Reply With QuoteI am very much with saphire having 20 plus year old watches with no marks whatsoever compared to every other acrylic and mineral glass marked to hell.
Acrylic...i avoid it like the plague.
Thanks very much, Ollie. I wasn't aware of that forum. Looks like it could be a good resource.Originally Posted by Rev-O
On the subject of sapphire versus acrylic crystals, for what it's worth, I'd probably lean toward acrylic, but sapphire would by no means be a deal-breaker. The reason I like acrylic is that although it is more prone to scratching, most scratches can be buffed out with a little Polywatch. Sapphire, on the other hand, although extremely scratch resistant, is much more prone to catastrophic failure. (I was once involved in a automobile accident, and the impact caused the sapphire crystal on the watch I was wearing to completely shatter). So, on that basis, maybe acrylic makes more sense for a watch that will be (supposedly) subjected to severe knocks while mountain climbing or whatever.
I am very much with saphire having 20 plus year old watches with no marks whatsoever compared to every other acrylic and mineral glass marked to hell.
Acrylic...i avoid it like the plague.
Just out of curiosity -- had you every tried buffing out scratches in acrylic with Polywatch?
Yeah, I’ve used Duraglit before and it works a treat. Although out of the 2 I usually go for Saphire, acrylic does have a certain charm, won’t chip or shatter and can be easily repaired.
On the other hand I think Mineral is the worst of all worlds and should be avoided like the plague
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Options (3) and (4) sound like attractive potential compromises to keep everyone reasonably happy. However I believe the treatment on the Max Bill, and quite possibly on the mineral crystal watches you've cited, is essentially a very thin silicone-based coating which doesn't achieve the hardness of sapphire glass and, at the end of the day, is a surface which can still be scratched in everyday use but can't be buffed clear once it is scratched.I don't think it's as easy as that - the watch is constructed for at specific type of glass. (I could be wrong).
There really is at least five options -
- The acrylic high domed glass with the nice distortions used in the Rolex Explorer 1016 and the Speedmaster and most vintage watches. Current vintage-look watches made with the acrylic high domed crystal are Baltic, Merci LMM, Lorier Falcon, Seagull 1963 etc.
- Then there is the flat or low domed glas used in the modern Rolex Explorer and most other modern watches.
- Sapphire coated high domed mineral glass - used by Dan Henry and Undone.
- Sapphire coated high domed acrylic glass - used in Junghans Max Bill.
- Then there is the high domed sapphire - it's really more of a box sapphire than a dome - that is known for the milky ring. It is an attempt to get the best of both worlds - the high domed glass and the glass that does not scratch. But alas you don't get the best of both worlds. (Notice that (to my knowledge) Rolex has never used this, because it just doesn't work, Omega makes the Speedmaster with the box sapphire with the milky ringe, but they also offers the original acrylic high domed acrylic speedmaster - also notice the colour change in the picture below)
For the white PRS-25 that is vintage inspired I would prefer one of the first four options - I am crossing my fingers :-)
For more information:
Acrylic versus saphire
Omega Moonwatch Sapphire Vs Hesalite
You're very averse to the look of the sapphire box crystal - I personally don't share that feeling even though I do understand where you're coming from.
Incidentally, in all fairness I don't think the photograph above can be used to demonstrate anything about the appearance of the dials beneath the crystals. Flash appears to have been used and the incident lighting is noticeably uneven from left to right - just look at the appearance of the respective bezels.
I had a Max Bill which I used as a daily wearer and when I came to sell it I couldn't find a single mark on the crystal.
Any update on when the two proposed white-dial models will be off to production Eddie ? Thanks !
Indeed. The so called "milky ring" only appears at certain angles in certain lights. In the real world of owning and using a watch you have to hold your wrist motionless at an angle to see it as a ring at all, otherwise when glancing at your watch to tell the time you just don't notice the effect. IMHO as an owner.
F.T.F.A.
Yes, i have a pocket watch i use when i do any rough work and have buffed its face a couple of times over the years. I just find it a pointless exercise when, for a watch, i could get saphire and never worry about the marks. The pocket watch though does not have that option.
Ok, thanks, that's interesting.
My impression re the scratch resistance of the Max Bill surface coating came from having read a thread some time ago where an owner had managed to scratch it and was seeking suggestions on how to solve the problem. As I recall, no-one came to the rescue unfortunately. It's perfectly possible he had done something extreme to it to damage it in the first place, though he hadn't said that this was the case so I assumed it had been scratched in normal use. Perhaps a false assumption on my part.
Absolutely right in my experience.
Until I owned a watch with an acrylic crystal, I had always thought that a sapphire crystal was an upgrade to an acrylic crystal. I came to realise that in day-to-day use, it made no difference. My original preference of sapphire over acrylic was simply due to hearsay and ignorance on my part.
I presume you do not mind the scratches that form over time then?
On my side occurred exactly the opposite
I haven't yet needed to polish an acrylic crystal in over 6 years of ownership. The tube of polywatch is still unused.
Brilliant. Lucky. I think it is down to everyones individual lifestyle and job etc that determines how much wear your watch gets. I now avoid using mine on a daily basis and generally use them when i am out for the evening where there is little risk to bumps and knocks.
