Ok, in that same vein, at least with flame fusion I have some hope that it might be better than mineral, unlike any Seiko diver under two grand. Oh right, they do have sapphlex or did.
Invicta's Flame Fusion Crystal & the Water Drop Test
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 :-!.
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 :-!.
21 - 40 of 57 Posts
That's making a rather large assumption that "flame fusion :-d" is better than mineral...which I highly doubt. Personally I would rather wear the lowest end Seiko over the highest end Invicta...but that's just me!Ok, in that same vein, at least with flame fusion I have some hope that it might be better than mineral, unlike any Seiko diver under two grand. Oh right, they do have sapphlex or did.
This made my morning :-!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
Seriously, though, this Invicta shtick may be a bit silly for your average WIS, but you'll see people spending 100 times more on a Rolex that says "Oyster Perpetual" on it. As if a true perpetual movement was inside. Oh, and the Deep Sea has an "Original Gas Escape Valve" and a "Ring Lock System" as it proudly displays on the oh-so-busy dial. Because, you know, other escape valves are not original, they are merely copies :-s
I mean, the bottomline is that marketing is what makes these watches sell. Sure Rolex's shtick is a little bit less "trailer trash" than Invicta's, but it's B.S. all the same, only we're paying (and I don't speak for myself, here, obviously) 100 times more for that B.S. OK, quality's a tidbit better, I'll give you that ;-)
Cheers,
Dan
I'm curious as well, especially when people are making decisions (and they are--I've read them here) on which Invicta to buy based on whether or not the crystal is flame fusion.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.
Me too, so you're not the only one. And I'm not even a big Seiko fan.<snip> Personally I would rather wear the lowest end Seiko over the highest end Invicta...but that's just me!
I have an Ocean Ghost I got a couple of weeks ago on a deal of the day site $ 55 bucks. I love the look and wanted a glass back, Its my first glass back.
Anyway I did notice that the flame fusion hype. I think it does have some type of coating or at least I can feel more drag on the crystal when cleaning if off. I run a little hand soap on my fingers and then over my watches after wearing them. Well the flame did feel different in fact I though for a moment that I did not remove a clear plastic coating. :-s
The thing that's really disappointing me is that they market there lume like it will glow though the night and into the next day. Just a fancy name for sub par lume :-
---(
I know there are a lot here that done care for Invicta but at the right price which means low they are OK to me. I would never pay more than $ 250 and that is only because I like some of the sub aqua's but still cant bring myself to pay that much for an Invicta, Too many Seiko's at the top of my list ;-)
Anyway I did notice that the flame fusion hype. I think it does have some type of coating or at least I can feel more drag on the crystal when cleaning if off. I run a little hand soap on my fingers and then over my watches after wearing them. Well the flame did feel different in fact I though for a moment that I did not remove a clear plastic coating. :-s
The thing that's really disappointing me is that they market there lume like it will glow though the night and into the next day. Just a fancy name for sub par lume :-
---(I know there are a lot here that done care for Invicta but at the right price which means low they are OK to me. I would never pay more than $ 250 and that is only because I like some of the sub aqua's but still cant bring myself to pay that much for an Invicta, Too many Seiko's at the top of my list ;-)
I didn't notice that drag on my flame fusion. I could certainly feel it on the sapphire, but mineral and flame fusion felt the same to me. Could be the crystal wasn't flame fused even though it said it was. :think:Anyway I did notice that the flame fusion hype. I think it does have some type of coating or at least I can feel more drag on the crystal when cleaning if off. I run a little hand soap on my fingers and then over my watches after wearing them. Well the flame did feel different in fact I though for a moment that I did not remove a clear plastic coating. :-s
You should try the water drop test on it, takes a second to do.
+1 on the below. How is "hardlex" for mineral better than "flame-fusion"?
As has been established, the water-droplet test has nothing to do with hardness (I've conducted hardness tests in labs before and I never heard of "beading" as an alternative, nor have I heard of "finger-stickiness" either). Nonetheless, I think you should all at least clarify whether or not the sticky, beady sapphire had an external A/R coating, as this would obviously affect the results.
As a counterpoint to the assumptions about flame-fusion hardness, I have read accounts (albeit online, anecdotal) of difficulty or inability to remove the cyclops from these crystals. This is the most telling comparison to mineral (in which the cyclops comes off easily with heat) and indication that some difference exists and that the difference is increased resilience.
