Why my paranoia about toxic metals means I need a gold watch. Maybe several…

Dan Kaufman

I’ve always associated gold watches with Bond villains and 1980s stockbrokers – and yet I still want to be wealthy enough to wear them. Why? Because wearing steel watches freaks me out – even if it is just a little.

You see, most watch cases use 316L steel, otherwise known as surgical grade steel. It’s an alloy that has several metals in it, including nickel and chromium. Nickel is a highly toxic heavy metal. Many have allergies to it – and others (including my wife and myself) have been diagnosed with having way too much of it in their bodies, even though we don’t get allergic reactions.

I like to keep my paranoia down to a simmer and so I still wear my 316L watches because they’ve been proven to be safe for most people except those with a severe nickel allergy. That my steel watches also have a sapphire crystal back makes me feel a little better as well. What you don’t want to do is buy a cheap knock-off where the steel quality is uncertain. Some vintage watches, as much as I love them, can also be an issue as safety standards have improved over the past century.

If you’re even more paranoid than me (which is saying something), or you’re highly sensitive, then a good hypoallergenic alternative to 316L is titanium, which many brands – from Seiko to Zenith – use for some models.

Then there’s 904L steel, which is what modern Rolexes use. This has more nickel than 316L – but it’s also more corrosion resistant.

There are plenty of debates on internet forums on whether or not this is good or bad. Some say they get rashes with their new Rolexes but not with vintage ones (which used 316L) – others say this can’t be due to nickel, as 904L corrodes less than 316L and, if anything, it should leach less and not more nickel despite having more of it.

In other words, they say it’s the corrosion and not the nickel content that matters. Furthermore, if someone gets a rash, it could be due to all sorts of things – right down to what cleaning solution the watch dealer used on the watch when wiping it.

I have no idea who’s wrong or right, but if I can have an excuse to wear a gold Rolex instead of a steel one, I’ll take it.

But it’s not just metal cases that freak me out – it’s also straps.

A year ago I bought myself a fancy red Italian leather strap. It looked stunning on my watch and I wore it proudly – until I got a nasty rash on my wrist. Even when I stopped wearing my watch, that damn rash hung around for several weeks.

Since I’ve never had allergies before and have been obsessed with watches since I was a child (and I’m now almost 50), the strap became a prime suspect. But how? The buckle seems obvious, yet my rash was nowhere near it – so I went back to the strap manufacturer’s website to see how the leather was tanned. Sure enough, as with most leather goods, they didn’t explain how.

This usually means chromium tanning. There are different kinds of chromium – you have trivalent chromium, which is safe and important for nutrition – and hexavalent chromium, which is highly toxic and carcinogenic. It turns out the tanning process can convert trivalent chromium, which is initially used, to hexavalent chromium – although how much it does this, and how much hexavalent chromium is leached by leather you wear, is up for debate. It would be irresponsible of me to say that hexavalent chromium caused my rash. Without hiring a team of scientists to investigate, I have no idea. Quite frankly, it could be due to something else – after all, I’ve been wearing leather straps for decades, none of which were probably vegetable tanned, without a problem. And yet … from now on, I’m going to stick to vegetable-tanned straps just to be safe.

After all, as with a watch case, a strap is right against your skin. When it gets wet, when you sweat, corrosion happens – which is why you want something non-toxic. Especially, in my case, if it’s 18K gold and I get to look like a Bond villain.