I just bought an old 1960s Rolex that has, I think, a plastic lens, or face piece. (Whatever you call it.) As I know that some of the later Rolexes have sapphire crystal lens, I’m wondering if I can get a jeweler to swap a sapphire lens for the plastic lens?
Aside from cost, what would be the downside–would the watch be prone to water leakage? Are the sapphire lens more scratch-resistant?
Thanks.
Why do you think your Rolex has a “plastic” crystal?
Your biggest problem is that there probably aren’t sapphire crystals to fit your Rolex, which has a face considerably smaller than most of the models from the last 20 years.
There would be no downside to replacing the crystal, assuming that yours is plastic. Glass is better. It’s not as easy as going to the autoparts store and getting a widget for your 1968 Corvair.
I can address a couple of the questions brought up here.
I once had a Rolex Submariner watch (non-date), bought new around 1989, that definitely had a plastic watch face. The watch face was somewhat rounded, and constantly got scratched. I could take it into a Rolex dealer and they would buff out the accumlated scratches for about $10. In the two years I owned the watch, I did this at least every four to six months.
I finally got sick of this routine, and replaced the aforementioned watch with a Rolex Submariner (with date). This watch was considerably more expensive–more than twice as much as the previous one. However, the watch face is a completely flat “sapphire crystal” that has yet to show a mark after 12 years of daily wear. It also indicates the date. 
As a watch collector I’m not a big Rolex fan, but if you get rid of the plastic crystal the resale value of the watch is going to be much diminished.
Hmmm. I’m no expert, but I do have a couple relevant experiences: I have two Rolexes. One (a submarinar) had a crystal face that I cracked in an accident. When I took it in, the crystal to replace it was very expensive and I asked if there were alternatives. The repair guy said there were plastic ones, but that they were not by Rolex, and significantly depreciated the value of the watch. The second watch (a GMT that I bought used at an estate sale) came with a plastic face, and had a scratch in it. I took it into a different watch guy who also told me that plastic faces were fake and diminished the value; I had it replaced.
So, I don’t know for sure, but I’ve always assumed based on a couple of references that only crystal ones were real.
I am positive that my first Rolex (with the plastic face) was real. It was bought new from a reputable dealer (the Navy Exchange), and had all of the accroutrements from Rolex, including the fancy box and all of the paperwork.
Also, when I took it to a Rolex dealer in the U.S. for the first time to see what could be done about the scratches in the plastic face, the dealer remarked that it was a common problem and that the scratches could be easily buffed out. The dealer never implied that my watch and/or face were “fake.”
Incidentally, I was able to sell that first watch for more than was paid for it when new. (It was a gift.) I applied the money towards the purchase of my second.
That’s right.
Rolex DID use “plastic crystals” (that’s the correct phrase, apparently) for many years–that from a Rolex website. The watch I just bought is a 1970 “datejust.” Beautiful watch, though stainless steel, not 18K gold.
At some point, Rolex decided to go with their “sapphire crystal,” which is impervious to minor scratches. But they are expensive.
Astro, I think you’re right, but I’m not interested in resell value.
**SamClem[/], the face on my 1970 Rolex is the same as a 2000 Rolex.
It all depends if you want to keep the re-sale vale or not. I have been fixing watchs for years and I have exchanged a plastic lens for a mineral one.
The up side it is more scratch resistant. The down side is its no longer original parts and loses quite a lot of value. What I suggest you do is get a mineral lens fitted and order a plastic one at the same time (make sure they are made by Rolex to keep value). Then you can have all the benifits of a mineral lens and when you want to sell it you have a nice shiny plastic lens to put in it.
Hope this helps.
P.S Thailand fakes are now nearly as good as the real thing so keep that in mind.
It all depends if you want to keep the re-sale vale or not. I have been fixing watches for years and I have exchanged a plastic lens for a mineral one in a rolex.
The up side it is a lot more scratch resistant. The down side is because its no longer original parts it loses quite a lot of value. What I suggest you do is get a mineral lens fitted and order a plastic one at the same time (make sure they are made by Rolex to keep value). Then you can have all the benifits of a mineral lens and when you want to sell it you have a nice shiny plastic lens to put in it.
Hope this helps.
