Today we tested all the popular SUBs for 904L steel

[Aphung2]

I think a more productive conversation to be had rather than attacking the messenger is examining the actual benefits of 904L vs 316L. It can be argued that Rolex originally used 904L as a marketing tactic to differentiate themselves from the competition in which 316L is the industry standard. Whether or not it is objectively better is definitely an interesting topic for debate.

Irrespective of grade, all stainless steel alloys contain at least approx 11% chromium. The chromium forms a protective outer oxide layer that gives stainless steel it’s anti-corrosive properties. There are other metals present that contribute to this as well, such as nickel and molybdenum.

The content of chromium, nickel and molybdenum is significantly higher in 904L than 316L, which means that it is more resistant to corrosion. This is great if you’re an actual scuba diver and spend a ton of time in salt water.

source for info so far (if you care): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6471766/

No need to fret if your watch is 316L though as the molybdenum in its steel gives it excellent overall anticorrosive properties as well. And the benefit of 316L over 904L is that it is actually a harder material and therefore more scratch resistant and less stretchable. Because of the added toughness of 316L, it can be argued that it is a better rounded choice for watchmaking.

Of course there are still other things that haven’t been discussed. 904L is supposed to be antimagnetic in all conditions. And whether or not a visual difference can actually be seen is another interesting topic. I personally think that unless you are constantly dipping your bracelet and watch in some crazy low pH acid, you don’t really have to worry all that much.

 

[Neo_Goku1]

So basically your first contribution to the forum is, 5 posts where you are talking out your ass, without anything to back it up..... Great job :asshat:

Thanks bud, nice to meet you too. My names Goku, and i'm a saiyan from Earth

 

[2841]

I think a more productive conversation to be had rather than attacking the messenger is examining the actual benefits of 904L vs 316L. It can be argued that Rolex originally used 904L as a marketing tactic to differentiate themselves from the competition in which 316L is the industry standard. Whether or not it is objectively better is definitely an interesting topic for debate.

Irrespective of grade, all stainless steel alloys contain at least approx 11% chromium. The chromium forms a protective outer oxide layer that gives stainless steel it’s anti-corrosive properties. There are other metals present that contribute to this as well, such as nickel and molybdenum.

The content of chromium, nickel and molybdenum is significantly higher in 904L than 316L, which means that it is more resistant to corrosion. This is great if you’re an actual scuba diver and spend a ton of time in salt water.

source for info so far (if you care): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6471766/

No need to fret if your watch is 316L though as the molybdenum in its steel gives it excellent overall anticorrosive properties as well. And the benefit of 316L over 904L is that it is actually a harder material and therefore more scratch resistant and less stretchable. Because of the added toughness of 316L, it can be argued that it is a better rounded choice for watchmaking.

Of course there are still other things that haven’t been discussed. 904L is supposed to be antimagnetic in all conditions. And whether or not a visual difference can actually be seen is another interesting topic. I personally think that unless you are constantly dipping your bracelet and watch in some crazy low pH acid, you don’t really have to worry all that much.

Patek uses 316L for their steel models. We can al agree that Patek is a couple of steps above Rolex right..... So like you said Trip, no need to chuck your ZZFs in the bin, it’s really not that important

 

[Tucker]

Hmm, maybe so but theres also contradicting claims about whether 904L is harder or softer than 316L. There is way to much confusion in the air on this topic. Some saying you need special equipment to work with 904L while others state thats complete nonsense too.
I suppose you could say that brighter and whiter could be due to the golden glow too. I mean even the sun changes colour depending on the weather. Some days its bright white, others its yellow or dull orange.

I’m serious about us blowing it out together. You’re crazy. I like to urinate on my watches. The chloride in my pee makes the 904L sparkle under fluorescent light. It’s an easy tell. I call it the Tinkle Test.

 

[GingerBubba]

You never offer to pee on me, you bastard!

 

[pt98765]

Because it costs roughly $20,000 USD for a device to test the metal. In this case, ZF used a 3rd party to run the test (paid for the use of their XRF gun)... I’d assume they did so because they had a “good feeling” they could call out ZZF’s supplier for issuing 316L steel for the V3’s. This isn’t necessarily a “bad” thing, but I doubt the test would have been publicized had ZF’s supplier been the one passing 316 for 904.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But you said that the factories never test the steel? And now you say the opposite...

