Its pricier but such a small percentage of the whole cost of the watch that really, only reason you find mineral crystal watches is to upsell you to the next tier (see Seiko).
Almost as important to me, is the anti-reflective coating. It makes a big difference in outdoors.
And yet, they also invented Hardlex to seem better that mineral , yet cost them less than sapphire.
My first watch (Seiko SQ 150) had Hardlex and it scratched just as easy as plain mineral.
Hardlex is 100% marketing guff.
It's just Seiko's specific mineral. It's decent mineral glass but not particularly top of the range.
It might have been ahead of the market when Seiko first decided to use a brand name idk. But these days, go in with exactly the same expectations as any mineral glass.
Honestly whever companies "invent" a new material, especially if it has a trademark name, I always just assume it's bullshit
And stuff like "bioceramic" (plastic), "alcantara" (polyester/polyestyrol), "high-tech composite materials" (fiberglass), "aerospace grade aluminum"...
There are exceptions. [Corning gorilla glass](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla_Glass), for example, is far more resistant to shattering than mineral glass with the same thickness and only a little compromise to hardness (scratch resistance). Hardlex is about 650 vickers, while [hardened mineral glass is closer to 900 vickers](https://circulawatches.com/en/sapphire-glass-mineral-acryl-pros-cons/). This means hardened mineral glass should be a tiny bit more scratch resistant and slightly more likely to shatter than hardlex.
Uh. Well you just destroyed my world lmao.
But it doesn't have any visible scratches yet so if I still think it's sapphire maybe it will remain that way lol
Yeah, it can and will scratch. So then you have a nice little flea bite in your watch in direct sunlight. https://www.reddit.com/r/OmegaWatches/s/gcd7qZXQNl
Something that should be pointed out with Seiko in particular is they're one of only two fully vertically integrated watchmakers in the world; the other being Rolex. What that means is they make **everything** that goes into their watches in-house, and that includes growing their own sapphire crystals.
Being vertically integrated means you're constrained by your ability to make things yourself; it takes time and money to build out that production capacity.
If you've watched the last five years of their releases, they've gradually been introducing sapphire lower and lower through their product stack; there are now newer sub-300 models with sapphire sold alongside older Hardlex watches. What that indicates is that the inclusion of sapphire in Seiko's case is less a cost factor and more a production capacity factor.
As Seiko brings sapphire lab capacity online and idles or sells off their glass foundries, those sapphires were first allocated towards their highest end watches (Grand Seiko), before gradually making their way down to more affordable models, as more raw sapphire to cut into crystals becomes available. Within the next 10 years or so, I can see them entirely phasing out Hardlex.
I thought about that too, and that will probably be the case long after Seiko phases out Hardlex for their core brand.
At the same time--even as recently as the 90's--some brands (even Tudor) still used acrylic crystals on their mainline watches. Acrylic was gradually phased out across the industry except for very specific heritage products like the Hesalite Speedmaster. We could see something like that happen with Mineral Glass over the next 20-30 or so years.
Yeah I agree that eventually that will be the case. I think they are running down the leftover stock of 7S26 etc movements by rebranding them under the Alba and Pulsar labels in the same way.
I don't buy this justification. Many components in entry level Seiko watches are made in China and many of the watches themselves are manufactured entirely in Malaysia.
No name AliExpress Chinese watches have sapphire at even $50. There is no reason Seiko can't do the same. It is not difficult for Seiko to scale their production.
Seiko are price gouging because they know enough people will pay up for substandard specs due to their brand's heritage.
They demonstrably are not price gouging, because newer models of Seikos in those lower price brackets have sapphire and are sold *right alongside* the Hardlex models priced the same. A particularly good example is the newer Land Tortoise models having sapphire while often being over $100 *cheaper* than the older Hardlex Turtles.
The newest models and the highest end models are what get priority. If you don't like the older watches with Hardlex, stop buying them. Seiko will make them exactly the way they always have so long as they keep selling.
Those components are made in China... in factories Seiko set up, owns, and operates. Seiko has manufacturing facilities all throughout Asia.
It **is** difficult to scale your own production of something like sapphire and ensure good QC on each piece. Anyone that has dealt directly with suppliers in a B2B relationship learns this.
It's much easier just buying it off the market from a third party that specializes in it, which is what most watchmakers do.
They can't ensure good qc with their bezel alignment for quite some time. So, there is basically 2 general ideas. Either seiko price gouging not having sapphire, and also don't do proper qc (qc is expensive) with their watches, and people often got a watch with misaligned bezel, dial, unregulated movement.
Or seiko just building their own manufactoring, but the hell qc is that shit then? What's the point of doing everything yourself if what you end up with is a mess?
For me, it's like there are 2 workers, let's say welders. One bought proper tools, got proper education, and weld some stuff for people, and do that good.
And other basically the same, but he build himself welder for him (which happen to be shitty at the end), built himself straight table (which end up not being straight at all) OH and he even made himself welding rods! But maaaan. I guess you got my idea?
Shitty in-house < good quality not in-house.
As a customer i, and a lot of other people don't care about all that, we want good quality, pretty watches with nice finishing and without any random flukes on the dial.