I have two vintage Submariners (c.1961 and late-1970s), and a new GMT II that I bought about three years ago. Earlier Rolex watches (and most other watches) had acrylic crystals. The new ones (as with many if not most watches) have synthetic sapphire crystals. The acrylic crystals are domes and the sapphire crystals are flat.
Acrylic crystals do not reduce the value of the watch. It’s the way they were made. I don’t believe that sapphire crystals will fit on a watch that was made for the acrylic crystal. In any case, the best way to reduce the value of a Rolex is to put non-original parts in it. You have the option of using aftermarket parts, which are much cheaper than original ones, but you’re better off using original parts if you want to maintain the value.
As for leakage, they are good down to the depth printed on the face (200m for a 1960s Sub) as long as they have been maintained.
Acrylic crystals have the advantage of being able to be buffed out if they are scratched. You can’t do that with a sapphire crystal. The downside is that they are more easily scratched. Sapphire crystals are fingerprint magnets. Acrylic crystals seem not to collect fingerprints and smudges quite so easily.
Rolex watches have this “aura” about them. People think they are very expensive and that you have to be rich to own one. Rolex adds to this reputation by being incredibly snobbish about them. (For example, you can’t put a Rolex bracelet from another Rolex watch on the one you have, unless the one you have is or was available with that type of bracelet.) In reality, Rolex watches are very “middle class”. While they are more expensive than your average Times or Seiko (or Omega, for that matter), there are other watches that are far more expensive than a Rolex. Also, Rolexes are incredibly unhip. If you want to impress someone, don’t wear a Rolex. (Personally, I don’t give a damn. I like the way they look.)
So replace the crystal with a genuine Rolex acrylic one. The watch will keep its value and it will be waterproof. Rolex charges a lot for their maintenance (which is detailed on their site), but you’ll be sure it’s done right. There are competent jewelers who can do as good a job, but if you go through a Rolex dealer you’ll get a guaranty.
REgarding ROLEX pricing: whay are these watches considered so high-prestige? They are basically the same design (the case design hasn’t changed in years), and the movements are basically cheap, machine-made. The most hand assembly on a Rolex is the band(the all-gold bands are hand made). So why are the watches able to command such high prices?
Just an aside: Rolex makes a second brand which is called"TUDOR". These watches are substantially the same as the Rolex, but they sell for 1/3 to 1/2 the price…seems like a ripoff to me!
What I’ve gotten from this thread:
“If you look around you might find a great old Rolex, with a BETTER lens, but for a lot cheaper because someone replaced the original plastic with a better crystal.”
Where do I sign up?
Steve
(Bolding mine. --Samclem)
I would be interested if someone would tell me how significantly the value of a stainless Rolex from 1968 in average condition with a sapphire replacement crystal would be.
I doubt very much.
I read through a lot of posts here until I finally found some people who seem to think like I do, namely ralph124c and Big-Ole-Steve.
So here’s my question: Rolex is supposedly a high-class watch, right? How did they get that kind of reputation using plastic faces?
Rolex has a long history. They gained a reputation for fine watches when many watches weren’t very reliable. Most of their watches are officially certified as chronometers, which means that they are accurate within certain limits. And don’t let the plastic crystals fool you. A lot of watches used them. They are not as easy to break as glass. (There weren’t always synthetic sapphire crystals, after all.) Omega uses an acrylic crystal on their Speedmasters. Rolex also developed the Oyster case, which is still used today. The Oyster case was a landmark in the making of waterproof watches (as was the waterproof crown). The cases are also quite rugged. I’ve seen Subs that have been used for their intended purpose – diving. One was missing the bezel and was very scratched. It still worked.
Rolex also made an effort to build its reputation. When Comex needed deep diving watches, Rolex offered the Sea Dweller (which was and is a more rugged Submariner with a helium release valve). Rolexes also found their way on to the wrists of explorers. (There is a model called the Explorer, which I believe was given to a Himalayan expedition – but I’d have to look up the details, and my book is in storage.) People began to associate Rolex watches with mountain climbers, scuba divers, pilots… adventurers. Rolex watches proved their reliability and ruggedness. They also looked good. Like many people who drive SUVs or wear team clothing but don’t go offroad or play for the Chicago Bulls, they wanted people to think they were “adventurers”. A Rolex gave them a certain cachet. Hey, James Bond wore a Rolex.
