RobbieG Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 Oh yeah, I agree 100%. I don't believe it either man and I don't dispute what you say. No body knows for sure not the least of which me. But what do you think then? Do they have different crystals or what because the pics I think really illustrate that Rolex has really upped the llegibility lately. So if it isn't AR what are your thoughts on that? Maybe the dials or date disc materials or inks are different or there is something else with the sapphire? Whatever it is, it wasn't around 5 years ago and I would be interested to hear everyones thoughts, because again, this whole phenomenon certainly will be "helping" any AR isolated to the cyclops. Huh???????? How did this all become so personal. Can we (all) just focus on the matter at hand? Please. If there is 1 thing I have learned in 20+ years of watch collecting (mostly Rolex) is to trust only that info that comes 1st person. In this case, I think most would agree that Dowling is 1 of the few people, outside of Rolex S.A., who is both reliable & able to get accurate (& occasional official) info out of the source (Rolex). The subject of AR & why Rolex does not use it has come up more times than I can remember on TZ & each time the best sources have been consistent in saying that, with the exception of the date window on the GMTIIC, Rolex does does not AR their watches. Now that does not mean it is impossible, only that it would be pretty unlikely that a watchmaker would have information that Dowling does not have. That is all I am saying. And until I hear otherwise from a reliable source (including what I see with my own eyes), I remain, with all due respect, wholly unconvinced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssurfer Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 My bet is: double side AR cyclops + single side AR crystal, only on the inner surface and most likely only in the cyclops'area. Just, I only bet $10. BTW, a purplish tint along the crystal border when viewed at a skewed angle might be just the sapphire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 I didn't catch this. Can someone explain to the old man (me) what that is all about? Thanks. BTW, a purplish tint along the crystal border when viewed at a skewed angle might be just the sapphire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 My bet is: double side AR cyclops + single side AR crystal, only on the inner surface and most likely only in the cyclops'area. Just, I only bet $10. BTW, a purplish tint along the crystal border when viewed at a skewed angle might be just the sapphire. Ok.. this is from one who IMO has had hands on experience .. and btw for those of you who don't know, ssurfer never posts unless it is accurate and with "experience" .. that being said I take ssurfers words as grail .. 10 usd worth .. and agree with the hue on the edge of the crystal.. chiefs AR is as colourless as it get's so if it is just the crystal that is AR.. "redundency" never hurts in ARing the mag .. if redundency works with missles it can work in all other ventures.. So the only thing left to do is for me to get the samples to chief for the next run .. that will be 2 crystal and 2 removed mags.. these are "white sapphire" and I'm sure chief on his end will check the procedures being done with the mags.. I trust him to a tee .. no slight of hand here guy's !! So we can all relax.. thank you freddy for pointing us in the right direction.. thank you Robbie for making us "think" .. and thank you Jake for seeing ma talent in common sense... (joking about my knowledge of course).. a little levity never hurt at times like this.. !! .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssurfer Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 I didn't catch this. Can someone explain to the old man (me) what that is all about? Thanks. It was a reply to: @ Robbie At some angles do you get a purple ring around the outside of the crystal? My SMP had a single AR coating, and although it was colourless, at some angles a faint purple ring on the outside of the crystal would appear. My bad English did the rest. @Lani: really thanks for your consideration, R! I just hope it's no overextimation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 My bet is: double side AR cyclops + single side AR crystal, only on the inner surface and most likely only in the cyclops'area. Just, I only bet $10. BTW, a purplish tint along the crystal border when viewed at a skewed angle might be just the sapphire. I have two bets: 1. double AR on cyclops + single AR on entire inner surface. The amount of effort and tooling involved to create a mask that would allow coating of the cyclops area of the inner surface of the crystal would be ridiculous to undertake, in my somewhat educated opinion. Especially considering there is no practical benefit compared to just coating the entire inner surface. 2. There is something going wrong at my AR lab causing these magnifiers not to be coated properly. Some will recall that I had to have them build custom tooling just for the 6mm PAM cyclopes, and they're using these same fixtures for the Rolex magnifiers. Anyhow, as I said previously, I'm going to take this up with the lab... Pictures speak a thousand words, so I will send a couple of freddy's pics and photoshop away the Rolex logos or something. I'm sure they'll wonder why the coated and uncoated lenses look identical side by side.... Lastly... I do have one unclaimed coated magnifier here... If it goes unclaimed for much longer, then I'm going to run a dremel over it and just verify that in fact there are at least a few layers of AR being removed! Because, honestly, I'm starting to lean towards #2 above more so than #1. We will see......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssurfer Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 1. double AR on cyclops + single AR on entire inner surface. The amount of effort and tooling involved to create a mask that would allow coating of the cyclops area of the inner surface of the crystal would be ridiculous to undertake, in my somewhat educated opinion. Especially considering there is no practical benefit compared to just coating the entire inner surface. I naturally agree, B. Just, I have no experience with Rolex, and on the pics posted here the cyclops area looks very different from the rest of the crystal surface. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 I naturally agree, B. Just, I have no experience with Rolex, and on the pics posted here the cyclops area looks very different from the rest of the crystal surface. Indeed, it does look very different... That's why there must be a coating on the outer surface of the cyclops. There is no way to prevent reflections on that suface unless that surface has an AR coating. Single AR and Double AR is a night and day difference.