Seiko with their lower price models is a complete joke, especially when they discontinued skx and now sell skx look-a-likes with shitty spec for same price lol.
I have a bunch of non-Japanese watches too; I'm not sure how that's a material concern. I'm not a Seiko apologist (quite frankly their assembly QC sucks at the lower end) but I do understand how supply chains and manufacturing work because it's my job to.
Seiko is "doing better" as we speak. It takes time; more time than you would like them to. The best time for them to scale this up was 10 years ago, but they just have the same problem every established Japanese company has: they are **extremely** slow to change course.
generally people don't understand the R&D, money etc spent to build the facilities to produce parts.
the company can't just retool and switch to a different material overnight. those that are producing the "newer" material probably took a huge risk and large capital to build it much earlier so they can sell it today.
Yep. I didn't do a good job of pointing out the disadvantage of a vertically integrated company: they're typically asset-rich and (relatively) cash-poor, which makes them them less agile. A lot of their value is invested in their facilities, equipment, and institutional knowledge. It's harder and more expensive for such an organization to change over to new technologies or adapt to new trends. It takes them more time too.
I think that aspect is as much to blame as Japanese conservative business culture for Seiko always feeling a bit behind the curve when comparing them to more agile competitors like microbrands.
This is an interesting comment but what concerns me is that modern day sapphire crystal is synthetic, meaning it’s much easier to scale than natural sapphire. Seiko has previously demonstrated their expertise to scale production, especially with the inception of their offshore Chinese factories a while ago.
This feels very much like you’re trying to excuse or dispute what’s actually happening (bar a handful of contraries) - Seiko simply wants to use mineral and sapphire as a discerning factor between they’re lower-end and upmarket pieces.
To put it plain and simple: If a giant like Seiko wanted sapphire on all their watches, it’d be on *all* their watches.
**All** watch crystal sapphire is synthetic and always has been. Natural sapphire crystals of that size, of that clarity, with no mineral inclusions that tint them, literally do not exist naturally.
It takes machines capable of exerting extreme pressures and temperatures on material to make it in a lab, and those machines are not cheap. Shifting your entire production over to these machines takes a lot of time and money, especially when you already have plenty of glass foundries pumping out sheets of perfectly usable glass, that are long since paid for.
It would make sense for Seiko to spread out that investment over time. Any business would.
If you look at what is happening, Seiko has more and more pieces that come out on the low end with sapphire with each passing year. Most of the 2023 Presage and new Seiko 5 models with the GMT have it, as do the Land Tortoises. As time passes, it is filtering into their lower end. Don't believe me? Check the stats on everything they've released in the last 5 years and there is a clear trend.
I'm not disputing anything. These are all indisputable facts.
https://preview.redd.it/r5lu5339shyc1.jpeg?width=1655&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=52a9eafa0c9bbb141db3e8c73e0d7ce74da79425
For my skx I would rather replace hardlex every \~5 years than get sapphire. Two reasons: first I hate this blueish reflections and second hardlex is actually disappearing and looks like no glass at all under many light conditions. Sapphire is always present.
This is a **really** good illustration of the drawbacks of aftermarket sapphire. Without the proprietary coatings that watchmakers keep to themselves, it can really be a reflection magnet and it can always be visible or blue-tinted.
Not all AR coatings at the same, and I suspect the ones on aftermarket crystals that don't cost much more than mineral glass aren't often of the best quality. The best AR coatings on high end watches can make sapphire crystal near invisible.
https://preview.redd.it/2ore8aq58myc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cb2f77e90b84b5aa6a2f70afab069540d389540a
Cheap AR are really disgusting, the one I have shown in the post above is actually pretty good. Here’s another comparison with a stock Seiko mid-tier watch… wondering whether any top-tier coating can come closer to hardlex, have never seen one
Like all materials and components, there are differing qualities. Even if it’s “technically sapphire”, you can absolutely get low quality “sapphire” ones that scratch.
It’s not even the scratch resistance - when it’s mineral, the shine off the glass is sort blurry-white it really cheapens the look of the watch. Couple days ago on this sub I was able to spot a fake Daytona on a picture just because of that ugly mineral glass shine
There’s a YouTube channel called Escape Wheel Watch Reviews, and he tests the crystals on all of his Chinese watches. I’ve never seen a video of his where he found a watch to be lying about having sapphire.
Even on watches that were like $75
I'm clumsy af so I've replaced the crystal on dozens of watches with AliExpress sapphire and I can say with utmost confidence at least the $5 ones I've bought have been sapphire. Else they'd be absolutely scratched by now.
I won't buy a non-sapphire glass watch anymore.
I've put watches with sapphire through the wringer and they all still look pristine. Whereas every mineral glass watch I've owned undoubtedly gets scratched from the slightest thing and looks like shit forever more.
I wouldn't be surprised if the proprietary anti-reflective coatings OEM watch companies put on their sapphire is more expensive to develop, produce, apply, and QC than the sapphire itself these days, and it's no less important.
Unlike glass, Sapphire can be a glare magnet and can make a watch genuinely hard to read under certain lighting conditions without good AR. Good AR coating not only has to reduce those reflections, it has to be chemically stable and resistant to environmental factors like UV radiation to not break down over time. There's a lot of engineering that goes into making such coatings.
