Invicta's Flame Fusion Crystal & the Water Drop Test

102834 Views 56 Replies 17 Participants Last post by mystic nerd, Oct 16, 2017

Sean779

Discussion Starter · Aug 4, 2010

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 :-!.

41 - 57 of 57 Posts

Sean779

Discussion Starter · #41 · Aug 9, 2010

jb_diver_buyer said:
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.

You keep pushing my very limited experiment into more significance than it deserves. I've not dealt with implications--why would I want flame fusion to fail, I'm praying for a miracle product, I can deal with scratches anywhere on the watch but not on the crystal?--I just don't want to get excited or waste money on a couple of glitzy words.

Also, you really need to rephrase this: "The difference is significant because the implication of the OP is that flame-fusion is no different than mineral."

The only implication I made is that the water drop test, for me, behaved differently on sapphire and flame fusion. I made no other claims.

Sean779

Discussion Starter · #42 · Aug 9, 2010

jb_diver_buyer said:
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.

You keep pushing my very limited experiment into more significance than it deserves. I've not dealt with implications--why would I want flame fusion to fail--I just don't want to get excited or waste money on a couple of glitzy words, which some members are doing.

jb_diver_buyer

· #43 · Aug 9, 2010

:-d
I'm not trying to push anything.

He asked why I mentioned the cyclops removal. I was just trying to explain by connecting it to your original post, where you said the water droplet flattened out like it would on mineral. The implication is that flame fusion is the same as mineral. I didn't say you stated it. It was implied, thus, an implication.

Sean779 said:
You keep pushing my very limited experiment into more significance than it deserves. I've not dealt with implications--why would I want flame fusion to fail--I just don't want to get excited or waste money on a couple of glitzy words, which some members are doing.

Sean779

Discussion Starter · #44 · Aug 9, 2010

jb_diver_buyer said:
:-d
I'm not trying to push anything.

He asked why I mentioned the cyclops removal. I was just trying to explain by connecting it to your original post, where you said the water droplet flattened out like it would on mineral. The implication is that flame fusion is the same as mineral. I didn't say you stated it. It was implied, thus, an implication.

yes i suppose :-d

scm64

· #45 · Aug 10, 2010

Wow this thread is still going? :-d

I'm going feel comfortable assuming that "Flame Fusion" holds as much credibility as most everything else they claim. :roll:

jb_diver_buyer

· #46 · Aug 10, 2010

scm64 said:
I'm going feel comfortable assuming that "Flame Fusion" holds as much credibility as most everything else they claim. :roll:

:-! Well-said. :-d

omegaor

· #47 · Aug 10, 2010 (Edited)

You're right, there was alot of good and solid information in this thread to refute those flame fusion claims( the water drop test and the finger drag on the crystal). What about the spit adhesion test?

Sean779

Discussion Starter · #48 · Aug 10, 2010

yeah I think it was ok thread. I got some more info about flame fusion. This was important to me because I'd much rather have sapphire than mineral. Hello...mineral scratches, sapphire does not. If flame fusion was close to sapphire I'd take it. Really I'm in the same position before I started this thread I wouldn't buy an Invicta based on flame fusion, not for more than $5 extra. No one likes to be milked and Invicta is not upfront about this whoop dee doo coating, what it does. Why wouldn't we assume it does nothing but empty our wallets?

Sean779

Discussion Starter · #49 · Aug 10, 2010

yeah I think it was ok thread. I got some more info about flame fusion. This was important to me because I'd much rather have sapphire than mineral. Hello...mineral scratches, sapphire does not. If flame fusion was close to sapphire I'd take it. Really I'm in the same position before I started this thread I wouldn't buy an Invicta based on flame fusion, not for more than $5 extra. No one likes to be milked and Invicta is not upfront about this whoop dee doo coating, what it does. Why wouldn't we assume it does nothing but empty our wallets?

omegaor

· #50 · Aug 10, 2010 (Edited)

What exactly is a hardlex crystal? Seems like a veiled description of maybe something better than mineral but not as good as sapphire. Sound familiar? I happen to believe that flame fusion is better than mineral based on my experience with both, but would I rather have sapphire? Of course

OnTimeGabe

· #51 · Aug 10, 2010

omegaor said:
What exactly is a hardlex crystal? Seems like a veiled description of maybe something better than mineral but not as good as sapphire. Sound familiar? I happen to believe that flame fusion is better than mineral based on my experience with both, but would I rather have sapphire? Of course

What's "veiled" about it? It's Seiko's brand name for chemically strengthened borosilicate glass. Ikuo Tokanaga discussed the subject on the SCWF years ago:

SCWF Mirror : Explanation about the materials of watch glass (Tokunaga, 2002-11-20, message 1037842045)

Other watch companies have similar products, and it can be found in all sorts of lenses and other optics. Hardened mineral glass is not some sort of revolutionary product, nor does Seiko hype it as such.

jb_diver_buyer

· #52 · Aug 10, 2010

It's "veiled" because they are using a nonintuitive trade name to disguise the fact that it is just mineral crystal.

