WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
1 - 20 of 57 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
8,220 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just tried the water drop test on sapphire, mineral, and Invicta's Flame Fusion crystals. When a drop of water hits mineral glass it flattens out and is shallow; when it hits sapphire glass it has more height/depth and therefore a smaller footprint. Flame fusion behaves like mineral glass with the water drop, flattening out exactly the same. The difference between mineral glass and sapphire is quite noticeable with this water drop test.

Is this definitive that flame fusion is no different from regular mineral glass? No, only that it reacts the same way to a water drop. Important to note that Invicta never claims it's a sapphire coating. If it were actually a sapphire coating wouldn't Invicta call it that rather than flame fusion, which sounds like nuclear alchemy? What we need is a scratch test and I have a hunch Invicta is counting on that not being done, but if I have a choice between flame fusion and mineral glass I would take flame fusion because at best it's better than mineral and at worst it's just mineral, but I wouldn't pay more than $5 extra for it :-!.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
this has been done on air and seems the flame fusion leaves a tiny footprint. I have heard people actually trying the scratch test (intentionally and unintentional) and say it does scratch rather easily.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,220 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
this has been done on air and seems the flame fusion leaves a tiny footprint.
That wasn't my experience. I used two Invicta samples which say "flame fusion" on their casebacks, an Orient Mako (mineral), and an Ocean 7 LM-6 (sapphire). Only sapphire had a "tiny" footprint.

You can actually feel the difference between mineral and sapphire by stubbing your thumb across them. Sapphire is "stickier", offering more resistance to your thumb gliding across it; mineral is more sllippery, offering less resistance to your sliding thumb, which makes sense in how a drop of water reacts when it hits their respective surfaces. Of course that has nothing to do with hardness, just in telling the two apart.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
9,866 Posts
When I read the thread title I imagined Eyal and Jim on Shop NBC proving the toughness of Flame Fusion Crystal by splashing a drop of water onto it.

"Look, not even a scratch!"

:-d
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,220 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
When I read the thread title I imagined Eyal and Jim on Shop NBC proving the toughness of Flame Fusion Crystal by splashing a drop of water onto it.

"Look, not even a scratch!"

:-d
at least they'd be telling the truth :-d
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,659 Posts
I may be mistaken on some small semantic technicality, but I feel like I have heard "sapphire coating" on numerous ShopNBC occasions from the Invicta reps themselves.

In this case, I suspect that a flashy name like "flame fusion" plays better with Invicta's target audience than something boring like "sapphire coating"...with my marketing cap on, it also makes more sense because mentioning sapphire in the name, but not actually having a full sapphire crystal, makes your product seem cheap by comparison. Instead, making up an all new, super duper cool sounding name and then listing it's combination of strengths makes it sound even better than sapphire.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,220 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I may be mistaken on some small semantic technicality, but I feel like I have heard "sapphire coating" on numerous ShopNBC occasions from the Invicta reps themselves.

In this case, I suspect that a flashy name like "flame fusion" plays better with Invicta's target audience than something boring like "sapphire coating"...with my marketing cap on, it also makes more sense because mentioning sapphire in the name, but not actually having a full sapphire crystal, makes your product seem cheap by comparison. Instead, making up an all new, super duper cool sounding name and then listing it's combination of strengths makes it sound even better than sapphire.
Those are good points, and the flashy term "flame fusion," as you say, is in line with their over the top designs. Riedenschild (R.I.P.) had a coating perhaps similar to Invicta's that was called, I believe, DLC (diamond like coating). I don't know of any other companies beyond Invicta and Riedenschild that tout a similar coating on mineral glass. It's interesting to note that Riedenschild was also prone to exaggerating or misrepresenting their products. There was some controversy over the country of origin of their Gematic movement, and when the president made an appearance on these forums he made some Eyal-like claims about his watches and was called on them by forum members.

If these coatings on mineral glass were so good--and obviously cost-effective--hard to believe their application wouldn't be widespread throughout the industry.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
9,866 Posts
AFAIK Seiko first applied the process of sapphire coating mineral glass to watches (I'm not sure if they actually invented the process). The called the product Sapphlex. As Invicta is not a watch manufacturer per se, I highly doubt they independently developed a process. They most likely licensed the process from Seiko now that Seiko don't use Sapplex or any of their watches.

The fact that Seiko tried Sapphlex, and then reverted to either Hardlex (borosilicate glass) or sapphire, suggests that the benefits of sapphlex are not worth the associated extra cost.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,941 Posts
Another example of the difference is the way the "flame-fusion" looks in sun light. I don't have the technical knowledge to explain it other than to say that the one I had produced reflections and what appeared to be concentric circle shadows on the dial. The exact same way a mineral crystal would. I was a bit of an Invicta defender on THAT OTHER thread but this is a ripoff by them. It is worth noting that one of their somewhat well made watches and what they were known for is the 9937(yes I know a Rolex ripoff) did have a sapphire crystal now has this glorified mineral crystal.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,220 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I was a bit of an Invicta defender on THAT OTHER thread but this is a ripoff by them. It is worth noting that one of their somewhat well made watches and what they were known for is the 9937(yes I know a Rolex ripoff) did have a sapphire crystal now has this glorified mineral crystal.
I tend to agree.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,220 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
AFAIK Seiko first applied the process of sapphire coating mineral glass to watches (I'm not sure if they actually invented the process). The called the product Sapphlex. As Invicta is not a watch manufacturer per se, I highly doubt they independently developed a process. They most likely licensed the process from Seiko now that Seiko don't use Sapplex or any of their watches.

The fact that Seiko tried Sapphlex, and then reverted to either Hardlex (borosilicate glass) or sapphire, suggests that the benefits of sapphlex are not worth the associated extra cost.
Somehow I didn't know about Sapphlex. What you say makes sense.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,021 Posts
Why would anyone think they would tell the truth about anything?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,021 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,404 Posts
Instead, making up an all new, super duper cool sounding name and then listing it's combination of strengths makes it sound even better than sapphire.
This reminds me of an old Bob Newhart episode where he bought a ring with... well, it wasn't a diamond. And it wasn't a Cubic Zirconia. No, it was even better than either of those.

It was the all new "Cylindric Diamachron"!

You wouldn't think anyone would have the stones to try this shtick in real life. :-d
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,220 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
This reminds me of an old Bob Newhart episode where he bought a ring with... well, it wasn't a diamond. And it wasn't a Cubic Zirconia. No, it was even better than either of those.

It was the all new "Cylindric Diamachron"!

You wouldn't think anyone would have the stones to try this shtick in real life. :-d
Invicta's transparency is actually pretty funny, not that you have to be a genius to see through it...so no accolades to us smartyasses here, but it does give you an idea of the level of humans their sales pitch is aimed at, and I say this as a proud owner of 3 Invicta watches.

do I contradict myself? Well then I contradict myself :-d
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,492 Posts
Nothing quite like running some real internet scientific tests to draw your solid conclusions.
He never said it was scientific, and he specifically said it wasn't definitive proof of anything. What we know for a fact is that it's not a sapphire crystal, otherwise Invicta would call it that. If you have some "scientific" information to add, please do so. I'm curious as to what these crystals actually are.
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top