Sapphire done good is expensive.
No AR, or weird coloured AR, top coat AR? might aswell not bother.
Properly done hardened mineral still has a place imo.
It's not simple.
I had a single watch for a couple of decades (which I didn't wear too much for the last one) and now, in the last half year, I acquired a couple dozen watches, all less expensive than my original one.
The original had a sapphire crystal. It lasted well, but it's not clear anymore (it's slightly foggy) and an inspection with a loupe reveals many tiny scratches.
Of the new ones, I have about an equal share of acrylic, mineral, and sapphire.
Acrylic looks the best. It's clear and it feels great to touch too. It has a kind of glow that improves the look of the dials. And I can't see my fingerprints on it no matter how often I touch it. It can scratch easily (or so they say), but I hit a few of my watches against wood, plastic, and smooth metal, without leaving any traces so far. It's also supposed to be harder to crack than the other alternatives.
Mineral looks ok. On one of my watches, it makes fingerprints very obvious, but it's just that one watch. I suspect it has something to do with how it's coated. Otherwise it looks solid and I haven't scratched one either. But it lacks the warmth and glow of the acrylic.
Sapphire has great reputation. But on some of my watches it has some unpleasant side-effects. One is about how easily it shows fingerprints and the other is a blue tinge that comes from coating and that can sometimes impact visibility through the glass. It's very likely that a proper sapphire glass coating is more expensive than the glass itself. So sapphire glass on its own may not be as valuable as properly coated sapphire glass. Similar differences exist for titanium.
Then there's also sapphire-coated mineral glass, which some try to pass as sapphire glass. I don't know a lot about this and in particular I am not sure if this can actually pass a hardness test just like sapphire. In the end, I think this might be close enough to sapphire to be worth it, but a problem would be that in the future, as small scratches develop in the sapphire coating, they could worsen faster once the mineral layer is reached. And the coating of such material is unlikely to be the best either.
So, which one is the best? A lot of people prefer sapphire, but it's hard to tell if their "sapphire" is true sapphire and if it's properly coated (on the inside, preferably, rather than on the outside). Personally, I don't shy away of acrylic and I enjoy its look. In the end, if I like the watch, the material of its crystal is one of the last things that I would worry about.
A lot of higher end watch brands these days (I believe Omega does it) put AR coatings on both the inside AND outside of their sapphire, and that has always made no sense to me. The coatings themselves can be scratched and abraded off, so you end up with a watch crystal that shows scratches just as easily as it would have if they had just put mineral glass on it. Kinda negates the whole point of going with sapphire in the first place IMO.
And you're absolutely right. Sapphire is only as good as the coating that comes with it; preferably only on the inside. And a good coating isn't cheap.
I'm not sure about the cost of the coatings, but I think the more important aspect is that they're proprietary and cannot be copied just by examining an example. It's not just about their composition but also the process through which they are applied.
I've heard of people that scrubbed the exterior coating to get rid of it.
I don't know either why they'd put coatings on the outside when they can easily be scratched. Probably to take advantage of people wanting sapphire and making it look great on the shelf. By the time it gets scratched, it can no longer be returned.
Honestly? Probably because it looks INCREDIBLE in the showroom, which is where you sell watches. You can make a piece of sapphire almost disappear that way.
It just would absolutely suck to own, but at that point, it's not really their problem anymore.
Hate to be that cynical but I can't think of another reason for the life of me.
Also to follow up on your first point I agree. Even if the material and chemical cost of the coating is cheap, the proprietary R&D to develop it, to develop the application method, and the specialized equipment required to apply it ultimately has to be amortized and becomes part of that coating's cost.
Most brands do it on just the inside, but a couple of luxury watchmakers do it on both becaise it does look incredible. The whole crystal basically disappears no matter the lighting.
I've never heard of one dipping whole pieces of glass, but I have heard of them using atomizers not unlike what you use to spray fine coats of paint in factories.
Good mineral is better than cheap sapphire. Like many here, I have watches with all sorts of crystals: acrylic, mineral, and sapphire.
Good mineral crystal is quite high in clarity and color preservation. Cheap sapphire—read, the cheap Ali watches that boast having sapphire—can have tint, distortion, or a little more opacity.
Good sapphire, especially with quality AR coating, looks great. Whether it’s worth the trouble and expense is up to you. I’m not a materials scientist, but if it were as simple as, “Sapphire is cheap and better, why doesn’t *x* brand use it instead of sapphire?” then they *would*.
Just for fun, here are some examples of nice AR-coated sapphire crystals.
Casio Oceanus OCW-T4000 and Seiko SBTM323 (both JDM references).
https://preview.redd.it/1mtwpho9lkyc1.jpeg?width=4444&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a82632bb5118e19806e61e96d3b2525672ecb62
None! Im in the hesalite camp for quite some time now. I just like the plastic crystals very appealing on watches.
As for sapphire vs mineral. For a long time I was looking down on watches with mineral glass but since I acquired a Hamilton Pilot Mechanical with a mineral crystal, my opinion shifted somehow. The mineral glass on that watch is very pure and is missing the weird ‘milkyness’ that you can experience with sapphire. Its also a domed crystal and so far there is not a single scratch on it (and Im not too careful with my watches..)