These factories are big operations. Of course they will verify what they are buying in from their suppliers, and nope they don't need 20k for a machine. They will bring in a testing agency.

 

[pt98765]

I think a more productive conversation to be had rather than attacking the messenger is examining the actual benefits of 904L vs 316L. It can be argued that Rolex originally used 904L as a marketing tactic to differentiate themselves from the competition in which 316L is the industry standard. Whether or not it is objectively better is definitely an interesting topic for debate.

Irrespective of grade, all stainless steel alloys contain at least approx 11% chromium. The chromium forms a protective outer oxide layer that gives stainless steel it’s anti-corrosive properties. There are other metals present that contribute to this as well, such as nickel and molybdenum.

The content of chromium, nickel and molybdenum is significantly higher in 904L than 316L, which means that it is more resistant to corrosion. This is great if you’re an actual scuba diver and spend a ton of time in salt water.

source for info so far (if you care): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6471766/

No need to fret if your watch is 316L though as the molybdenum in its steel gives it excellent overall anticorrosive properties as well. And the benefit of 316L over 904L is that it is actually a harder material and therefore more scratch resistant and less stretchable. Because of the added toughness of 316L, it can be argued that it is a better rounded choice for watchmaking.

Of course there are still other things that haven’t been discussed. 904L is supposed to be antimagnetic in all conditions. And whether or not a visual difference can actually be seen is another interesting topic. I personally think that unless you are constantly dipping your bracelet and watch in some crazy low pH acid, you don’t really have to worry all that much.

Fully agree with what my friend here is saying. In my industry, 316L is known as 'surgical grade' steel. Most of the world's top watch brands use it. One is no better or worse than the other. But Rolex itself uses 904L alloy and so it's obviously more desirable and true to form to have the same on a replica - especially if it's being advertised as such! In my opinion, 904L looks marginally nicer and more refined to the eye.

 

[Neo_Goku1]

I’m serious about us blowing it out together. You’re crazy. I like to urinate on my watches. The chloride in my pee makes the 904L sparkle under fluorescent light. It’s an easy tell. I call it the Tinkle Test.

We can be tinkle buddies i guess Screw you GingerBubba, he's my fwend now.

 

[kavorca1]

I think a more productive conversation to be had rather than attacking the messenger is examining the actual benefits of 904L vs 316L. It can be argued that Rolex originally used 904L as a marketing tactic to differentiate themselves from the competition in which 316L is the industry standard. Whether or not it is objectively better is definitely an interesting topic for debate.

Irrespective of grade, all stainless steel alloys contain at least approx 11% chromium. The chromium forms a protective outer oxide layer that gives stainless steel it’s anti-corrosive properties. There are other metals present that contribute to this as well, such as nickel and molybdenum.

The content of chromium, nickel and molybdenum is significantly higher in 904L than 316L, which means that it is more resistant to corrosion. This is great if you’re an actual scuba diver and spend a ton of time in salt water.

source for info so far (if you care): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6471766/

No need to fret if your watch is 316L though as the molybdenum in its steel gives it excellent overall anticorrosive properties as well. And the benefit of 316L over 904L is that it is actually a harder material and therefore more scratch resistant and less stretchable. Because of the added toughness of 316L, it can be argued that it is a better rounded choice for watchmaking.

Of course there are still other things that haven’t been discussed. 904L is supposed to be antimagnetic in all conditions. And whether or not a visual difference can actually be seen is another interesting topic. I personally think that unless you are constantly dipping your bracelet and watch in some crazy low pH acid, you don’t really have to worry all that much.

All this is great as far as the "steel" discussion, but what about those that paid more for a product that was falsely advertised....?

 

[saucin]

But you said that the factories never test the steel? And now you say the opposite...

These factories are big operations. Of course they will verify what they are buying in from their suppliers, and nope they don't need 20k for a machine. They will bring in a testing agency.

Big operations? What you think they’re relatable to Foxconn....cranking out watches like they’re iPhones? Pretty sure you’re overestimating things here...

