Comparing Rolex 904L Stainless Steel To 316L Stainless Steel (Subjective Personal Experience)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 бер 2021
- In this video, I compared my experience with 904L stainless steel to 316L stainless steel. I’m curious what is your favorite Steel is and what would you choose to put into your watch down in the comments below. If you’re curious or have any questions you can email me at justtherightwatch@gmail.com and I’ll be sure to answer you.
Website: www.thewatchkingofficial.com
I want to thank you all for watching if you liked my content please subscribe for new content coming your way and follow the four steps for a chance to win a Chanel Necklace. - Навчання та стиль
You don't understand what you're talking about. 316L is 316L period, it doesn't matter who made the watch. A simple Google would've told you that 904 is simply a higher grade stainless steel than 316L. But higher grade doesn't always mean better. 316 is more scratch resistant and harder while 904 will keep a better shine or polish but scratches easier.
Absolutely!
This video is essential because it opens the door to a meaningful discussion about brand value perception. Each alloy name represents the specific mix of elements it contains. 316L and 904L are the same anywhere. Rolex isn't doing something special with "their 904L or 316L." If they did, it would not be called 304L or 316L. When ppl buy luxury items, they often attempt to split hairs about what they perceive to be intricacies that differentiate their luxury items from non-luxury items. Often, they realize only a small percentage of luxury is involved in the manufacturing and developing of their luxury items. For example, you struggled to clearly define the difference between the watches. Why? Because the difference is nearly negligible. Sure, 904L has a bump and more anti-corrosive benefits over 316L. However, the difference between the alloys does not justify a $10,000+ price difference. It's all a marketing ploy. Ultimately, we all need to come to terms with the reality that people are spending 10s of thousands of dollars for watches that will inevitably scratch up.
would you say the 904l has a slight copper tint to it compared to the 316l?
More of a bluish tint in the strong outdoor sunlight in Australia here. Use this trick on a friend's Rolex if you suspect it may be a fake "replica". Some copies even claim to use 904L, but you'll notice a lack of tint when in outdoor sunlight.
Rattling bracelet isn't about metal quality. Older rolex watches are hollow links. also clasps were all pressed steel son. Try a 70's late 90's sub or gmt bracelet and clasp....same clasp and sound
Omega was the first to use 904L stainless steel in the PloProf in 1972. It took Rolex more than 13 years to release their OysterSteel in 1985.
I wonder with your nonchalant handling of the two watches how many additional scratches you may have added.
Well I know that Omega had it first but then they got rid of it. I talked to an omega boutique about it. Also these watches are meant to be worn and I did not purposely hit them but I do not believe in safe queens
Omega has a great record with introducing and or using unique alloys, I'm especially fond of their current Sea Master with their Tantalum and Sedna Rose Gold. Even if they charge a small fortune for them at least you're getting something pretty unique.
Omega is a shit-tier watch brand that is still riding on the high of Moonwatch and Bond because they don't have any new or interesting ideas. L Company
dude this is a steel watch not a recently born baby wtf
@@howuncouth8198very based take. Thick af, coaxial movement is overrated - asking 5 figures for a low beat movement is insanity. Not the original Bond watch either. People only buy Omega as protest against Rolex sales tactics.
316L/Surgical steel equipment like scissors, scalpel and so on all get cleaned, sanitized and then re-used for medical operations. Surgical steel doesn't get thrown out. A single scalpel can be used for hundreds if not thousands of procedures before it is replaced with a new one.
904 L is softer Stainless Than 316L.
904L itself is a stronger material than 316 all around but on the finishing part that is where the debate begins. 904 is often times looked at as a weaker material in Rolex. I think because of the finishing it doesn’t keep it’s construction like 316 but it’s also a lot easier to polish. If you took 316 and 904 on their own 904 would win in strength.
@@thewatchkingwrong, 904L steel is lower on the Vickers hardness scale so scratches more easily than 316 steel
rolex had to change the backs on their earier dive watches as the backs became permanently corroded to the watch cases , to combat this they changed the backs to 904l stainless , its a kind of hidden fact ! maybe dennison (rolex's case suppliers changed or got a batch of bad steel) but all the same ,its the real reason rolex had to use 904l
Unfortunately, the 904 still scratches quite easily, which is precisely what Rolex was trying to overcome by switching to this material. You can see from your own submariner that it has scratches already, despite being a new watch. Btw, it's pronounced 'submaREENer', like submarine+er.
I agree with most of what you say. However, I think Rolex was looking more towards marketing their different steel and cared less about scratch resistance. It is a gimmick.
Buddy... Rolex has been using 904L since 1985... I guess just not on the center link bracelets?
Rolex has been using 904L since 1985 but only in the submariner for that long. If you re-search about this particular model this was the longest without using 904L. They changed it in the next reference number.
Brand new speedmaster stainless looks older than a 15 years old seadweller.
Rolex started using 904l in 1985…
904 is better than 316 when it comes to corrosion but 904 scratches much easier than high grade 316. If I was Rolex I would have just used 904 on subs and seadweller. They used 904 since 1985. The thing about it is that they rebranded 904 to Oyster Steal which to me is just a bit of a money grab in a way.