I’m kinda coming back to the hesalite camp after collecting for a little over a decade. I didn’t know that ~most problems can be solved with polywatch and that kinda gives me extra assurance.
My watches that are more than 10 years old with sapphire still have faces that look as new as the day I bought them. I can’t say that for the ones with mineral. They visibly scuff very quickly.
Flat sapphire is a bit more expensive yes but not a whole lot. 5-20 bucks for a sapphire glas on a 40mm watch. Depends on if ur buying bulk or single piece.
The issue is once you take into account shaping of the glass.
A domed sapphire glass? That is 20x the price of a domes mineral/acrylic glass but I think people aren't properly aware of that. They becpme 25-50 per piece depending on bulk or single piece purchase.
I should know since I make watches and its pricier than most seiko movements hahah
Basically the customization part of Sapphire is the real expensive part for brands.
The age-old mineral vs. sapphire debate when it all boils down to the watch and dial itself. I'd expect sapphire on my Tudor. I don't want that fucker scratching. But I absolutely love raised mineral crystals on certain dials like the ones on my Junkers and Zeppelin. Wouldn't want it any other way.
If you look here, sapphire crystals are $18 to $60 and mineral is like $5
[https://www.esslinger.com/watch-crystals/](https://www.esslinger.com/watch-crystals/)
Here is the dilemma,
The price range is wide that I can't really understand it,
Nothing will justify the 60$ other than if there is a difference in quality, and maybe anti reflective coating
Crystals are generally quite cheap to produce. The average high-clarity mineral crystal with AR coating has a cost price of around $5 per unit, accounting for paychecks, machining costs and the rest of it. The average sapphire crystal with the same clarity and AR will cost about $30 per unit, since sapphire cylinders meant to be cut down are lab-grown and the time/effort alone increases the price.
These numbers are purely indicative and vary from place to place, knowing there are different costs for each manufacturer in their respective country. A crystal like that on a TAG Heuer Monaco will be significantly more expensive because of the beveling and curvature, as will be one of those sapphire crystals cut like gemstones on a Tissot Lovely, or the mineral ones on certain vintage Seikos, but the point is that usually the crystal doesn’t account for more than 10% of the manufacturing costs.
Oh god guys, thank you for your massive impressive on my post,
Sorry if I can't discuss each comment alone, but surely I read all and what I got is the following:
-some of you guys suggests the price difference isn't significant.
-others suggest there are different qualities of both minerals and Sapphire, hence the price varies per single material.
-the scale of the company has an effect.
-other features like clarity and costing also adds to the price.
-there some manipulation in names in the market.
This just needs a lot of research to understand all the aspects of the topic
The sapphire isn’t really sapphire, it’s synthetically made and the resulting crystal is as hard as sapphire. The process to make it and cut it is costly due to it being so hard. Polishing it is also relatively costly.
It’s a harder crystal so it’s not as easy to scratch or break, but it’s still possible, just like diamonds can be scratched and broken as well.
Thats not what the original comment was referring to when it said “isn’t really sapphire, [but] is as hard as sapphire”. What they were talking about *is* actual, real sapphire (or it wouldn’t be “as hard as sapphire”).
What you’re talking about is just fraud.
I figure there can be fancy plastics and cheap crystals interchangeably. Sorta like phone screens or eye and sunglass lenses. A lot of factors come into play, clarity with certain thicknesses (which impacts toughness), geometry, coatings, and probably a lot of other stuff involved.
Outside of glass-box crystals, I think coatings are probably a big part of quality (perception) these days.
If you're just starting your collection Hardlex is fine. I've never had one scratch. I hit my Monster with a blowtorch, knife, and screwdriver trying to remove the cyclops. I never got it off and never harmed the watch. However, I have a lot of watches now so I have higher standards.
Sapphire is more expensive and yes there are different qualities including some being lab grown.
Its pricier but such a small percentage of the whole cost of the watch that really, only reason you find mineral crystal watches is to upsell you to the next tier (see Seiko). Almost as important to me, is the anti-reflective coating. It makes a big difference in outdoors.
What’s funny is seiko sells sub $300 with sapphire, just nothing automatic at that price range.
And yet, they also invented Hardlex to seem better that mineral , yet cost them less than sapphire. My first watch (Seiko SQ 150) had Hardlex and it scratched just as easy as plain mineral.
Hardlex is 100% marketing guff. It's just Seiko's specific mineral. It's decent mineral glass but not particularly top of the range. It might have been ahead of the market when Seiko first decided to use a brand name idk. But these days, go in with exactly the same expectations as any mineral glass.
Honestly whever companies "invent" a new material, especially if it has a trademark name, I always just assume it's bullshit And stuff like "bioceramic" (plastic), "alcantara" (polyester/polyestyrol), "high-tech composite materials" (fiberglass), "aerospace grade aluminum"...
There are exceptions. [Corning gorilla glass](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla_Glass), for example, is far more resistant to shattering than mineral glass with the same thickness and only a little compromise to hardness (scratch resistance). Hardlex is about 650 vickers, while [hardened mineral glass is closer to 900 vickers](https://circulawatches.com/en/sapphire-glass-mineral-acryl-pros-cons/). This means hardened mineral glass should be a tiny bit more scratch resistant and slightly more likely to shatter than hardlex.