I don't look at still photographs of the watches I wear, I see them in all light and at all angles. For the past 20 years of daily wear, I've worn watches with underside-AR sapphire, dual-side AR sapphire, no-AR sapphire, and acrylic.
- Dual-sided AR sapphire looks the best, overall, but of course you run the risk of scratching the top coating and not being able to fix it without replacing it. (I never did put a scratch in mine before I sold it.)
- Acrylic looks second best. You can easily repair scratches with Polywatch (I still have the tube I bought 15 years ago). Maybe not the best choice for every style of watch, but for most of the styles I like.
- Underside-AR coated are a distant third. They look good at some angles, terrible at others. The actually quality of the coating and application varies widely, and the shape of the crystal will have a big impact -- flat or near flat looks worst.
- No-AR sapphire crystals look awful at most angles.
Again, everybody is entitled to like what they like. If the glare from underside-AR sapphire crystals doesn't bother you, that's great, I wish I could say the same thing. If never having to worry about scratches on your crystal is more important than the way the crystal looks, I wish I could say that, too, because you have nearly the entire watch industry catering to you, now, including microbrands that used to provide acrylic crystals. And lots of people in forums to reinforce your view that the other qualities shouldn't matter to you.
Bit harsh Marschv, i think the majority are happy that they know their own opinion and do not rely on others reinforcing an opinion that is personally held or that other qualities shouldn't matter. Or is this how you think?
My experience is not based on photos of speedmasters and such. Simple wearing both a black and white dialed PRS29. The sapphire crystal doesn't prove to be a problem in any manner. They both look fantastic. Given this, I'm more than happy for Eddie to go sapphire for the new 25. Especially as to me it is a watch I intend to use and abuse, , sohave no interest in something I need to own poly watch to continue enjoying rather than constantly think about polishing up. Just hoping he gets it for sale before 29th of April so I can get it up in the sierra nevada mountains and put it in its element :)
I think that you are right on all accounts:)
I think of the box sapphire like faux acrylic, and I prefer the authentic vintage feel of the acrylic with the more organic shape and beautiful disstortions - that will pick up marks. The sapphire offers security against scratches, but its shape isn't as organic and it has that milky ring. I get it when you say, I am not bothered by a milky ring, or I don't see a milky ring in daily use. But when you have an acrylic glass, you hold you hand still and look at the crystal in order to enjoy it.
This picture is of the orginal PRS-25 with the acrylic glass, you don't get this with a box sapphire, and in my opinion that picture would not be on top af the review in Worn and wound, if it had been a box sapphire.
Last edited by Mads Gorm; 19th February 2019 at 14:22.
I'd like to think it will be for sale by then as it may mean that the mooted 20>16mm rivetted bracelet will available. ;-) I'd also like to see the watch up a mountain!
I also hope that the new production will be available by the end of April, also for the 36mm PRS-25 black dial (with new longer hand) and 20 > 16mm riveted oyster bracelet
I respect your opinion on this and do feel it's a little unfortunate that commercial pressures and the 'tyranny of the majority' mean there's not much choice for lovers of acrylic crystals in terms of new watch models. (The world is your oyster though as far as vintage watches go, even if they bring their own issues which may be unwelcome.)
Having said that, I don't really see what you mean when you refer to people on forums telling others that "other qualities shouldn't matter to you".
Firstly, I think people have done no more than express their own views on which type of crystal they'd prefer (a) in general and (b) in relation to the upcoming 36mm Everest models.
Secondly, what are these qualities (plural)? The single issue you've mentioned in your categorisation of crystal types is appearance. And there's the rub - for anyone who's happy with the look of any or all of the sapphire options you've listed then it's not a question of saying appearance doesn't matter. Rather it's a question of acknowledging that appearance does matter, but that the individual is happy with the appearance of a particular type of sapphire crystal, and therefore why ask for acrylic which is prone to scratches?
Even within sapphire, there's no objective right or wrong as to which type looks best. Nowadays Rolex appears to believe that their customers in general would prefer the look of a sapphire crystal *without* the application of any anti-reflective coating at all.
I think it's more than the majority -- I think that nearly every human being is happy that they know their own opinion and do not rely on others reinforcing those opinions.
I also think nearly every human being is fooling themselves into thinking that their opinions are uniquely their own.
So yes, this is how I think. And I have plenty of company, even here.
Well how about that. My opinions are uniquely my own, yours are not. We are all different, i was just saying that i thought yours was a bit harsh.
rEckon all the G andD threads starting what Blank to wear when, or recommend me a bag, eye liner, etc kinda invalidates your first point to be honest.
Last edited by Passenger; 19th February 2019 at 19:17.
### Public Service Announcement ###
The latest watch renders are in post 233 + Eddie’s tweak in 256
This will save you scrolling for days...
And now please resume the fascinating acrylic vs. sapphire debate!
### Public Service Announcement ###
The latest watch renders are in post 233 + Eddie’s tweak in 256
This will save you scrolling for days...
And now please resume the fascinating acrylic vs. sapphire debate!
Do any post contain a release date guesstimate?