"Unveiled" would be saying "mineral crystal" like everyone else.

How can you possibly argue otherwise? It's a textbook example of "veiling" in marketing.

No, Seiko doesn't hype it as being something else. But they don't explain what it is, either. The leave it "veiled" in mystery, leaving the consumer to guess. At least Invicta openly explains and informs the consumer as to what it is (add your favorite anecdote about mislabeling or misspeaking of tv salesman here).

You are right in your observation that everyone does this, and not just with watches, with all products.

OnTimeGabe said:
What's "veiled" about it? It's Seiko's brand name for chemically strengthened borosilicate glass. Ikuo Tokanaga discussed the subject on the SCWF years ago:

SCWF Mirror : Explanation about the materials of watch glass (Tokunaga, 2002-11-20, message 1037842045)

Other watch companies have similar products, and it can be found in all sorts of lenses and other optics. Hardened mineral glass is not some sort of revolutionary product, nor does Seiko hype it as such.

OnTimeGabe

· #53 · Aug 10, 2010 (Edited)

Yes, Hardlex is a made up name used for marketing purposes, much like Lumibrite or Super Luminova. I guess it's a matter of opinion whether that is meant to fool the customer. All you can really gather from the name is that it's 'hard', which makes sense as it's mineral glass that has undergone chemical hardening. I don't know of Seiko ever comparing it to anything but untreated mineral crystals, and Tokunaga openly stated long ago that "Sapphire is better than Hardlex":

Seiko & Citizen Forum: I think we'll see it eventually....(also info about sapphire in the 1000M)

The thing about flame fusion is that it's a real process, otherwise known as the Verneuil process, and it's one way that you make synthetic sapphires. If that's what Invicta was doing, the result would be a sapphire crystal, but they don't call it that. After quite a bit of searching, this is all I could find from Invicta explaining what their crystals are. Unless you know of something more, I guess this is what you would consider Invicta openly explaining everything:

Flame Fusion
Invicta has boldly stepped into the fire and re-emerged with yet another technical achievement. Now being featuring in Invicta watches is our latest Trademark for synthetic crystals, Flame Fusion. In a process utilizing high heat, high pressure and an Aluminum Oxide combination, the mineral (glass) and Sapphire properties are fused together. This unique fusion of the two materials results in the impact resistance of a standard mineral crystal and offers the scratch resistance of the Sapphire. Flame Fusion is one more way in which Invicta continues to set new, superior standards, making our timepieces the exception to any rule.

Notice that the are careful not to say that they've patented a new process, rather they've just trademarked the name Flame Fusion. And the actual Verneuil/flame fusion process is not something where "mineral (glass) and Sapphire properties are fused together". What the heck does that even mean? Again, they don't say that actual mineral crystal and sapphire are fused, but that their "properties" are. :-s But the bottom line here is that it's not a sapphire created by the actual flame fusion process, or else they would call it that. It's apparently mineral glass that has undergone heat treatment to give it "the scratch resistance of the sapphire". Like others have said, it sounds like Seiko's Sapphlex once you strip away all the "stepped into the fire" BS (and that product didn't exactly set the watch world on fire). Ultimately we're left to either simply believe Invicta's claim that it's as scratch resistant as sapphire, or rely on anecdotal evidence of people saying it scratched or didn't scratch depending on what surfaces it came into contact with.

I really don't care what Invicta calls these crystals, and I'm quite sure that the average buyer doesn't really care how they're made. I guess if they're really the technical achievement that Invicta claims they are, the rest of the watch world will follow their lead. Or maybe it's just more marketing hype from a company known for hyperbole in their marketing.

jb_diver_buyer said:
It's "veiled" because they are using a nonintuitive trade name to disguise the fact that it is just mineral crystal.

"Unveiled" would be saying "mineral crystal" like everyone else.

How can you possibly argue otherwise? It's a textbook example of "veiling" in marketing.

No, Seiko doesn't hype it as being something else. But they don't explain what it is, either. The leave it "veiled" in mystery, leaving the consumer to guess. At least Invicta openly explains and informs the consumer as to what it is (add your favorite anecdote about mislabeling or misspeaking of tv salesman here).

You are right in your observation that everyone does this, and not just with watches, with all products.

See less See more

Reactions: 1

omegaor

· #54 · Aug 10, 2010

My guess is that it's better than some think but not quite as good as some hope.