As has been established, the water-droplet test has nothing to do with hardness (I've conducted hardness tests in labs before and I never heard of "beading" as an alternative, nor have I heard of "finger-stickiness" either). Nonetheless, I think you should all at least clarify whether or not the sticky, beady sapphire had an external A/R coating, as this would obviously affect the results.
As a counterpoint to the assumptions about flame-fusion hardness, I have read accounts (albeit online, anecdotal) of difficulty or inability to remove the cyclops from these crystals. This is the most telling comparison to mineral (in which the cyclops comes off easily with heat) and indication that some difference exists and that the difference is increased resilience.
This made my morning :-!
Seriously, though, this Invicta shtick may be a bit silly for your average WIS, but you'll see people spending 100 times more on a Rolex that says "Oyster Perpetual" on it. As if a true perpetual movement was inside. Oh, and the Deep Sea has an "Original Gas Escape Valve" and a "Ring Lock System" as it proudly displays on the oh-so-busy dial. Because, you know, other escape valves are not original, they are merely copies :-s
I mean, the bottomline is that marketing is what makes these watches sell. Sure Rolex's shtick is a little bit less "trailer trash" than Invicta's, but it's B.S. all the same, only we're paying (and I don't speak for myself, here, obviously) 100 times more for that B.S. OK, quality's a tidbit better, I'll give you that ;-)
Cheers,
Dan
You're reiterating what I've iterated. The water droplet test was done to indicate whether flame fusion behaved like mineral or sapphire glass using the water drop test. That was all, and it was done because it was being suggested that flame fusion was a sapphire coating.+1 on the below. How is "hardlex" for mineral better than "flame-fusion"?
As has been established, the water-droplet test has nothing to do with hardness (I've conducted hardness tests in labs before and I never heard of "beading" as an alternative, nor have I heard of "finger-stickiness" either). Nonetheless, I think you should all at least clarify whether or not the sticky, beady sapphire had an external A/R coating, as this would obviously affect the results.
As a counterpoint to the assumptions about flame-fusion hardness, I have read accounts (albeit online, anecdotal) of difficulty or inability to remove the cyclops from these crystals. This is the most telling comparison to mineral (in which the cyclops comes off easily with heat) and indication that some difference exists and that the difference is increased resilience.
The sapphire crystal I used for the test was from an Ocean7 LM-6. No AR coating on the outer (tested) crystal. And you're right, I should have mentioned that.
If the anecdotal accounts are valid and cyclops are removed with greater difficulty on the flame fusion, then I agree that some difference exists between mineral and flame fusion, but I don't know how you make the leap to specifying the difference as resiliency. In addition, maybe the glue was/is different...
Interesting.
I just conducted the experiment on my 6686 and my 4605 and got the opposite results you reported (pics to come).
I repeated it twice with the same result.
I cleaned both crystals with alcohol-free lens cleaner, then deposited a single drop of water from ~1cm using a drinking straw.
The flame-fusion crystal yielded a strong bead, while the mineral crystal of the 4605 did not. The droplet instantly "flattened-out" on the latter.
As far as I know, the 6686 does not have an external AR coating.
Can you think of any other sources of error for your test? Not pointing the finger, just sayin'...
I just conducted the experiment on my 6686 and my 4605 and got the opposite results you reported (pics to come).
I repeated it twice with the same result.
I cleaned both crystals with alcohol-free lens cleaner, then deposited a single drop of water from ~1cm using a drinking straw.
The flame-fusion crystal yielded a strong bead, while the mineral crystal of the 4605 did not. The droplet instantly "flattened-out" on the latter.
As far as I know, the 6686 does not have an external AR coating.
Can you think of any other sources of error for your test? Not pointing the finger, just sayin'...
Interesting back at ya. I used two Invictas that trumpet flame fusion on the caseback. I don't believe there's any source for error in my test outside of the possibility that my Invictas might be labeled flame fusion but they're not. As I said initially, the difference between the water droplet on sapphire and mineral/flame fusion behaved very differently, and I repeated the test at least 4 times :-s.Interesting.
I just conducted the experiment on my 6686 and my 4605 and got the opposite results you reported (pics to come).
I repeated it twice with the same result.
I cleaned both crystals with alcohol-free lens cleaner, then deposited a single drop of water from ~1cm using a drinking straw.