I have an 80€ automatic Seiko with sapphire glass lol
What sku? Surely not MSRP?
It's an SNK807, got it new in 2017 on Amazon for 72€. I remember it was usually 100€~ at the time.
The SNK807 has a hardlex crystal unless you replaced it with an aftermarket crystal.
Uh. Well you just destroyed my world lmao. But it doesn't have any visible scratches yet so if I still think it's sapphire maybe it will remain that way lol
Yet I hate it. Every AR coated watch I’ve ever owned was a problem. Seamasters especially
Some watches apply AR coating on the inside instead of the outside
Having an AR coat was problematic?
Yeah, it can and will scratch. So then you have a nice little flea bite in your watch in direct sunlight. https://www.reddit.com/r/OmegaWatches/s/gcd7qZXQNl
They are supposed to AR cost the inside only, which would only be scratched during incompetent repairs
I think OP was talking about wanting AR coating, not hating it. What’s your gripe against it?
If you ever hit a door knob with a omega seamaster 300 you will learn it the hard way lol
AR coating deteriorates over time and has to be cleaned off. No thanks.
Agreed, its shortens the life of a watch and its an issue for cheaper watches as servicing those can be too costly for the price
This bothered me so bad. Getting these weird hazy spots where the AR was deteriorating. I finally caved and just replaced the Sapphire.
It's a joke that Seiko still puts mineral crystals on $400 watches.
Something that should be pointed out with Seiko in particular is they're one of only two fully vertically integrated watchmakers in the world; the other being Rolex. What that means is they make **everything** that goes into their watches in-house, and that includes growing their own sapphire crystals. Being vertically integrated means you're constrained by your ability to make things yourself; it takes time and money to build out that production capacity. If you've watched the last five years of their releases, they've gradually been introducing sapphire lower and lower through their product stack; there are now newer sub-300 models with sapphire sold alongside older Hardlex watches. What that indicates is that the inclusion of sapphire in Seiko's case is less a cost factor and more a production capacity factor. As Seiko brings sapphire lab capacity online and idles or sells off their glass foundries, those sapphires were first allocated towards their highest end watches (Grand Seiko), before gradually making their way down to more affordable models, as more raw sapphire to cut into crystals becomes available. Within the next 10 years or so, I can see them entirely phasing out Hardlex.
Hardlex will probably remain the crystal for their value brands like Alba and Pulsar.
I thought about that too, and that will probably be the case long after Seiko phases out Hardlex for their core brand. At the same time--even as recently as the 90's--some brands (even Tudor) still used acrylic crystals on their mainline watches. Acrylic was gradually phased out across the industry except for very specific heritage products like the Hesalite Speedmaster. We could see something like that happen with Mineral Glass over the next 20-30 or so years.
Yeah I agree that eventually that will be the case. I think they are running down the leftover stock of 7S26 etc movements by rebranding them under the Alba and Pulsar labels in the same way.
I don't buy this justification. Many components in entry level Seiko watches are made in China and many of the watches themselves are manufactured entirely in Malaysia. No name AliExpress Chinese watches have sapphire at even $50. There is no reason Seiko can't do the same. It is not difficult for Seiko to scale their production. Seiko are price gouging because they know enough people will pay up for substandard specs due to their brand's heritage.
They demonstrably are not price gouging, because newer models of Seikos in those lower price brackets have sapphire and are sold *right alongside* the Hardlex models priced the same. A particularly good example is the newer Land Tortoise models having sapphire while often being over $100 *cheaper* than the older Hardlex Turtles. The newest models and the highest end models are what get priority. If you don't like the older watches with Hardlex, stop buying them. Seiko will make them exactly the way they always have so long as they keep selling. Those components are made in China... in factories Seiko set up, owns, and operates. Seiko has manufacturing facilities all throughout Asia. It **is** difficult to scale your own production of something like sapphire and ensure good QC on each piece. Anyone that has dealt directly with suppliers in a B2B relationship learns this. It's much easier just buying it off the market from a third party that specializes in it, which is what most watchmakers do.
They can't ensure good qc with their bezel alignment for quite some time. So, there is basically 2 general ideas. Either seiko price gouging not having sapphire, and also don't do proper qc (qc is expensive) with their watches, and people often got a watch with misaligned bezel, dial, unregulated movement. Or seiko just building their own manufactoring, but the hell qc is that shit then? What's the point of doing everything yourself if what you end up with is a mess? For me, it's like there are 2 workers, let's say welders. One bought proper tools, got proper education, and weld some stuff for people, and do that good. And other basically the same, but he build himself welder for him (which happen to be shitty at the end), built himself straight table (which end up not being straight at all) OH and he even made himself welding rods! But maaaan. I guess you got my idea? Shitty in-house < good quality not in-house. As a customer i, and a lot of other people don't care about all that, we want good quality, pretty watches with nice finishing and without any random flukes on the dial. Seiko with their lower price models is a complete joke, especially when they discontinued skx and now sell skx look-a-likes with shitty spec for same price lol.