A couple of minor tweaks.
Eddie
Thats the one :)
If one could by a Beads of rice bracelet as an extra accessory for the PRS-25 36 mm - would there then be an interest in that?
Last edited by Mads Gorm; 20th February 2019 at 12:14.
Too dressy for my taste - the oyster style suites it much better in my opinion
A couple of minor tweaks.
EddieI agree, that it should not be the standard option, and should not replace the oyster, but just be possible to buy as an extra, for the dressy occasion or for the summer.
I think that the earliest date Eddie suggested was April but this was far from definitive!
Do any post contain a release date guesstimate?
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
That Omega Ranchero looks fantastic on beads of rice IMV.If one could by a Beads of rice bracelet as an extra accessory for the PRS-25 36 mm - would there then be an interest in that?
Yes, I'd be interested, but to be honest I'm not sure there'd be enough of us of like mind to justify a production run bearing in mind that it wouldn't be the default option but just an extra. (Not sure what the minimum production run would be for a standalone bracelet though - is it just the end links which might have to be added to a stock bracelet?)
I don't think it suits this watch, but WatchGecko do a BOR bracelet and supply curved endlinks for £5.
https://www.watchgecko.com/beads-of-rice-by-geckota.phpj
Thanks. The link doesn't work for me but I've had a look at it on the Geckota website anyway. I'm a bit of a coward when it comes to this sort of thing and would want to see photos of the watch on the bracelet and reports of any difficulties getting the end links to fit before actually shelling out any cash on it.
In any case, I think you're right that it wouldn't really suit the classic 3-6-9 dial variants, which have always been my prime interest. I'm waiting to see photos of 'version C' before I decide whether to get one. (Based on the rendering, I have concerns about the thickness of the minute hand which seems to me to unbalance the handset - an issue which was discussed (much) earlier on in this thread.) That's the version on which, if I got it, I might be open to playing around with an alternative bracelet such as a BOR.
I really don't think that you can better the Oyster design as regards a bracelet for this kind of watch case.
As for BOR, I have tried them on a number of watches and don't like the way that they wear. Sized to fit above the wrist bone they seem to flop about to much to me. The design of Oyster links seems to keep the whole thing more rigid even when worn fairly loose.
The decision to go with sapphire was more commercial than customer driven and here's why. With the Smiths Military, I've replaced more than 50 acrylic crystals (700 sold) and only ONE sapphire on the 29-B (200 sold). When I ordered the PRS-1 (300 pieces) in 2001, I also ordered 20 spare sapphire crystals; I've still got 12 of them.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Thanks Eddie for your explanation.
Thanks for that explanation - definitely food for thought. Did the acrylic crystal pop out of the watches, or did they splinter?
Have you considered going with flat sapphire, like on the the current Rolex Explorer models, or perhaps a more moderet dome - like on the Tudor Black Bay and on the Current Omega models?
Last edited by Mads Gorm; 21st February 2019 at 20:44.
Thanks for that explanation - definitely food for thought. Did the acrylic crystal pop out of the watches, or did they splinter?
Have you considered going with flat sapphire, like on the the current Rolex Explorer models, or perhaps a more moderet dome - like on the Tudor Black Bay and on the Current Omega models?
Frankly speaking I definitely prefer the actual sapphire crystal mounted on the PRS-25 40 and 36mm, in terms of convexity. I believe that flat or low dome like the one in the pictures does not fit with the spirit of this watch.
Last edited by Engi; 21st February 2019 at 22:47.
Thanks for that explanation - definitely food for thought. Did the acrylic crystal pop out of the watches, or did they splinter?
Have you considered going with flat sapphire, like on the the current Rolex Explorer models, or perhaps a moderate dome - like on the Tudor Black Bay or some of the current Omega models?
Oh yes! Those flat / flatter sapphires are just the job. Much less distortion at the edges and a classier look.
There's a flat sapphire in the PRS-40 and a bombé sapphire in the Speedbird III. The PRS-32 will have a bombé sapphire. I only use a box sapphire where it replaces a hi-dome acrylic.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Thanks - and difinatly the right choice for those watches.
But what happened to the Smiths Military, where you replaced more than 50 acrylic crystals. Did they break, scratch or pop out?
None popped out, most were cracked or badly scratched.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Cannot wait for the new bracelet for the black Everest, was the only thing holding me back from the current version
Eddie - is there any update on the timelines for the white Everest models (and the new bracelet) ? Thanks :-)
I'm not doing anything until I've got my year-end out of the way at the end of this month.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
I bought two of the recent Everest 36 and loving it. I even like the bracelet as it balances the whole thing.This is the dial I'm favouring.
Same "white" as the Air ministry
Lumed numbers and indices
Lume filled blued hands
Rivet bracelet 20mm tapering to 16mm
Standard clasp
Eddie
(Except the piece at the clasp which likes to stand up, which I fixed with glue)
I will certainly buy at least one of those although not much a fan of white dials.
If the color of the Military Airministry is used, and harmonizes with the luminova all is fine!!
Can’t wait ...
Last edited by Brutus; 3rd March 2019 at 11:54.
Posting Permissions