The flame-fusion crystal yielded a strong bead, while the mineral crystal of the 4605 did not. The droplet instantly "flattened-out" on the latter.
As far as I know, the 6686 does not have an external AR coating.
Can you think of any other sources of error for your test? Not pointing the finger, just sayin'...
Also, "flame fusion" tells you nothing about the actual coating, and who's to say there's only one coating. The term "flame fusion" might be a catch-all for whatever flavor of coating they're using this week :-d.
What? Cyclops' are held on with adhesive, and that's what reacts to the heat and allows them to be removed. I don't understand what this is telling you besides that maybe Invicta uses a type of adhesive that is not as easily softened as that of other brands. It has basically nothing to do with the crystal's properties.As a counterpoint to the assumptions about flame-fusion hardness, I have read accounts (albeit online, anecdotal) of difficulty or inability to remove the cyclops from these crystals. This is the most telling comparison to mineral (in which the cyclops comes off easily with heat) and indication that some difference exists and that the difference is increased resilience.
and, again, who says they use only one type of adhesive? Maybe one of the adhesives is more resistant to heat? Or the person trying to remove the cyclops understandably had no idea how hot the crystal/cyclops was actually getting.What? Cyclops' are held on with adhesive, and that's what reacts to the heat and allows them to be removed. I don't understand what this is telling you besides that maybe Invicta uses a type of adhesive that is not as easily softened as that of other brands. It has basically nothing to do with the crystal's properties.
Valid. Valid.
Invicta could use different glue on flame-fusion crystals than they do on the mineral or sapphire ones (midshipman, I wasn't just comparing cyclops removal to other brands. I was comparing it to other Invictas). I considered this, but I discounted it and didn't mention it because it seems unlikely to me.
And, yes, it's completely possible that the people didn't know what they were doing - human error. They did claim to be following instructions previously posted, which seem pretty straightforward. One claimed to have performed it several times prior on mineral and sapphire crystals. Again, just anecdotes, nothing conclusive or statistically significant.
Invicta could use different glue on flame-fusion crystals than they do on the mineral or sapphire ones (midshipman, I wasn't just comparing cyclops removal to other brands. I was comparing it to other Invictas). I considered this, but I discounted it and didn't mention it because it seems unlikely to me.
And, yes, it's completely possible that the people didn't know what they were doing - human error. They did claim to be following instructions previously posted, which seem pretty straightforward. One claimed to have performed it several times prior on mineral and sapphire crystals. Again, just anecdotes, nothing conclusive or statistically significant.
and, again, who says they use only one type of adhesive? Maybe one of the adhesives is more resistant to heat? Or the person trying to remove the cyclops understandably had no idea how hot the crystal/cyclops was actually getting.
it really just leaves open the question what flame fusion is. I dont think I'd go much out of my way for it.:think:Valid. Valid.
Invicta could use different glue on flame-fusion crystals than they do on the mineral or sapphire ones (midshipman, I wasn't just comparing cyclops removal to other brands. I was comparing it to other Invictas). I considered this, but I discounted it and didn't mention it because it seems unlikely to me.
And, yes, it's completely possible that the people didn't know what they were doing - human error. They did claim to be following instructions previously posted, which seem pretty straightforward. One claimed to have performed it several times prior on mineral and sapphire crystals. Again, just anecdotes, nothing conclusive or statistically significant.
Agreed. But I'd say the same about sapphire. $10-$15. More than that is gouging.
Take Getat for example - $15 to upgrade to sapphire, 44mm case-size.
Take Getat for example - $15 to upgrade to sapphire, 44mm case-size.
it really just leaves open the question what flame fusion is. I dont think I'd go much out of my way for it.:think:
I don't know how much more I'd be willing to pay for sapphire, but yes more than $15. The reason I'd pay more is that it's worlds apart from mineral in terms of scratch resistance. Of course it would depend on the cost of the watch.Agreed. But I'd say the same about sapphire. $10-$15. More than that is gouging.
Take Getat for example - $15 to upgrade to sapphire, 44mm case-size.
Flame fushion is a mineral crystal with sapphire coating. While I don't know what exactly comprises "sapphire coating", the crystal itself is just mineral. And I still don't see what cyclops removal has to do with anything.