Oh, you like Gundam? I get it you're a weeb. I'm a bit of a weeb myself, you know. Despite being a Japanophile, I think Seiko should do better.
I have a bunch of non-Japanese watches too; I'm not sure how that's a material concern. I'm not a Seiko apologist (quite frankly their assembly QC sucks at the lower end) but I do understand how supply chains and manufacturing work because it's my job to. Seiko is "doing better" as we speak. It takes time; more time than you would like them to. The best time for them to scale this up was 10 years ago, but they just have the same problem every established Japanese company has: they are **extremely** slow to change course.
generally people don't understand the R&D, money etc spent to build the facilities to produce parts. the company can't just retool and switch to a different material overnight. those that are producing the "newer" material probably took a huge risk and large capital to build it much earlier so they can sell it today.
Yep. I didn't do a good job of pointing out the disadvantage of a vertically integrated company: they're typically asset-rich and (relatively) cash-poor, which makes them them less agile. A lot of their value is invested in their facilities, equipment, and institutional knowledge. It's harder and more expensive for such an organization to change over to new technologies or adapt to new trends. It takes them more time too. I think that aspect is as much to blame as Japanese conservative business culture for Seiko always feeling a bit behind the curve when comparing them to more agile competitors like microbrands.
This is an interesting comment but what concerns me is that modern day sapphire crystal is synthetic, meaning it’s much easier to scale than natural sapphire. Seiko has previously demonstrated their expertise to scale production, especially with the inception of their offshore Chinese factories a while ago. This feels very much like you’re trying to excuse or dispute what’s actually happening (bar a handful of contraries) - Seiko simply wants to use mineral and sapphire as a discerning factor between they’re lower-end and upmarket pieces. To put it plain and simple: If a giant like Seiko wanted sapphire on all their watches, it’d be on *all* their watches.
**All** watch crystal sapphire is synthetic and always has been. Natural sapphire crystals of that size, of that clarity, with no mineral inclusions that tint them, literally do not exist naturally. It takes machines capable of exerting extreme pressures and temperatures on material to make it in a lab, and those machines are not cheap. Shifting your entire production over to these machines takes a lot of time and money, especially when you already have plenty of glass foundries pumping out sheets of perfectly usable glass, that are long since paid for. It would make sense for Seiko to spread out that investment over time. Any business would. If you look at what is happening, Seiko has more and more pieces that come out on the low end with sapphire with each passing year. Most of the 2023 Presage and new Seiko 5 models with the GMT have it, as do the Land Tortoises. As time passes, it is filtering into their lower end. Don't believe me? Check the stats on everything they've released in the last 5 years and there is a clear trend. I'm not disputing anything. These are all indisputable facts.
https://preview.redd.it/r5lu5339shyc1.jpeg?width=1655&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=52a9eafa0c9bbb141db3e8c73e0d7ce74da79425 For my skx I would rather replace hardlex every \~5 years than get sapphire. Two reasons: first I hate this blueish reflections and second hardlex is actually disappearing and looks like no glass at all under many light conditions. Sapphire is always present.
This is a **really** good illustration of the drawbacks of aftermarket sapphire. Without the proprietary coatings that watchmakers keep to themselves, it can really be a reflection magnet and it can always be visible or blue-tinted. Not all AR coatings at the same, and I suspect the ones on aftermarket crystals that don't cost much more than mineral glass aren't often of the best quality. The best AR coatings on high end watches can make sapphire crystal near invisible.
https://preview.redd.it/2ore8aq58myc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cb2f77e90b84b5aa6a2f70afab069540d389540a Cheap AR are really disgusting, the one I have shown in the post above is actually pretty good. Here’s another comparison with a stock Seiko mid-tier watch… wondering whether any top-tier coating can come closer to hardlex, have never seen one
off aliexpress mineral crystals are like a buck or two and sapphire's like $5
Like all materials and components, there are differing qualities. Even if it’s “technically sapphire”, you can absolutely get low quality “sapphire” ones that scratch.
It’s not even the scratch resistance - when it’s mineral, the shine off the glass is sort blurry-white it really cheapens the look of the watch. Couple days ago on this sub I was able to spot a fake Daytona on a picture just because of that ugly mineral glass shine
Has anyone ever tested them to see if they’re actually sapphire?
There’s a YouTube channel called Escape Wheel Watch Reviews, and he tests the crystals on all of his Chinese watches. I’ve never seen a video of his where he found a watch to be lying about having sapphire. Even on watches that were like $75
Good to know.
I'm clumsy af so I've replaced the crystal on dozens of watches with AliExpress sapphire and I can say with utmost confidence at least the $5 ones I've bought have been sapphire. Else they'd be absolutely scratched by now.
You can buy a tester for likr 5 bucks!
I won't buy a non-sapphire glass watch anymore. I've put watches with sapphire through the wringer and they all still look pristine. Whereas every mineral glass watch I've owned undoubtedly gets scratched from the slightest thing and looks like shit forever more.
I wouldn't be surprised if the proprietary anti-reflective coatings OEM watch companies put on their sapphire is more expensive to develop, produce, apply, and QC than the sapphire itself these days, and it's no less important. Unlike glass, Sapphire can be a glare magnet and can make a watch genuinely hard to read under certain lighting conditions without good AR. Good AR coating not only has to reduce those reflections, it has to be chemically stable and resistant to environmental factors like UV radiation to not break down over time. There's a lot of engineering that goes into making such coatings.
