Not just a picture problem. Also not isolated to black dials.

 

Any particular specific watches where you have experienced this in real life as a problem?

 

The lumed sections don’t disappear though, and when the shiny sections catch the light it’s beautiful. 90% of the time it’s somewhere in between; neither super prominent nor vanished.

 

As my eyes have dimmed, I think silver hands are the most legible. A mere tilt of the wrist allows them to catch even the smallest light source so the time is always apparent. Worst are white hands on a panda-dialled chronograph. Half the time I have no idea what time is as they are obscured by white on white.

 

There's a reason it's called black polishing... Usually it's less of an issue with these hands on lighter dials, but as stated above, at least the lumed portion of the hands are able to be made out easily against a dark dial (assuming the watch has lume).
Black polished hands on a darker dial dress watch could be a different issue entirely, but with a slight tilt into the light, they should gleam beautifully and come back into view.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

This is why Grand Seiko uses angles so well.

 

It's really only an issue in photographing a watch, as you are capturing a watch as it appears at only one instant. In real life, particularly when wearing a watch, there is always some degree of movement which is sufficient to alter the reflections from moment to moment. The mind/brian captures all these varying images and synthesises them into something that is more legible than one standalone image.

 

Maybe it mostly because I have become aware of it - but I also notice is in videos - and hence I was thinking, it most be a problem also en real life.

 

Very interesting - so you would say that silver hands are the most legible. Witch would explain why most watches have silver hands.

 

One watch I own has a particular problem like this. The high polished (and angled) hands are difficult to see above the very white dial. So, it's not just the black dials that have this issue. Not a problem as mentioned, if you tilt your wrist to view the face. Different lighting will reflect on the hands when in motion.

 

All it takes is a slight tilt of the watch to get the mirror black to disappear again and the hands to be easily legible.

 

I have one such watch with silver hands, silver indices and a grey dial with no AR coating on the crystal. And yes, it can be annoying at times when viewing the time under artificial lighting — with natural light, no such problem. However, I have overcome this inconvenience by tilting my wrist slightly to see the time.

 

Regarding white painted hands on a black dial, these can have their own legibility issues under certain circumstances. In bright, high glare environments, painted hands can be washed out whereas polished hands (and indices) are typically still legible.

 

I love the black polished dauphine hands on GSs. I actually find them highly legible and surprisingly so at night. They look pretty cool if you're anywhere near some neon.

 

I love the black polished dauphine hands on GSs. I actually find them highly legible and surprisingly so at night. They look pretty cool if you're anywhere near some neon.
View attachment 15175805

GS's trick is that the hands on their dark-dialed watches aren't actually polished, but they're brushed. Same as the indices that they put on the black dials specifically. I appreciate that they choose different finishes for their hands and "dial furniture" based on the color of the dial.

It's something that I didn't like about the dark rhodium OP39 that I saw at an AD, too. At many angles, the hands nearly disappeared along with the non-lumed hour markers. Same thing happened with a blue Constellation. I wanted to like the blue Constellation, too, but the white version, with its darkened hands and markers, was much easier to see.

 

Occasionally photos of watches with silver hands (or other colors, for that matter) will be obscured due to the angle of light--but that obscurity is frozen in time, in a picture taken at a fraction of a second--in real time, on our wrist, even the slightest movement will attract different light, at different angles, and will rarely be obscure long enough to mar legibility--unless you're in a real hurry (i.e., you don't have milliseconds to spare).

 

It's the difference between, "What time is it? Ok, got it" and "What time is it? Wait, turn it like... ok, got it."

As far as why they put mirror-polished hands on dark backgrounds, I think it's a parts supply choice. I mentioned GS using different finishes for their hands n' markers for different dials, right? That means that they need to produce specific numbers of each style using different processes based on where the parts will go. It's logistically simpler to have, say, one production line for all Oyster Perpetual hands.

I would be fine with part-polished and part-frosted hands like JLC uses sometimes, too. The top, or I guess "leading", half of these hands are polished, and the bottom, or "trailing", halves are frosted. They use the same hands on their dark dials.

So on this silver dial, when the polished portions are reflecting something dark, they stand out by contrasting with the brighter silver dial. And on a dark dial, when the polished portions reflect something dark, the frosted portions get good contrast by scattering light and appearing brighter.

 

With some watches this can be a bit of a problem. When you photograph them Sod’s law (I believe that Americans blame someone called Murphy) dictated that something unwanted will be glinting off the hands. In real life when this happens you tend to move the watch slightly to adjust the reflection. It’s still a PITA though.

 

Apparently I am one of few who are bothered by the polished hands. This was a contributor to my final dismissal of the "mighty" Rolex Daytona as a daily chronograph. I started with a white dial, then tried the black dial version. Both had flat, high polish hands on the elapsed minute totalizer, and both were occasionally "invisible" at first glance. I actually sold/traded those and bought an 18k white gold Daytona with a grey dial and red-painted hands on the totalizers, which I thought would be more visible due to the contrast and lack of polished surface. What I discovered is that the contrast was not strong enough, the totalizer dials are really too small on what is already a smallish chronograph (39mm case and, by the time you account for a wide bezel and small sub dials, not very prominent to aging eyes). Also, the weight of the 18k gold case and bracelet made the watch shift to the outside of my wrist, regardless of how tight or loose the bracelet was, or where links/clasp were oriented.