Sean779

Discussion Starter · #55 · Aug 10, 2010

OnTimeGabe said:
Yes, Hardlex is a made up name used for marketing purposes, much like Lumibrite or Super Luminova. I guess it's a matter of opinion whether that is meant to fool the customer. All you can really gather from the name is that it's 'hard', which makes sense as it's mineral glass that has undergone chemical hardening. I don't know of Seiko ever comparing it to anything but untreated mineral crystals, and Tokunaga openly stated long ago that "Sapphire is better than Hardlex":

Seiko & Citizen Forum: I think we'll see it eventually....(also info about sapphire in the 1000M)

The thing about flame fusion is that it's a real process, otherwise known as the Verneuil process, and it's one way that you make synthetic sapphires. If that's what Invicta was doing, the result would be a sapphire crystal, but they don't call it that. After quite a bit of searching, this is all I could find from Invicta explaining what their crystals are. Unless you know of something more, I guess this is what you would consider Invicta openly explaining everything:

Flame Fusion
Invicta has boldly stepped into the fire and re-emerged with yet another technical achievement. Now being featuring in Invicta watches is our latest Trademark for synthetic crystals, Flame Fusion. In a process utilizing high heat, high pressure and an Aluminum Oxide combination, the mineral (glass) and Sapphire properties are fused together. This unique fusion of the two materials results in the impact resistance of a standard mineral crystal and offers the scratch resistance of the Sapphire. Flame Fusion is one more way in which Invicta continues to set new, superior standards, making our timepieces the exception to any rule.

Notice that the are careful not to say that they've patented a new process, rather they've just trademarked the name Flame Fusion. And the actual Verneuil/flame fusion process is not something where "mineral (glass) and Sapphire properties are fused together". What the heck does that even mean? Again, they don't say that actual mineral crystal and sapphire are fused, but that their "properties" are. :-s But the bottom line here is that it's not a sapphire created by the actual flame fusion process, or else they would call it that. It's apparently mineral glass that has undergone heat treatment to give it "the scratch resistance of the sapphire". Like others have said, it sounds like Seiko's Sapphlex once you strip away all the "stepped into the fire" BS (and that product didn't exactly set the watch world on fire). Ultimately we're left to either simply believe Invicta's claim that it's as scratch resistant as sapphire, or rely on anecdotal evidence of people saying it scratched or didn't scratch depending on what surfaces it came into contact with.

I really don't care what Invicta calls these crystals, and I'm quite sure that the average buyer doesn't really care how they're made. I guess if they're really the technical achievement that Invicta claims they are, the rest of the watch world will follow their lead. Or maybe it's just more marketing hype from a company known for hyperbole in their marketing.

That was terrific, and definitive. Well, as definitive as we can get with a company whose answers breed questions. (Why were you holding out on us? :-d)

"Invicta has boldly stepped into the fire and re-emerged with yet another technical achievement"

Yes I can really see that: David Copperfield in Las Vegas deftly passing through the fiery hoop...magic!

adswuk

· #56 · Jan 8, 2013

I read this thread with interest , and unless I missed it we have missed one part of the comparison... color ...

Sapphire quality that also varies is reflected in the color you see when looked from the edge ( which most watches have an ability to show ,some more than others ) the color of good grade Sapphire is extremely white in fact a very very small tint of pink in the highest grade . When the grade of crystal reduces or mineral is used the color gets more and more green .. Mineral is visibly green from the edge look at any watch with it fitted . Sapphire cost 15 times more than mineral to make . It may be 1 Dollar V 15 but it is still 15 times more

Invictas Flame Fusion is pure green .... My case rests ... Its mineral glass with a unknown name of manufacture applied just look at the watches

Due to light refraction Glass is green , Sapphire Crystal is white .. No watch with any real value uses a "Mineral Crystal "... Invicta uses "Mineral Crystal" or in easy terms ... Glass

With regards to scratching ... How bad is you car windsheild after 100000 miles of sand grit and rubber running across it ? So all glass is better than plastic but on a watch there is no beating good quality Sapphire

See less See more

mystic nerd

· #57 · Oct 16, 2017

A friend at work has an Invicta Pro Diver watch (ladies, I believe). While most Invictas claim a mineral crystal, the Pro Divers I've looked into have a "flame fusion" crystal.

The crystal on that woman's watch is probably the worst scuffed and scratched of any I've seen. The surface is completely pockmarked with tiny depressions. She says she's worn it daily for about two years, banging it around on a metal desk and against her other jewelry.

I would trust Invicta's mineral crystals to be as claimed. I'm not going for "flame fusion".

41 - 57 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.