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shundi Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 Just wanted to thank everyone who's contributed time, money, experience/gen comparisons and effort into this endeavour... in my humble opinion: -I see where RobbieG is coming from on my own watches...the modern ones are remarkably easy to read...again, no idea if this is due to the materials used, secret single sided internal AR, a combination of both, or neither... whatever it is- it does the job and it does it well. -I think what Sssurfer and Chief are suggesting makes sense... it can't hurt to double check the actual coatings on the current mags and try out a single coat internal with the coated mag...especially considering what I've seen of Chief's new AR. From the pics and the testimonials it really is colorless so coating the whole inside of the crystal vs just under the mag (and having to do the prep work to AR a small area, etc) makes sense to me and shouldn't have a negative effect on the "genness" of the crystal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake48 Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 (edited) My bet is: double side AR cyclops + single side AR crystal, only on the inner surface and most likely only in the cyclops'area. Just, I only bet $10. BTW, a purplish tint along the crystal border when viewed at a skewed angle might be just the sapphire. Ssurfer -I wouldn't take a bet against you. I think you are right... Chief, to get the crystal/cyclops the way you suggest with AR on one side of the crystal am I correct in assuming that you would have to double side AR a crystal, remove the AR from the top and affix an AR'd cyclops? In other words, my no AR'd crystal with AR'd cyclops is of no value for further experiment with this? I will send it to you if you can use it, but if memory serves me correct, it looks like I have to start all over... Edited December 16, 2008 by jake48 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 Ssurfer -I wouldn't take a bet against you. I think you are right... Chief, to get the crystal/cyclops the way you suggest with AR on one side of the crystal am I correct in assuming that you would have to double side AR a crystal, remove the AR from the top and affix an AR'd cyclops? In other words, my no AR'd crystal with AR'd cyclops is of no value for further experiment with this? I will send it to you if you can use it, but if memory serves me correct, it looks like I have to start all over... I might try to work a deal with the lab if the problem is on their end... Have them redo the cyclopes and do an AR on the crystals too... I dunno if it'll fly or even if it's their problem or not. But, generally, yea it's a start over at this point given the results. I could take a donor cyclops to try stripping the AR and evaluate what happens during the AR removal process.... If it's already attached to a crystal, that'd actually make life easier by giving me something larger to grab on to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puredreamz Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 I am not sure if this would help but can anyone take a picture of a Chief AR cyclops on top of a Genuine Rolex GMT II Ceramic? Maybe it would shed a little light? Sorry if this has already been suggested I must have missed that post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 I have two bets: 1. double AR on cyclops + single AR on entire inner surface. The amount of effort and tooling involved to create a mask that would allow coating of the cyclops area of the inner surface of the crystal would be ridiculous to undertake, in my somewhat educated opinion. Especially considering there is no practical benefit compared to just coating the entire inner surface. 2. There is something going wrong at my AR lab causing these magnifiers not to be coated properly. Some will recall that I had to have them build custom tooling just for the 6mm PAM cyclopes, and they're using these same fixtures for the Rolex magnifiers. Anyhow, as I said previously, I'm going to take this up with the lab... Pictures speak a thousand words, so I will send a couple of freddy's pics and photoshop away the Rolex logos or something. I'm sure they'll wonder why the coated and uncoated lenses look identical side by side.... Plus 1 on ssurfers choice that it is the #1 choice B. ... .. that makes sense.. if it is the lab ..then can I renig ma bet ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake48 Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 I might try to work a deal with the lab if the problem is on their end... Have them redo the cyclopes and do an AR on the crystals too... I dunno if it'll fly or even if it's their problem or not. But, generally, yea it's a start over at this point given the results. I could take a donor cyclops to try stripping the AR and evaluate what happens during the AR removal process.... If it's already attached to a crystal, that'd actually make life easier by giving me something larger to grab on to. Additionally, for whatever it's worth Chief, when I closely examined the light reflecting off of the cyclops it appeared to be brightest on the surface of the cyclops. Don't know exactly what that means if anything, but I could definitely see the light source on the rounded edges (to each side) of the surface of the cyclops... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 I might try to work a deal with the lab if the problem is on their end... Have them redo the cyclopes and do an AR on the crystals too... I dunno if it'll fly or even if it's their problem or not. But, generally, yea it's a start over at this point given the results. I could take a donor cyclops to try stripping the AR and evaluate what happens during the AR removal process.... If it's already attached to a crystal, that'd actually make life easier by giving me something larger to grab on to. Chief .. I have a couple of crystals with mags on their way.. I was going to send them to you for the next run.. you tell me what you need me to do.. (they are white sapphire) .. if you want them intact or if you want me to detach one mag.. they are not from the same source.. so you will have 2 different sourced mags.. that way if one takes and the other dosen't well.. we'll know what the problem was .. better to take all options.. just let me know.. I just removed all the AR on one of the mags with acetone.. didn't need a dremel.. it came right off.. if that helps.. allow me sometime to get the crystals as the Holiday shipping is taking forever.