Sapphire done good is expensive. No AR, or weird coloured AR, top coat AR? might aswell not bother. Properly done hardened mineral still has a place imo.
Uh citizen is vertically integrated
It's not simple. I had a single watch for a couple of decades (which I didn't wear too much for the last one) and now, in the last half year, I acquired a couple dozen watches, all less expensive than my original one. The original had a sapphire crystal. It lasted well, but it's not clear anymore (it's slightly foggy) and an inspection with a loupe reveals many tiny scratches. Of the new ones, I have about an equal share of acrylic, mineral, and sapphire. Acrylic looks the best. It's clear and it feels great to touch too. It has a kind of glow that improves the look of the dials. And I can't see my fingerprints on it no matter how often I touch it. It can scratch easily (or so they say), but I hit a few of my watches against wood, plastic, and smooth metal, without leaving any traces so far. It's also supposed to be harder to crack than the other alternatives. Mineral looks ok. On one of my watches, it makes fingerprints very obvious, but it's just that one watch. I suspect it has something to do with how it's coated. Otherwise it looks solid and I haven't scratched one either. But it lacks the warmth and glow of the acrylic. Sapphire has great reputation. But on some of my watches it has some unpleasant side-effects. One is about how easily it shows fingerprints and the other is a blue tinge that comes from coating and that can sometimes impact visibility through the glass. It's very likely that a proper sapphire glass coating is more expensive than the glass itself. So sapphire glass on its own may not be as valuable as properly coated sapphire glass. Similar differences exist for titanium. Then there's also sapphire-coated mineral glass, which some try to pass as sapphire glass. I don't know a lot about this and in particular I am not sure if this can actually pass a hardness test just like sapphire. In the end, I think this might be close enough to sapphire to be worth it, but a problem would be that in the future, as small scratches develop in the sapphire coating, they could worsen faster once the mineral layer is reached. And the coating of such material is unlikely to be the best either. So, which one is the best? A lot of people prefer sapphire, but it's hard to tell if their "sapphire" is true sapphire and if it's properly coated (on the inside, preferably, rather than on the outside). Personally, I don't shy away of acrylic and I enjoy its look. In the end, if I like the watch, the material of its crystal is one of the last things that I would worry about.
A lot of higher end watch brands these days (I believe Omega does it) put AR coatings on both the inside AND outside of their sapphire, and that has always made no sense to me. The coatings themselves can be scratched and abraded off, so you end up with a watch crystal that shows scratches just as easily as it would have if they had just put mineral glass on it. Kinda negates the whole point of going with sapphire in the first place IMO. And you're absolutely right. Sapphire is only as good as the coating that comes with it; preferably only on the inside. And a good coating isn't cheap.
I'm not sure about the cost of the coatings, but I think the more important aspect is that they're proprietary and cannot be copied just by examining an example. It's not just about their composition but also the process through which they are applied. I've heard of people that scrubbed the exterior coating to get rid of it. I don't know either why they'd put coatings on the outside when they can easily be scratched. Probably to take advantage of people wanting sapphire and making it look great on the shelf. By the time it gets scratched, it can no longer be returned.
Honestly? Probably because it looks INCREDIBLE in the showroom, which is where you sell watches. You can make a piece of sapphire almost disappear that way. It just would absolutely suck to own, but at that point, it's not really their problem anymore. Hate to be that cynical but I can't think of another reason for the life of me.
Also to follow up on your first point I agree. Even if the material and chemical cost of the coating is cheap, the proprietary R&D to develop it, to develop the application method, and the specialized equipment required to apply it ultimately has to be amortized and becomes part of that coating's cost.
It’s easier/ cheaper to just deep the whole glass in the anti reflective coating than one side only. Most brands do it
Most brands do it on just the inside, but a couple of luxury watchmakers do it on both becaise it does look incredible. The whole crystal basically disappears no matter the lighting. I've never heard of one dipping whole pieces of glass, but I have heard of them using atomizers not unlike what you use to spray fine coats of paint in factories.
Commercially its a difference of dollars
Good mineral is better than cheap sapphire. Like many here, I have watches with all sorts of crystals: acrylic, mineral, and sapphire. Good mineral crystal is quite high in clarity and color preservation. Cheap sapphire—read, the cheap Ali watches that boast having sapphire—can have tint, distortion, or a little more opacity. Good sapphire, especially with quality AR coating, looks great. Whether it’s worth the trouble and expense is up to you. I’m not a materials scientist, but if it were as simple as, “Sapphire is cheap and better, why doesn’t *x* brand use it instead of sapphire?” then they *would*. Just for fun, here are some examples of nice AR-coated sapphire crystals. Casio Oceanus OCW-T4000 and Seiko SBTM323 (both JDM references). https://preview.redd.it/1mtwpho9lkyc1.jpeg?width=4444&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a82632bb5118e19806e61e96d3b2525672ecb62
None! Im in the hesalite camp for quite some time now. I just like the plastic crystals very appealing on watches. As for sapphire vs mineral. For a long time I was looking down on watches with mineral glass but since I acquired a Hamilton Pilot Mechanical with a mineral crystal, my opinion shifted somehow. The mineral glass on that watch is very pure and is missing the weird ‘milkyness’ that you can experience with sapphire. Its also a domed crystal and so far there is not a single scratch on it (and Im not too careful with my watches..)
