1) Fact - Rolex used to lume their watches with varying amounts of radioactive material. Sometimes a lot. Sometimes very little. Hence today, those watches that received a lot will tend to emit a more, whilst those watches that received virtually none will not emit a lot.
2) Fact - There is absolutely no documentation indicating how much decay had already been experienced by the radioactive material used in the 1940s and 1950s.
3) Fact - Rolex used a range of different radioactive materials and binders. Some would emit alpha, some beta and gamma. Some would stop emitting altogether after short periods of time. Some would break down into different radioactive compounds with different emission structures. Only sophisticated mass spectrometry will capture a full spectrum of particle emissions. The range of possibilities for what “could” be on a dial is so large that a Geiger-counter is simply too blunt an instrument with which to make definitive conclusions. It would be like trying to split the atom with a hammer. Trying to make evaluations using a micro-Sievert reading is even more blunt.
4) Fact - If the radioactive material used did not emit gamma or beta, then one would not expect any hand-held Geiger-counter to detect any radiation in a watch, even though it may be highly radioactive. The alpha would not pass through the plexi.
5) Fact - cheap hand-held Geiger-counters need to be used very carefully in order to achieve accurate readings. Small deviations in usage behaviour can lead to large variations is subsequent readings.
6) Fact - most cheap hand-held Geiger counters measure Sieverts. Basically, it is a measure of energy. That is not the same as measuring radioactive decay. Radiaoctive decay is measured in “Becquerel.”
7) Fact - if someone had a 1950s Rolex that did not have what was seen to be the appropriate radioactive reading, an unscrupulous individual could readily apply some radium to the watch and get its radiation level “up to par”. This is open to anyone to do. So, when a dial records what experts deem to be an “appropriate” reading, does that mean it hasn’t been “fixed”? Of course not.
8) Fact - Science is king. This is something I believe fervently. But I also believe that science mis-used is dangerous and potentially very misleading.
9) Fact - if science is going to be used to determine the composition of a watch dial, it needs to be conducted by professional scientists and in correct scientific conditions. Under such circumstances, collectors can have more trust in the findings.
10) Fact - even if science provides an answer to the composition of a dial, can anyone today be entirely sure that Rolex did not apply that composition 50-60 years ago? Even if scientific analysis shows no radioactive material at all, it has been shown that such an outcome is well within the possibilities of what Rolex were doing 50-60 years ago.