how he advises to "clean it".. i know he has instruments to do this.. so tomorrow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 I am definitely NOT knowledgeable on AR coatings, so take this with a huge grain of salt, but I had a conversation with a Rolex trained watchmaker this evening as to what precautions there are regarding what I can or cannot use to clean the gen GMTIIC crystal? Specifically, I asked if Rolex had issued any warnings against the use of ammoniated cleaners like Windex (with ammonia) in regards to the GMTIIC's bezel or crystal. None that he was aware of. And he went at a GMT in the store with a bottle of Windex without any ill effects. This is interesting because AR-treated CRT monitors or eyeglasses always come with explicit warnings NOT to use Windex or other cleaners containing ammonia, because the ammonia removes the AR coating. And I know it does, at least in the case of CRT monitors & eyeglasses, because I have damaged a couple monitors & an expensive pair of sunglasses (& I received quite a hefty bill from my optician to have the lenses redone). Whether the AR used on Rolex cyclops is different than the AR used on CRTs & eyeglass lenses is different, I cannot say. But it does make me wonder if there may be something else going on? Look on the bright side: if you don't think the mag looks good with AR on the dome then you can always remove it and you'll still have it on the underside, where you think it belongs. Truth be told, though... Having dealt with AR for a quite a while now, single and double sided, I personally don't think there is any way the dome isn't coated on the gen GMT IIc mag based on the pics I have seen. And I don't think Windex will strip it. It might discolor it, though.... Same situation if you've ever had car windows tinted - soap and water only, no Windex unless you want the film to yellow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Look on the bright side: if you don't think the mag looks good with AR on the dome then you can always remove it and you'll still have it on the underside, where you think it belongs. That was not my point, but I guess we will have to wait to see how Lani's final version looks after it is installed on his watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 That was not my point, but I guess we will have to wait to see how Lani's final version looks after it is installed on his watch. So are you thinking that there isn't any AR on the gen.... or ... ? I'm confused. My guess is that Windex isn't detrimental to the AR, and that's all. I don't know what it'd do to the AR I'm using, and have never been warned about it by the lab. Another issue with the trial run mags, aside from those already mentioned, is that they had UV cement on them. This stuff melts in the high temp AR chamber, so we have to wonder if liquified glue in the chamber adversely effected the results as well. Anyway, I think the issues will easily be resolved and the next run of mags will be as good as they can possibly be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youpmelone Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Lani you are the man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 So are you thinking that there isn't any AR on the gen.... or ... ? I'm confused. I do not understand why ammonia removes the AR on eyeglasses & CRT screens, but not on the gen GMTIIC's cyclops? I am confused too. That was all I was saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted August 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 I do not understand why ammonia removes the AR on eyeglasses & CRT screens, but not on the gen GMTIIC's cyclops? I am confused too. That was all I was saying. I cannot see it being the same type of AR; as sunglasses would not withstand the high heat that is needed to coat the sapphire crystal.. after all the lenses you are refferring to are plastic ... basically.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 I cannot see it being the same type of AR; as sunglasses would not withstand the high heat that is needed to coat the sapphire crystal.. after all the lenses you are refferring to are plastic ... basically.... Yep, apples and oranges. Lani is correct. Also with sunglasses and/or eyeglasses you're warned to never use anything other than a special micro fiber cloth to clean it, so that you don't scratch the coating. But this is not the case with the good AR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Mineral vs. sapphire... If necessary, I have a gen cyclops removed from a 295c (used for my old 14270 project) that you guys can test with. That would eliminate the cyclops material theory at least Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Thanks, Ubi! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Yep, apples and oranges. Lani is correct. Also with sunglasses and/or eyeglasses you're warned to never use anything other than a special micro fiber cloth to clean it, so that you don't scratch the coating. But this is not the case with the good AR. The glasses (& CRT) are glass & an alcohol-based spray cleaner was recommended. I have used micro fiber cloths, but these were never recommended. But you are probably right about your AR being different than the AR on eyeglasses or CRTs. Let's see how Lani's watch turns out when he gets the final version of the AR'd cyclops glued back onto his watch's crystal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 But you are probably right about your AR being different than the AR on eyeglasses or CRTs. I am right. I know the specifics of what is used on eyeglasses and what I use. Don't worry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChronoKing Posted August 9, 2008 Report Share Posted August 9, 2008 Thanks for all the great work thus far guys. 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.