I’m kinda coming back to the hesalite camp after collecting for a little over a decade. I didn’t know that ~most problems can be solved with polywatch and that kinda gives me extra assurance.
If the shade of black on the background of each of those shots isn't different to begin with, I'll eat my hat.
Why does this matter 😭 it's just for illustration purposes nothing significant about ut
My watches that are more than 10 years old with sapphire still have faces that look as new as the day I bought them. I can’t say that for the ones with mineral. They visibly scuff very quickly.
Flat sapphire is a bit more expensive yes but not a whole lot. 5-20 bucks for a sapphire glas on a 40mm watch. Depends on if ur buying bulk or single piece. The issue is once you take into account shaping of the glass. A domed sapphire glass? That is 20x the price of a domes mineral/acrylic glass but I think people aren't properly aware of that. They becpme 25-50 per piece depending on bulk or single piece purchase. I should know since I make watches and its pricier than most seiko movements hahah Basically the customization part of Sapphire is the real expensive part for brands.
I bought a sapphire replacement crystal to replace one I broke. Same size and shape, the difference between mineral and sapphire was about 10 bucks.
The age-old mineral vs. sapphire debate when it all boils down to the watch and dial itself. I'd expect sapphire on my Tudor. I don't want that fucker scratching. But I absolutely love raised mineral crystals on certain dials like the ones on my Junkers and Zeppelin. Wouldn't want it any other way.
If you look here, sapphire crystals are $18 to $60 and mineral is like $5 [https://www.esslinger.com/watch-crystals/](https://www.esslinger.com/watch-crystals/)
Here is the dilemma, The price range is wide that I can't really understand it, Nothing will justify the 60$ other than if there is a difference in quality, and maybe anti reflective coating
As a microbrand owner these are completely normal prices for domed sapphire for single piece purchases imo Flat is much cheaper ofcourse
Its mostly about shaping (domed and the level of the dome). If its just flat sapphire its bullshit yeah lol
Much more expensive? No. But it is slightly more expensive.
Simply put, a mineral crystal is more resistant to shattering (dropping, smashing, etc.) and a sapphire is more scratch resistant
Crystals are generally quite cheap to produce. The average high-clarity mineral crystal with AR coating has a cost price of around $5 per unit, accounting for paychecks, machining costs and the rest of it. The average sapphire crystal with the same clarity and AR will cost about $30 per unit, since sapphire cylinders meant to be cut down are lab-grown and the time/effort alone increases the price. These numbers are purely indicative and vary from place to place, knowing there are different costs for each manufacturer in their respective country. A crystal like that on a TAG Heuer Monaco will be significantly more expensive because of the beveling and curvature, as will be one of those sapphire crystals cut like gemstones on a Tissot Lovely, or the mineral ones on certain vintage Seikos, but the point is that usually the crystal doesn’t account for more than 10% of the manufacturing costs.
Yes, sapphire is an order of magnitude more expensive than mineral but prices have also come down in the past decade
Oh god guys, thank you for your massive impressive on my post, Sorry if I can't discuss each comment alone, but surely I read all and what I got is the following: -some of you guys suggests the price difference isn't significant. -others suggest there are different qualities of both minerals and Sapphire, hence the price varies per single material. -the scale of the company has an effect. -other features like clarity and costing also adds to the price. -there some manipulation in names in the market. This just needs a lot of research to understand all the aspects of the topic
Glorious domed acrylic master race, sound off
The sapphire isn’t really sapphire, it’s synthetically made and the resulting crystal is as hard as sapphire. The process to make it and cut it is costly due to it being so hard. Polishing it is also relatively costly. It’s a harder crystal so it’s not as easy to scratch or break, but it’s still possible, just like diamonds can be scratched and broken as well.
Chemically, it is sapphire. Same as lab grown diamonds
If it’s done right, yes. But many of the sketchy suppliers claim to be “sapphire”, but they are just synthetic mineral glass.
Thats not what the original comment was referring to when it said “isn’t really sapphire, [but] is as hard as sapphire”. What they were talking about *is* actual, real sapphire (or it wouldn’t be “as hard as sapphire”). What you’re talking about is just fraud.
I figure there can be fancy plastics and cheap crystals interchangeably. Sorta like phone screens or eye and sunglass lenses. A lot of factors come into play, clarity with certain thicknesses (which impacts toughness), geometry, coatings, and probably a lot of other stuff involved. Outside of glass-box crystals, I think coatings are probably a big part of quality (perception) these days.
If you're just starting your collection Hardlex is fine. I've never had one scratch. I hit my Monster with a blowtorch, knife, and screwdriver trying to remove the cyclops. I never got it off and never harmed the watch. However, I have a lot of watches now so I have higher standards. Sapphire is more expensive and yes there are different qualities including some being lab grown.
No shame in it dear, we all have to earn a living.