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 Right or wrong in terms of the AR on the gen or not, that will probably do the trick and get the desired affect. I'm looking forward to getting the watch again (the rep this time) once this all gets figured out. Thanks Cheif and Lani for all you have done on this. I'm sure everyone is still greatly appreciating this labor of love. I have two bets: 1. double AR on cyclops + single AR on entire inner surface. The amount of effort and tooling involved to create a mask that would allow coating of the cyclops area of the inner surface of the crystal would be ridiculous to undertake, in my somewhat educated opinion. Especially considering there is no practical benefit compared to just coating the entire inner surface. 2. There is something going wrong at my AR lab causing these magnifiers not to be coated properly. Some will recall that I had to have them build custom tooling just for the 6mm PAM cyclopes, and they're using these same fixtures for the Rolex magnifiers. Anyhow, as I said previously, I'm going to take this up with the lab... Pictures speak a thousand words, so I will send a couple of freddy's pics and photoshop away the Rolex logos or something. I'm sure they'll wonder why the coated and uncoated lenses look identical side by side.... Lastly... I do have one unclaimed coated magnifier here... If it goes unclaimed for much longer, then I'm going to run a dremel over it and just verify that in fact there are at least a few layers of AR being removed! Because, honestly, I'm starting to lean towards #2 above more so than #1. We will see......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted December 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 Chief - Why not ask the lab to AR the underside of a half-moon section (the date window side) of 1 Rolex crystal. Then, set it on top of anything black & place an oem (non-AR'd) rep cyclops on top of the AR'd side of the crystal (you do not need to cement them on, just set them there). Shine some light on the whole shebang & snap some pics. If the date window looks like the date window area does on the gen GMTIIC, then you know what we need to do. If not, try placing a double AR'd cyclops on it & shoot more pics. My guess is that you will have a fairly definitive answer with the 1st set of pics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonSlayer Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 Heres a pic "borrowed" from Master Chief (hope you don't mind MC) of his GMTIIC with an AR'ed datemag installed. Not sure if it's singe or double coated. To my eyes it doesn't look like it has the same light reflecting properties as the gen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted December 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 Heres a pic "borrowed" from Master Chief (hope you don't mind MC) of his GMTIIC with an AR'ed datemag installed. Not sure if it's singe or double coated. To my eyes it doesn't look like it has the same light reflecting properties as the gen. I agree. Sadly, it looks just like mine did. The crystal needs to be AR'd (on its underside) below the cyclops. Then I think it will match the gen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drop Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 Chief just let me know if you need another AR'd cyclops to experiment with, I'm in your neck of the woods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 Not the best photoshop job in the world but the logo is gone (don't worry, this guy is no watch expert - nor would he care about what we are doing anyhow I don't think), and I've explained the problem and have sent off that photo to the AR lab. I will hopefully get a response from them tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted December 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 These might be helpful if trademarks are an issue AR'd cyclops @ 9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
involt Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 I am by no means an expert in this field, but for an effective AR coating all the interfaces must be coated. This is the way all the professional (e.g. refractors telescopes, high-end binoculars, etc.) optical equipments are coated. The interface between different media (air-glass in this case) is the origin of an optical impedance mismatching. The AR coating acts as an impedance adapter. Hence, for an acceptable effect, the underside of the crystal and the upper surface of the cyclope have to be treated; beside, the cyclope should be cemented to the crystal by means some sort of medium that eliminates the double interface between the cyclope and the crystal (for instance, Canada balsam is used for the microscope slides) acting as an impedance adapter. In this case the result would be similar to that can be seen on a gen. But I have no idea about what kind of cement could be used in order to achieve such an effect. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipM Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 the cyclope should be cemented to the crystal by means some sort of medium that eliminates the double interface between the cyclope and the crystal (for instance, Canada balsam is used for the microscope slides) acting as an impedance adapter. In this case the result would be similar to that can be seen on a gen. But I have no idea about what kind of cement could be used in order to achieve such an effect. . At last, someone on the same track as me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 Yea, we're definitely missing an important piece of the puzzle and you guys might be on to something there. Anyhow, I did hear back from the AR lab owner. His comment was that relative to the uncoated surface the two mags are resting on in the photo, it looks like both mags are coated! But he says if we want to send any pieces we think are uncoated back to the lab for evaluation, he'll process them immediately. Basically they have a machine which will measure reflections off the surface and generate a graph across the entire spectrum, so we'll know definitively if there is an issue with the AR application on the magnifiers. Now, I do have one as of yet unclaimed piece here. And while I am now doubting the AR application being the problem, I think I'm going to send it in for eval just so we can put to rest the possibility of a coating issue. FYI ! 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.