He probably also has less profit margin on the sapphire upgrade than he does on the standard mineral...which makes sense, because if he's making anything at all on the upgrade, then it's worth doing. Pricing it lower only gets more upgrade orders, and he uses this same tactic with his good straps which cost $7 as an upgrade, but $30 seperately. With that in mind, we might be able to infer that his sapphire actually costs closer to $30.
And finally, his sapphires are generally not domed, they certainly aren't double domed, nor do they have cyclops', nor are they very thick, nor do they have AR or double AR, nor do they likely come from a high quality source. All of these things add to the price of the "higher quality" crystals that cost more, and make the $40-$60 you see regularly seem perfectly reasonable.
I don't like the logic that says since Getat charges $15 to upgrade to sapphire, that this means sapphire crystals are worth no more than $15. For one, if you do this upgrade, you're still paying for the mineral crystal that he didn't install because the upgrade price is added to the original price. So, that's another $10 or whatever right there attributed to the sapphire upgrade. We could infer that this sapphire likely costs at least $20-25 per because of that, and he's buying bulk compared to what you or I might order for ourselves.Agreed. But I'd say the same about sapphire. $10-$15. More than that is gouging.
Take Getat for example - $15 to upgrade to sapphire, 44mm case-size.
He probably also has less profit margin on the sapphire upgrade than he does on the standard mineral...which makes sense, because if he's making anything at all on the upgrade, then it's worth doing. Pricing it lower only gets more upgrade orders, and he uses this same tactic with his good straps which cost $7 as an upgrade, but $30 seperately. With that in mind, we might be able to infer that his sapphire actually costs closer to $30.
And finally, his sapphires are generally not domed, they certainly aren't double domed, nor do they have cyclops', nor are they very thick, nor do they have AR or double AR, nor do they likely come from a high quality source. All of these things add to the price of the "higher quality" crystals that cost more, and make the $40-$60 you see regularly seem perfectly reasonable.
It just means something is different. It could mean that the "sapphire coating" is applied after the cyclops, like some AR coatings. The difference is significant because the implication of the OP is that flame-fusion is no different than mineral, as indicated by their shared hydrophilicity.Flame fushion is a mineral crystal with sapphire coating. While I don't know what exactly comprises "sapphire coating", the crystal itself is just mineral. And I still don't see what cyclops removal has to do with anything.
Since I gave the example of an upgrade, you could have inferred that I meant $10-$15 incremental value, not absolute material cost.I don't like the logic that says since Getat charges $15 to upgrade to sapphire, that this means sapphire crystals are worth no more than $15. For one, if you do this upgrade, you're still paying for the mineral crystal that he didn't install because the upgrade price is added to the original price. So, that's another $10 or whatever right there attributed to the sapphire upgrade. We could infer that this sapphire likely costs at least $20-25 per because of that, and he's buying bulk compared to what you or I might order for ourselves.
He probably also has less profit margin on the sapphire upgrade than he does on the standard mineral...which makes sense, because if he's making anything at all on the upgrade, then it's worth doing. Pricing it lower only gets more upgrade orders, and he uses this same tactic with his good straps which cost $7 as an upgrade, but $30 seperately. With that in mind, we might be able to infer that his sapphire actually costs closer to $30.
And finally, his sapphires are generally not domed, they certainly aren't double domed, nor do they have cyclops', nor are they very thick, nor do they have AR or double AR, nor do they likely come from a high quality source. All of these things add to the price of the "higher quality" crystals that cost more, and make the $40-$60 you see regularly seem perfectly reasonable.
And yes, when you add attributes, the value increases, as do the costs.
Your tone seems to indicate disagreement, but you basically confirmed what I said: upgrade to sapphire from mineral is worth $10-$15. Any more than that and you better be getting AR, dome/cyclops, thickness/WR or it's gouging.
That's the amount I figure sapphire is worth to me. Funny how that's the amount it is :-dAll of these things add to the price of the "higher quality" crystals that cost more, and make the $40-$60 you see regularly seem perfectly reasonable.
21 - 40 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.
WatchUSeek Watch Forums
A forum community dedicated to watch owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about watch collections, displays, watch winders, accessories, classifieds, and more! We welcome all manufacturers including Casio G-Shock, OMEGA, Rolex, Breitling, Rolex and Tudor, Seiko, Grand Seiko and others.
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Russ1965
3015 Replies
bigclive2011
1675 Replies
Nokie
1627 Replies
Recommended Communities