According to Angus they were not tested prior to this. Which I assume means factories took their supplier word for it.

But maybe the factories knew and just said “fuck it”. We’ll probably never know for certain. Whatever, so over this discussion lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[couchp0tat0]

It is interesting, i bought the arf GMT 2. Black with the intention of having a gen like feeling. The steel of ARFs are just quality pure. Iam very happy that finaly someone made a trustable test.

 

[Aphung2]

All this is great as far as the "steel" discussion, but what about those that paid more for a product that was falsely advertised....?

Of course false advertisement and deception is never cool.. But I think that’s more reason to not attack Angus when he’s attempting to bring more a bit more transparency to the topic. We are all free to take the info gained from this thread and make a more informed choice when buying a watch in the future.

One of the points of my previous post was just to highlight that having a 316L sub does has some perks over 904L from a materials standpoint. Even so, I agree 110% that the factories shouldn’t advertise something as it’s not, but it is a gray market industry that we are dealing with.

 

[Tucker]

We can be tinkle buddies i guess Screw you GingerBubba, he's my fwend now.

Sword fight

 

[Subdued]

honestly it is very difficult to be able to do an absolutely impartial and truthful test for everyone. For example ZZf could do a test using the bracelet of an sub Arf (if really the bracelet of the ZZF v.3 is in 316). Or Mr "X" could put the ZZF v.3 bracelet in a Sub ARF and then take the test. and so ad infinitum. that's why I say that in the end what really matters is the feeling gen that a rep has to determine which is the best rep of sub. the sub who is overall closest to the gen wins .... even if it were entirely in 316 steel.

This is so true. Anyone can test all they want about this nonsense that no one can verify. The only comparison we can all agree on is the aesthetic of the watch and nothing more. How the watch wears can also be verifed by members.

 

[Ecender]

Interesting Post, I’m not that into Subs, but definitely something to follow. Looking forward for Angus review.

 

[crunchycarrot00]

Literally 30 seconds to Google

904L (Rockwell 70 to 90 typical, Brinell 150)
https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1022

316L (Rockwell 95 Max, Brinell 217 Max)
https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2382
http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MQ316Q

Comparison from non watch industry
http://m.lksteelpipe.com/news/what-s-the-difference-between-316l-and-904l-18474464.html

Literally the "benefits" touted by Rolex is vaporwear.

Machine-ability is "good" for 904L which puts the whole special machines argument as a bit of a bullshit statement...

Maybe Rolex did buy new machines... But maybe they needed an upgrade anyways at around the same time, making the statement technically true but in reality meaningless.

The whole resistance to acid and corrosion comparison... First they are both stainless steel and second they're fucking watches, not weapons to fight off xenomorphs.

Even for a given grade you're going to get variance in the resulting properties. Even if, and this is a big fucking if, the average hardness or corrosion resistance is better for 904l than 316L, if the difference is miniscule relative to the normal variance /deviation it don't mean shit to have one vs the other.

904L does cost more because of the composition of the alloy content. This is the same as, gold case watches cost more because it's got gold in it....except you can see fucking gold, you can't see fucking 904l

I've directly compared no less than 30 reps from ARF 904l, Noob 316L, older 316F reps, non specific stainless steel reps on non Rolex brand VS similar number of gens from myself and friends from various brands including Rolex, omega, jlc, Blancpain, Tag, IWC, pp, AP, etc... and you know what? You can't fucking tell in the real world because no pair of watches is ever in a condition which is comparable. One is brand new, the other guy's is 3 years old and never been cleaned, another is oily as fk, another guy's is a daily driver and has scuffs like crazy.

My noob sub with 316L looked better than my friend's gen sub that he daily wore for 3y... So this means what? Absolutely nothing!!

All stainless steel will scratch, it just will. It's steel not diamond. So what if 316L or 904L is slightly more scratch resistant. The performance is so similar and the fact deterioration is bound to happen means a slightly worse performing steel will look like it's got 12 months of wear and tear instead of 10 months, woop dee doo

 

[mari115]

Mmh... this is indeed interesting.

I don't give a shit if a watch is 316l, 904l or whatever, as long as the finish is nice and there isn't any particular difference in color that you can ACTUALLY see.