Steinhart now make a 904l ss Swiss made dive watch. Under $850. Obviously not that hard to do - seems Rolex whole 904l marketing is just that - marketing! Who would have thought it?!!!
Well at the same time you’re buying the Rolex brand it’s not the material itself. They were the first brands to fully go 904L. In my opinion it is still a superior stainless steel because you do get that corrosion resistance and I welcome any brand to incorporate it in their watch.
904 is better. 316 changes color tone during time
I completely agree I also think 904L is stronger even though often times people don’t think so but if you look at the steel on its own it is stronger than 316L
Ok all you know-it-all viewers here......... Revel in your own smugness & keep knocking Rolex. Omega owners do it often, not having the patience to go on Rolex waiting lists at official retailers. Jean-Claude Biver was called in to save Omega. The James Bond movie franchise also pushes Omega. Come on now, Omega is like BMW. Rolex is Porsche. One is middle-class penny-pinching. The other, a reward for hard work & achievement.
wow! Some good info ... BUT ... A lot of incorrect info as well.
Presenter, tacking on "(Subjective Personal Experience)" doesn't give you a pass to spew inaccurate info ... Do more homework better.
904 stainless steel price is about $2200 per tonne and 316 stainless steel is about $1700 per tonne. That's about $0.50 different per kilo. How many kilo of the stainless steel does the watch company use to manufacture their watches.. lol.. probably less than 150g. So actually the price difference between the two steel is close to none.. lol.. each steel has their own advantages..
there is no real difference in practice, they just want to do their own way
I disagree. I do think that Rolex likes to be different. There is a difference between 316L and 904L.
With respect, best left to a metallurgist.
316L from one company is the same as 316L from any other.
Both 904L and 316L have advantages/disadvantages.
In the realms of material science 904 is not the ‘vastly superior’ material the salespeople and fan boys would have you believe. 316L is better in some respects.
In my opinion and what I said was my experience is that 904L is superior. Just because it has those corrosion resistant properties that 316 does not have. Rolex had to buy special equipment to manufacture the cases because it is so hard to machine 904L. At the same time I can agree with you that 316 is the same all around just because it is the same Alloys across the board but the finishing on Rolex definitely makes it feel different than other more affordable options with the same steel.
@@thewatchking it’s marketing. Just marketing.
There are lots of different types of corrosion. As to the merits of either, there isn’t a clear winner.
Depending on its chemical composition, 904 can be softer than 316.
The lustre is slightly different, that’s why they switched to 904.
Rolex would have us believe they used zirconium or hastelloy. Marketing BS
904l is more equal. Lonely one grade .and no treatable .after making ... but 316 L have variety... and a good grade of316l can have thermic treatment and be better or minimum equal to 904l
Well, interestingly enough, you fail to mention that 904L stainless steel is ‘softer’ and more prone to marking and scratches! So, that would ‘equate’ to why most of the watch industry uses 316L. Also, the ‘L’ means that there is ‘less’ carbon present, making the alloys with that designation, ‘brighter!’ Therefore, the 316L due to containing less levels of carbon is ‘lighter’ than other forms of stainless steel which are also used in the watch field. I’ve seen quite a few ‘older’ or vintage Rolex models and to be honest, looked a bit ‘cheap’ or shabby! Yes, 904L is less prone to corrosion but not by a large margin and most older watches I’ve seen that were vintage, weren’t that corroded! I saw a 21 year old Omega Seamaster, Pierce Brosnan model and it looked great! It is also said that 904L does have a ‘sheen’ or ‘polished’ look to it that 316L does not! With that being said, I feel a diver’s watch should look ‘robust’ and not so ‘pristine!’ The ‘subdued’ brush look of a 316L May appear to be less eye-catching but it will serve you well when you’re surrounded by marine life(Especially aggressive and dangerous) and it isn’t so ‘glistening!’ I read stories about diver’s being ‘attacked’ by barracudas when their equipment was ‘too’ shiny! They attacked their air-valve and these divers had to quickly resurface because their air supply was ‘suddenly’ cut off! It may happen infrequently but the chance of that occurring would scare the ‘heck’ out of me!
I stopped watching at 2:25. You have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about at all. Stick to what you know, it isn't Rolex.
He is a snoob
you know it all
Both of those watches are fake.
how did you realize that ?😂 did you hear their breath?
@@antonia7player dudes an idiot 😂
You literally haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
@@antonia7player hes just jealous he dont got one so he says fake 😂
I got upset by watching the video.
I almost got blinded by his orange hair!
I think the 168000 went to 904L vs the 16800
Otherwise they are very similar and the 16800 was the first with sapphire crystal, and the later 16800 were the first with gold surrounds.
I GOT TITANIUM.....WHAT? 316L is better, point blank. I’d rather spend my money on education , family vacation vs Rolex. I have watches for 1k that will put Rolex to shame in looks. 1. Android jewel bezel Swiss... 2. Croton Swiss .