|
|
Post by TimeBandit on Mar 31, 2007 12:38:55 GMT -5
I know that the saphire crystal is all but scratch proof, but how good are mineral crystals? Since all my prior cheap watches and even my citizen eco drive that did not have a saphire crystal scratched so easily, I'm a bit reluctant to buy a watch without a saphire one.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltgary on Mar 31, 2007 13:01:02 GMT -5
 With a cheap watch you get a inexpensive mineral crystal that is not hardened. They will scatch. Spend a few more dollars and you get a watch with a hardened mineral crystal(heat treated) that is much more durable. Spend even more and you get a hardened mineral crystal that is sapphire coated. Disregarding diver watches that use mineral for a different purpose you usually get what you pay for.
|
|
|
|
Post by markdl on Mar 31, 2007 14:44:19 GMT -5
I'm not as abusive as some of the guys here are, so the mineral crystals have been fine for me. My Seiko Monster is a year or two old and it looks new. The hardex crystal is completely scratch free. Same with all the other watches I have with mineral. The Grand Lupah I have has a huge mineral crystal and is scratch free.
I'd say a mineral crystal is fine unless you plan on dragging your watch across the sidewalk.
|
|
|
|
Post by boscoe on Mar 31, 2007 17:12:00 GMT -5
I always preferr sapphire crystals. However, that doesn't stop me from buying a mineral crystal equipped watch if I like it. But it can be the deciding factor one way or the other.
Sapphire is relatively scratch proof, but shatters easier than mineral.
Mineral scratches, but resists scratching. Minerals are big in Europe. But that's really a cost thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Badboy on Apr 1, 2007 20:08:32 GMT -5
I'm not convinced that there is really a downside to sapphire. Yes, it will supposedly shatter. Won't mineral, hardened or otherwise, also break in some manner given the same impact? If some of the jagged pieces (ala mineral) stay in place, is that really better than the whole crystal shattering? My Hardlex Seiko got whacked some time back, and though some of the crystal remained, there was a good portion of shards and crystal debris inside scooting around the face. From the looks of some sapphire equipped watches I've seen, they will take quite a lick without the aforementioned shattering, and indeed (Houston-Zin-speak  ) not show a mark at all! I am totally sold on sapphire.  With that said, I wouldn't hesitate to snag up a good deal on an OM! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by bonatto on Apr 1, 2007 20:21:18 GMT -5
The crystal is usually a deciding factor in all of my watch purchases. Depending on the price of the watch, mineral crystal is unacceptable. If the crystal is recessed and protected, then a hardened mineral crystal is perfectly fine. I have watches with both. If sapphire is not an option, I much prefer an acrylic crystal.
|
|
|
|
Post by boscoe on Apr 1, 2007 20:21:48 GMT -5
I agree BB, I prefer sapphire all the way. Had an OM and sent it away about a year ago or more. Hated the bracelet. Now an OM (Seiko Orange Monster) on a rubber strap is a whole nuther story. Might consider that.
However, I've been on a serious dress watch kick. And, heaven forbid, I've actually been looking at chronos.
However, I have decided to hold off on new "budget" range watches for the next five months or so and put the money towards a Patek. I am seriously jonesing on one at the moment. However, the sticker is 30K!!!!
Not even I am crazy enough to do that. It is every cool though. Solid gold, naturally. I may look for it used.
|
|
) not show a mark at all!
