The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Hi folks,

I am a new Breitling owner (B50), and have a general question. Why do virtually all high-end Swiss brands still use reflective paint for the hands and hour markers? even when hit with high intensity light for several hours, I get just a few hours of legible illumination in total darkness.

I have worn Luminox mechanical complication and quartz watches for years, and they use tritium gas tubes on the hands and marks for illumination. They glow constantly and will for an estimated 25 years. I am used to keeping my watch at my bedside for viewing during the night if I wake up, and the Luminox watches are always brilliantly lit.

Obviously, with the B50, I can hit the backlight and get the time from the digital displays, but my question is more of a general nature.

Is there a reason for this? I would think that watches in the $5k and up category would have a much better illumination solution that reflective paint.

thanks!

Jeff

Tritium gas tubes aren't the most subtle in terms of design : they're very lumpy and clumsy to look at, especially on hands, so unless pure function is all the watch is designed for, most high end manufacturers opt for a more subtle and more stylish application of Superluminova instead.

If the Superluminova (or Lumibrite in the case of Seiko) is applied thickly enough, then the luminosity is usually fine for an average night. That said Breitling are notoriously poor with their application : Omega and Panerai are probably the "high end" leaders in SL application, but Seiko's Lumibrite is better still IMO.

Additionally while tritium tubes will glow for a good number of years, they will fade over time...and then you're effectively stuffed in terms of replacement. In contrast SL is very long-lived (provided no moisture gets in the watch) and is also very easy to reapply if needs be.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

First off, I think you mean luminous paint, rather than reflective paint. Reflective paint bounces back light that hits it (such as reflective road signs, etc.), whereas luminous paint glows in the absence of light after being previously charged by a light source.

Driver8's answer pretty much covers the bases. Tritium tubes offer more consistent illumination in the short term, but the half life for tritium is 12.5 years. After 12.5 years, they will only be half as bright as they were when new. After 25 years, they will only be a quarter as bright. While the companies that use them may consider them effectively functional for a full 25 years, it's not like they retain their full brightness up to that point. The decay is on a continuum, and they continually dim over the years. Even after a just a few years, you might notice they aren't as bright as when new. I also agree with Driver's take about the limitations of the tubes' design applications. Super-LumiNova (or its equivalent) essentially does not wear out over time, and continues to function optimally for the life of the watch. Because it is a paint, it can be configured into pretty much any design as desired.

Tritium paint also degrades, but unlike tubes, which keep the tritium contained, tritium paint starts to disintegrate and flake. That's why vintage watches with tritium paint look the way they do. Super-LumiNova does not degrade, either in function or appearance.

Roff has also made the point that a good coating of Super-LumiNova will continue to glow (albeit dimly) for the entire night, and is visible if your eyes acclimate to the darkness. If another light source has caused your pupils to narrow, the lume might appear to have lost its glow. I'll admit, I have not put this theory to the test.

I wish Breitling provided the quality of lume that Ball watches, or even the Rolex sport models, provide. The lume on my navitimer is lackluster.



JacksonStone, I would agree with your point if Breitling watches were meant to be worn continuously for 25 or even 12.5 years, but they are supposed to be serviced every 5-7 years--and in so doing the hands are always replaced! If Breitling's dials had luminous indices akin to those on Ball watches, could they too be replaced at service (without replacing the entire dial)? If yes, then I would prefer that the hands and indices be composed of the tubes as Ball watches

_________________
Breitling Navitimer 01 LE

Fair point. Ball does offer tube replacement as an option during scheduled maintenance, so theoretically, any company could do the same if they chose to. I don't know if Ball replaces the dial at the same time, or actually changes out the tubes on the existing dial. Either way, given that BUSA's overhaul cost on the brand's in-house chronographs is already a not-insignificant $750, I shudder to think how much the cost would be if it included full lume replacement, or how much the extra charge would be as an optional add-on service. Cost aside, though, I don't see why it couldn't be done.

Feasibility aside, it still doesn't solve the problem of aesthetics. I'm being polite when I say tritium tubes have design "limitations." Frankly, other than how they look in the dark, I think they're ugly. Having a Ball watch would be fun, just for variety, but if all high-end makers turned to tubes as a lume standard, I'd consider it a sad development from the standpoint of design. I think your post posits a better option when you cite Rolex sport watches as potential exemplars of lume: just improve the quality or amount of LumiNova. Breitling definitely could do that, and at their prices, arguably should.

The biggest driver to non tritium based solutions was the US Government. They declared tritium a restricted substance as it is radioactive and required anyone importing it to the US to have a license. There was actually paperwork filed against Breitling at one point to start a prosecution. Given the limitations of tritium and the fact the watch industry was moving to SL and similar solutions anyway that just sped things up and made tritium a niche option.