I traded the white gold Daytona, and ended up with a Patek Philippe Nautilus chronograph reference 5980 in steel. I wore it daily for about two years before I began having trouble reading elapsed minutes on it's "stacked" elapsed time dial. Away it went.

I now wear chronographs that have white painted hands against a black dial, and are in the 42-44mm range with prominent sub dials, like my IWC Pilot 3777. I plan to "recover" a Sinn EZM 10 (sold mine when I thought I wanted all-IWC watches) that has the centrally mounted elapsed minute counter. The Omega Speedmaster pictured above is a great example of a highly legible chronograph, but after my mechanical trouble with three different Omega chronographs I am convinced I will never own another Omega. Pilot-style watches (like the IWC) are other good examples of highly legible chronographs. Pilot-style watches that do not have chronographs (three-handers) are typically high contrast and easy to read as well.

Lately, as my close-up vision deteriorates, I am finding legibility is the primary reason for me to wear a watch. Years ago it was more about a watch's style and quality. Now I'd rather wear a "boring/utilitarian" Pilot style Sinn, than a fancy Patek/Rolex/Grand Seiko I have to squint and maneuver in the light to read.

 

Apparently I am one of few who are bothered by the polished hands. This was a contributor to my final dismissal of the "mighty" Rolex Daytona as a daily chronograph. I started with a white dial, then tried the black dial version. Both had flat, high polish hands on the elapsed minute totalizer, and both were occasionally "invisible" at first glance.

That's the only thing I don't like about the Daytona, too. I got to handle a white/TT version at a local AD (it was the only example they had), and although I liked the fit, the pusher action, and the modest case size, I couldn't read the subdials to save my life. It wasn't helped by the subdials' gold rings being darker than the dial plus having their numbers printed with black ink, but it was also how the totalizers' polished hands reflected away light and lost contrast.

I still think that if a brand is going to go through the trouble of making a chronograph movement, it should be given a design that makes it legible and useful, too. I'll acknowledge that Rolex chooses to position the Daytona as a showoff watch, but I don't like that it's less usable as a chronograph than a Speedmaster despite its technical superiority.

 

I dislike polished hands for their ability to disappear. I wish more brands would offer a brushed or blasted finish on hands to diffuse the light.

The photo below shows my Helson Sharkmaster 300 that homages the Seamaster 300. As per the vintage Omega, the hour and minute hands are polished with a white seconds hand. You can see that only the luminous paint is visible on the hour and minutes hands whereas the seconds hand is starkly visible. I kept the seconds hand and had the other two replaced and the watch is much better now IMHO.

The watch with the new hands and the polished hands on an Armida A9 doing their best to hide on me.

 

I dislike polished hands for their ability to disappear. I wish more brands would offer a brushed or blasted finish on hands to diffuse the light.

The photo below shows my Helson Sharkmaster 300 that homages the Seamaster 300. As per the vintage Omega, the hour and minute hands are polished with a white seconds hand. You can see that only the luminous paint is visible on the hour and minutes hands whereas the seconds hand is starkly visible. I kept the seconds hand and had the other two replaced and the watch is much better now IMHO.

View attachment 15176065
View attachment 15176071

The watch with the new hands and the polished hands on an Armida A9 doing their best to hide on me.

View attachment 15176095

I agree - it looks much better with the white hands

 

Yeah, mirrored hands without lume can disappear on either a white or black dial. I've had several and the hands look nice but they can be hard to see in certain situations. Just a tradeoff.

 

I've got an Orient V2 Bambino Sun / Moon where this is a very evident. I find that I need the high contrast black on white style dials for easy reading in all light conditions. I find a similar issue with monochromatic style dial and hands where they're so similar in color they all but cancel each other out.

 

I dislike polished hands for their ability to disappear. I wish more brands would offer a brushed or blasted finish on hands to diffuse the light./QUOTE]

Yup.

 

I've experienced this trying watches on in a relatively dark space, but as others said tilting the watch slightly would resolve it. I don't currently own a silver-on-black watch, but it's not something that would stop me.

 

My Porsche Design Chrono knows pretty well how to hide its hands and also the beautiful polished rings around its sub-dials.

In reality, I don't notice this very much though. It's only damn hard go get a good picture. I should try light painting, as shown by illition in this recent thread: https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/discovered-light-painting-today-took-some-photos-5188855.html

 

My Porsche Design Chrono knows pretty well how to hide its hands and also the beautiful polished rings around its sub-dials.

That doesn't seem too bad because of the luminous paint on the hands. Now if they were merely polished and NOT lumed, I would go nuts.
BTW, I love the bottom picture that shows the hands, because I'm reading the hour numerals, "01...02...03...ho...so..." Must be Monday.

 

I also had difficulty telling the time at a glance with polished hands on a black dial. The watch went for service and unbid came back with white hands. Problem solved and it looks better too.

 

It is a real life problem. Learned my lesson 15 years ago . I had two watches with mirrorlike hands. A calvin klein and a time force. They was unreadable under most lighting conditions. I had to replace the hands in both watches with lumed ones to make them useful and readable.
I have never seen a watch with mirrorlike hands that is readable. I avoid them with no second thought. Mirror hands with angles are unreadable too.

 

I don't know, I'm practically blind so I prefer ultra-legible hands. Guess that's why I mostly wear a flieger.

 

My Christopher Ward Moonphase has this problem. The hands are flat and mirrored, and very hard to read when you're in a room with a dark ceiling, like a restaurant.