Especially in the 1980s, people were buying Rolexes as status symbols to go along with their BMWs. Everyone seemed to have one. It worked for a while, but once they became common (and at just a few thousand dollars, they are within reach of many, many people) they no longer stood out. Besides, a cheap digital or quartz watch keeps better time than any mechanical watch can. And let’s face it: An Oyster is an Oyster, no matter how you dress it up.
Nowadays the “hip” watches seem to be things like Tags. Newer, hipper watches have the “bling bling” factor. They’re different from each other. People don’t seem to care so much about the mechanics of a watch as long as it looks good and doesn’t break. Why spend the bucks for an automatic when you can get a quartz that only needs a battery every couple of years?
And since “everyone” has a Rolex, people who have “made it” tend to buy more expensive watches to display their wealth. They believe that a Patek shows that they have more taste than a Rolex.
But Rolex is still living on its reputation. People are still paying the prices. If the people who buy Rolexes thought they were too expensive, then they’d buy something else.
And Rolexes are not “bad” watches. They work very well. It’s true that you don’t have the “hand craftsmanship” when the movements are made by machines, but that doesn’t bother people who buy cars or other things that are made by automated processes. And let’s be honest; people are often offended by things that others have. I use my Cherokee for towing, camping, carrying my kayak, etc. And I’ve been known to go offroad in it to places where 4WD is necessary even though I live in the city. But it’s automatically “bad” because there are a lot of people who buy SUVs as fashion statements. So a lot of people will say that people who buy Rolexes are idiots because they can get a shinier watch that has more functions and keeps better tims for less money.
Whatever.
I like the classic looks of my GMT II and Subs. I didn’t buy them to impress people; I bought them because I like them. So what if they’re not “hip”? I don’t care. My Rolexes are not “high-class watches”. They’re just watches that I like.
So to answer Keeve in a nutshell, they got their reputation from the people who used them decades ago. An acrylic crystal is not a sign of cheapness. They’re more expensive than a lot of watches because automatic watches cost more to make than quartz watches, and because Rolex is still trading off of a reputation that IMO belongs to another era.
I could be wrong, but I think that a Rolex from the late 40’s early 50’s had a glass crystal. Someime in the 60’s? modern times demanded that “space-age” plastics such as acrylics were the “in” thing to do. That may be the case with Rolex.
As to modern desires for “hot” things such as “Tags”, we buy new “Tags” and the like, in their original case, at 20 cents/dollar retail.
We buy “mint” Rolex in box, at 50% of retail. That’s what the Rolex dealers get them for. We actually pay more than 50% for popular models.
Rolex protects their markets, and about 8-9 years ago flushed about 25% of their dealers. They flushed the whores who were selling stuff out the backdoor at 60% of retail. It tightened up the market, and it’s still tight to this day.
Other popular brands will sell to anyone, and oversaturate the worldwide market for their product, producing a secondary “cheap” market for their product.
This is not to say that I like Rolex. But they DO protect their market share.
Outstanding response, Johnny L.A.. You have a flair for writing.
I got the 1970 Rolex for sentimental reasons, period. I also have a mid-90s Rolex–an 18K watch that I feel I cannot wear, as it’s too flashy at work (rubs it in among my support staff, or so it was suggested) and makes me nervous if I’m out on the street. Maybe it’s my paranoia speaking, but street toughs seem to lock onto a gold Rolex like a laser, even though the watch isn’t pimped out with diamonds, or fur.
Like you, I like Rolexes because they are neat, not because it impresses some people. I’m not a flashy. I got the 18K as a thank you. The 18K has caused some embarrasing moments and that’s why 99 percent of the time, it’s in the box. There’s something perverse about a guy walking out of WalMart with a bag of shampoo and mouthwash–all the while wearing shorts, ratty t-shirt, and an 18K Rolex.
P.S. I also have a Casio.
Just as a small aside:
Three years ago, when the world economy was perceived as better than today, used gold Presidents were selling at watch shows in the US for $8000 or so. The Japanese dealers were still buying them. Today, at a US watch show, they are going begging at $6500. That’s my report from the guys who do the shows. Perhaps the rise n the price of gold over the last year has helped. I’ll try to find out.
Ditto. Thanks, Johnny L.A.