The Breitling Watch Source Forums
https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/

Why is reluming considered a bad thing?
https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=60767		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  cryo [ Tue Jun 28, 2016 7:40 am ]
Post subject:  Why is reluming considered a bad thing?
Browsing through the forum(s), I noticed that people frown when it comes to reconditioning the lume on hands / dial. On one hand I understand that this might be considered by some purists as a sacrilege, but from a practical and aesthetic perspective, would you rather have a vintage watch with no lume, or have it reconditioned to a more decent state? If I'm not mistaking, this is also part of the Breitling full servicing (I noticed them mentioning "refurbishing of the hands / dial" in the task list for the 4 years maintenance).

I purchased a Navi 92, on which the lume is all but gone (nothing really shines in the dark). I'm considering a reluming of the hands / dial, maybe even a complete changing of the hands if I can manage to find a replacement original set from an old stock. Would that be such a stupid move and should leave it as it is? Or should I try having it back as much as possible in top condition?

Thanks!
Author:  saabreit [ Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is reluming considered a bad thing?
All Breitlings with this kind of logo :lingsrock: are considered as modern according to our criterias for vintage Breitlings . Your Navi 92 issued between 1990 and 1995 approx. is a modern watch for us .
Breitling SA hands are very delicate and service includes their replacement except if you specify the contrary. Dials and hands are available from manufacturer so there is no problem for exchanging them during service .
In the case of vintage Breitlings , relume of an aged dial is just as eyeshocking as a freshly painted part on an old patinated car - or lifted silicon boobs on a 80 years old lady . Essential is to preserve homogeneous aspect between all the components , no one must monopolise attention more than another . Moreover it is virtually impossible to patinate a relumed dial . For hands it is easier and some clever guys use recipes based on dipping in tea or coffee in order to imitate colour of the aged tritium .
Author:  cryo [ Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is reluming considered a bad thing?
Thanks for the reply. I know the Navi 92 doesn't fit into the vintage category, however most reluming discussions I've seen are in this forum. And it seems natural the lume will fade out in time. I agree also with the "freshly painted part on an old car", however if the reconditioning is consistent (meaning you won't only have fresh lume, but a good looking overall aspect), it shouldn't be as striking, wouldn't you think?

Keeping the car analogy, for me it's a pleasure to look at one of my friend's 68 Mustang, which has an overall nice and shiny, well taken care of look, than it would be to look at it all faded and aged. But I guess it's also a matter of preference.

Is a good reconditioning bound to increase, or decrease the resale value of a watch? are the old, "patinated" watches more valuable than the ones looking top, but, naturally, reconditioned?
Author:  Dracha [ Tue Jun 28, 2016 1:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is reluming considered a bad thing?
send it to Breitling , they will service it , replace the hands (with new ones) and make the whole watch look like brand new

IMO a much better option than having the hands relumed with unknown outcome
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/