It's already impossible to see the difference between my white gold daytona and noob's 116519 unless i put them next to each other under warm light, maybe it's me, idk.

I don't think anyone gives a shit if their sub's ceramic insert composition is 100% Rolex specs. Would you care if rolex used 1% silica but the factories used 4% silica? I don't think so, as long as they look the same or very similar. Like, no one gives a shit that their sub's hands aren't made of 18k gold, or that the springbars are made of some cheap metal, as long as the tell isn't visible.

However, what people care about is if a kind of metal is used as a marketing strategy and as an excuse to charge you more for something that in the end isn't what's being advertised as. This is plainly being lied at. YIKES.

It's already scummy how ARF charges you 100$ more for a 16610 that has NO improvements compared to its JF predecessor, but actually has some worse aspects, like taller crystal, trash SELs, cockeyed CGs etc...
Imagine if the watch wasn't 904l in the end. That would be absolutely BS.
(ARF was an example, we now know that they use 904l)

In the end I thought of something, i don't own a ZZF so i cannot see it on my own, but if someone owns a ZZF and any other "real" 904L watch, how is it that they didn't see the difference in color if it's SO easy to see? Seems weird to me. Could it be that there are different kind of alloys called "316l" and that have different colors? (like, anything that isn't 904l is being called 316l, or something like this) Because i owned a 16610 JF and compared to my gen 16610 i couldn't see any difference in any kind of light.

Another thing, if it's true that there are factories using 904l cases and bracelets, but 316l clasps, how is it that no one EVER realized that their clasps were of different colors compared to the rest of the watch?

Seems quite unlikely to me.

What do you guys think?

 

[LightFalconz]

I'm not really bothered whether is 316 or 904 steel, rep watches for the price you pay offers a lot of value, at least for me.
316 steel is also much cheaper, if its justifiable paying more for 904 steel, go for it. I have a noob rolex and the steel has nice finishing so its well done.

 

[Repmaster1337]

Everyone so mad because they bought zzfs? This is about they lied about using 904 steel, 316 much cheaper and should be at a lower price.
Yes it is possible to see a little difference from the steel, but other than that idc. Thanks Angus for this and support the thread / final review.

 

[Gmc]

So is the price difference justified? Both 904L and 316L are austenite steel that are non-magnetic and have high corrosion resistance properties and good machining and polishing performance. As we all know, they can be considered as substitutes for each other in some cases. So what is the difference?

Grade 316L, the low carbon version of 316, is highly resistant to sensitization (carbide precipitation at the grain boundary) and is therefore widely used in heavy gauge welded components. The lower carbon content of 316L gives it greater resistance to corrosive environments than 316 stainless steel. Austenitic 904L stainless steel is a kind of low-alloy, high-carbon austenitic stainless steel with good machinability and weldability and resistance to corrosion to dilute sulfuric acid. The addition of copper makes it highly resistant to acids, especially chloride interstitial corrosion and stress corrosion.
Chemical composition is the key to studying and determining the physical properties of 316L and 904L.
316L and 904L steel have similar chemical composition in C, Si and Mn content, but the content of alloys such as chromium, nickel and molybdenum of 904L steel is much higher than 1.6 times that of 316L and 904L steel contains a certain amount of copper, which can effectively delay the corrosion of acidic liquid, especially chloride in stainless steel, making 904L steel more resistant to corrosion and abrasion than 316L. Furthermore, 904L is a much higher resistance to chlorides at elevated temperatures. If 904L has better corrosion resistance, can I replace 316L with 904L? The answer is no! The higher nickel content of 904L is an expensive component and this will influence the overall cost!
There is no difference between 316L and 904L steel in terms of strength and toughness. Both have a similar Rockwell hardness (HRB) which is less than 95 and their tensile strength is approximately 490 MPa. These properties are specified for flat rolled products (plate, sheet and coil) in ASTM A240 / A240M. The specification for pipe and bar is similar but identical properties are not necessarily specified.

Swiss luxury watch brand ROLEX used 904L steel to make the case in 1985 and gradually makes it an industry standard material for their watchmaking. In most industrial applications, for example, like rep watches, heat exchanger and boiler system, 316L is an economical material alternative to 904L.


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk