What has your experience been like with mineral crystals?

It seems nowadays(and for good reason) Sapphire crystal on a watch has been the go to for it's excellent scratch resistant properties. I was doing my usual spiel of looking at watches I cannot afford and I came across this little charming watch, the (Takes a deep breath)"Hamilton Khaki Aviation Pilot Pioneer Mechanical In White".

I looked at some videos and some online discussions on it and one of the most brought-up points about the watch is that it has a mineral crystal. Some were accusing Hamilton of "cheaping out" by using a "lower" grade crystal, others said looking through mineral glass gives a "warmer" look to the dial.

I would be very interested to know your thoughts and opinions on it, plus owners of mineral-crystal dial watches - how have they held up? Are they horrifically scratched up?

Cheers

Reply
·

I have the original black-dial version, and I must say that both sides of the argument are right. Mineral does scratch up far easier than sapphire. Mineral does look clearer than sapphire. 

Image

Now - here's my take on this. I adored this watch the moment I put it on. All my reservations about mineral crystal went out of the window. Fortunately, I have a lifestyle that means I don't put my watches in too much danger, and I have beater watches for the tough jobs. And if something unexpected happens, I can always get the crystal replaced at the next service. But luckily for me, I've kept mine pretty scratch-free so far. 

I've never been swayed by peoples' opinions about my choices. They're my choices. In the end, its up to you. 

·

Haven't really had much issue with my Seiko and Citizen watches with mineral crystal scratching.

·

I got a Timex Marlin with a gorgeous domed mineral crystal. It was given to me a few months ago and it gets some scratches for sure but polywatch gets them out. It has a great look to it that I can’t get over. I still prefer sapphire on most of my purchases but I guess I see value in a nice mineral crystal too. 

·

My ~25 year old Casio chrono got dragged across a brick wall or something half a dozen years ago. I was not as informed as I am now (pro-tip: a friggin round crystal can be replaced pretty cheaply) so I tried, based on my experience with the wonders of acrylic, evening it out with fine grade sandpaper. This just made more scratches. The whole face is littered with fine lines. But it fits in with the beating visible on the rest of the watch and it's sufficiently legible. I wore it yesterday. 

Oh, I didn't notice any real marring in the first ~20 years. Then again, I'm not some anal-retentive type that expects items to nevert show wear. My two Hardlexy watches are only a few years old and AFAIK they are unscratched. Both have case wear, so they haven't been perfectly coddled

·

My 45-year-old Seiko is now on its (I think) fourth crystal due to scratching and (mostly) cracks.  That seems to be a weakness of box crystals; they don’t tolerate edge hits well.

·

I wore my save the ocean turtle daily for 3-4 years before I got more into watches and the crystal still looks brand new.

·

I have many watches with mineral crystals and I've never really had an issue.  If it does get scratched and it bothers me, I have the crystal replaced when the watch gets serviced.

·

I've scratched the mineral crystal on every watch that has it. 

I'm pretty sure the Hamilton has an acrylic crystal, which can be polished. Mineral crystal can't be polished when it scratches. 

·
KristianG

I've scratched the mineral crystal on every watch that has it. 

I'm pretty sure the Hamilton has an acrylic crystal, which can be polished. Mineral crystal can't be polished when it scratches. 

The spec on Hamilton's website listed the crystal as mineral.

Link here: https://www.hamiltonwatch.com/en-int/h76419941-khaki-aviation-pioneer-mechanical.html

·
Bill_Martin

The spec on Hamilton's website listed the crystal as mineral.

Link here: https://www.hamiltonwatch.com/en-int/h76419941-khaki-aviation-pioneer-mechanical.html

I'd avoid it. 

There is no excuse for a $800+ watch to have a cheap crystal. 

·

While I always prefer sapphire, a wise man once told me a simple truth: Gshock uses mineral crystal. 
 

Food for thought. 

·

It’s a nice to have, but not a deal breaker for an affordable watch. Once you get in to the upper echelon it should be sapphire.

·
Donster_125

While I always prefer sapphire, a wise man once told me a simple truth: Gshock uses mineral crystal. 
 

Food for thought. 

Mineral crystal doesn't shatter, but it scratches. In a $60 G-Shock it's excusable, in a dressy retro pilot's watch its cutting corners. 

Hamilton should have gone acrylic if they wanted a "warm" look. 

·

Seiko's proprietary Hardlex crystals seem to hold up pretty well. I have an older Samurai with one and it doesn't have a scratch on it. That watch has taken a fair number of knocks, too. There is a noticeable difference in the clarity of the crystal versus my other watches that have sapphire though. Personally, that's the main reason why I prefer sapphire these days.

·

I think these watches should absolutely have sapphire. There's no real aesthetic or practical benefit to mineral crystal truly... and at that price point I do think it's a shame. Citizen and Bulova do this regularly with watches priced at 300-700, cheaps out on the movement 

·
Fieldwalker

My 20 year old seiko monster has a new looking scratch free mineral crystal... despite the case looking like it's been laying on a freeway for those same 20 years.

so my 0.02 is that it's as good as any sapphire.  Of course my sample size is 1 watch, so I might have the worlds best example of the species in my watch.

Image

Lovely watch!

·
TalkingDugong

They're alright. Just take care of your watch and you'll be with your crystal for quite sometime. 

Mind you, as someone who bumps, dings and drags their watches everywhere on account of being clumsy I wish there's something that have the best qualities of sapphire and acrylic/mineral crystals. No scratch and no cracks ho! 

Gies and sobs in the corner

I'm basically "Captain Clumsy" :P it's a good thing the watches I have have sapphire crystals and brushed steel cases - It hides the abuse better!

·
SurferJohn

I have many watches with mineral crystals and I've never really had an issue.  If it does get scratched and it bothers me, I have the crystal replaced when the watch gets serviced.

Thanks for the reply, you got me thinking: Have you ever swapped to a different type of crystal on a watch?

·
Richierich

I have the original black-dial version, and I must say that both sides of the argument are right. Mineral does scratch up far easier than sapphire. Mineral does look clearer than sapphire. 

Image

Now - here's my take on this. I adored this watch the moment I put it on. All my reservations about mineral crystal went out of the window. Fortunately, I have a lifestyle that means I don't put my watches in too much danger, and I have beater watches for the tough jobs. And if something unexpected happens, I can always get the crystal replaced at the next service. But luckily for me, I've kept mine pretty scratch-free so far. 

I've never been swayed by peoples' opinions about my choices. They're my choices. In the end, its up to you. 

Wow, that black one really pops! I also thought about what you said about lifestyle, I'm fairly active and usually adventuring(and just straight up a clumsy individual :P ) so there is an increased chance of banging my watch into anything.

·

Sapphire is High scratch resistance, Acrylic is Easy to repair.

Mineral is the worst of both, having a lower scratch resistance and being harder to repair.

Sapphire > Acrylic > > > > > > Mineral for most situations.

Swap Sapphire and Acrylic for traditional look/feel.

·
Richierich

I have the original black-dial version, and I must say that both sides of the argument are right. Mineral does scratch up far easier than sapphire. Mineral does look clearer than sapphire. 

Image

Now - here's my take on this. I adored this watch the moment I put it on. All my reservations about mineral crystal went out of the window. Fortunately, I have a lifestyle that means I don't put my watches in too much danger, and I have beater watches for the tough jobs. And if something unexpected happens, I can always get the crystal replaced at the next service. But luckily for me, I've kept mine pretty scratch-free so far. 

I've never been swayed by peoples' opinions about my choices. They're my choices. In the end, its up to you. 

Mineral does scratch up far easier than sapphire. Mineral does look clearer than sapphire. 

Yes, it is essentially that for me. I personally don't mind that much either way with my current lifestyle, but a mineral crystal looks definitely clearer. 

·
Bill_Martin

Except, as Teddy Baldassarre pointed out in his video on the 7 myths in watch collecting, sapphire is the hardest material to work with and the look of a sapphire glass is not the same as mineral glass, which Teddy describes as "clear and vivid" and look like "you're getting a sapphire crystal with double AR coating" and that it's "kind of has a nice middle ground between that of an old-school acrylic while also getting some of the just clear visibility that comes with a sapphire", and that it's "almost a combination of those two".

I'll put his video here if you want to check out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVE247JSW9Q

Over the last couple of decades I've worn enough watches with mineral crystals to know that they scratch, which does more to ruin the clarity and warmth of a watch than sapphire crystal does. 

Hamilton using mineral on an $800 watch is Hamilton being cheap. Teddy Baldassare sells watches with mineral crystal, he can't exactly come out at say it's a cheap and inferior crystal compared to sapphire. 

·
DancingWatch

Thanks for the reply, you got me thinking: Have you ever swapped to a different type of crystal on a watch?

Normally, I replace the crystal in kind.  I did put a sapphire swap from Yabokies in one of my Seiko divers (Monster) back in the day.

·

Depends on price bracket I feel. Mineral on $800 watch? No. Acrylic on $8000 watch? N.O. 

·
KristianG

Over the last couple of decades I've worn enough watches with mineral crystals to know that they scratch, which does more to ruin the clarity and warmth of a watch than sapphire crystal does. 

Hamilton using mineral on an $800 watch is Hamilton being cheap. Teddy Baldassare sells watches with mineral crystal, he can't exactly come out at say it's a cheap and inferior crystal compared to sapphire. 

But the idea that sapphire glass is always the choice is pretty much a myth as this is not the be-all end-all of watch crystal, similar to organic foods.

·
KristianG

Over the last couple of decades I've worn enough watches with mineral crystals to know that they scratch, which does more to ruin the clarity and warmth of a watch than sapphire crystal does. 

Hamilton using mineral on an $800 watch is Hamilton being cheap. Teddy Baldassare sells watches with mineral crystal, he can't exactly come out at say it's a cheap and inferior crystal compared to sapphire. 

If that were the case, then how can CWC get away doing the same thing on their Mark 1 Royal Navy Diver Issue Spec quartz dive watch at around 550 British pounds? (Hint: the "Issue Spec" part of the name imply that this is a watch made to the specification of Britain's Ministry of Defence from 1990, which probably including that mineral glass should be used)

https://www.cwcwatch.com/collections/divers-watches/products/cwc-royal-navy-issue-divers-watch?variant=39756971606102

·
BadR0b0t

Sapphire is High scratch resistance, Acrylic is Easy to repair.

Mineral is the worst of both, having a lower scratch resistance and being harder to repair.

Sapphire > Acrylic > > > > > > Mineral for most situations.

Swap Sapphire and Acrylic for traditional look/feel.

But sapphire is the hardest material on the Mohs hardness scale at number 9, and the harder the material, the more brittle it become, therefore, it's not ideal for every situation. As for acrylic, it's been already said so I won't repeat it.

·

Most of my watches have flat mineral crystals. One that was worn daily for 10+ years has a few scratches that aren't noticeable unless you are looking for them (the SS bracelet, on the other hand, looks like it has been through a war). The others, with less daily wear, are pristine.

There are pros and cons to each material. As an aviation watch, the shattering and reflection of sapphire may have been what ruled it out on the Hamilton.

Acrylic bends without breaking (making it very shatter resistant - which is why NASA spec'd it for the Apollo missions - they didn't want pieces of glass or shards of sapphire floating around a capsule), scratches easily, and can be polished easily with standard PolyWatch... and is cheap to replace. It is usually domed and not as clear as flat glass, but is "warm."

Mineral glass also does not shatter in the same manner as sapphire (it bends and cracks rather than shattering into shards), scratches, and can be polished with more difficulty with PolyWatch glass polish... and is typically inexpensive to replace. It is clear and doesn't need AR coating.

Sapphire is extremely difficult to scratch, but is brittle and can shatter into shards under heavy impact. It also has a very high index of refraction, virtually requiring an AR coating due to reflection (and outer AR coating can scratch like mineral glass). It is more expensive to replace. AR coating can give it a "cool" tone (bluish).

·
Bill_Martin

But sapphire is the hardest material on the Mohs hardness scale at number 9, and the harder the material, the more brittle it become, therefore, it's not ideal for every situation. As for acrylic, it's been already said so I won't repeat it.

For the situation in question (a watch crystal), I'd take sapphire over mineral every time. 

If every manufacturer gave their customers a choice of crystal material with every watch, I suspect most people would agree with me.

Others will disagree of course, and there are plenty of watches out there for mineral lovers too.

p.s. Acrylic doesnt get enough love imo, everyone should own one and experience how good it actually is!

·
Bill_Martin

If that were the case, then how can CWC get away doing the same thing on their Mark 1 Royal Navy Diver Issue Spec quartz dive watch at around 550 British pounds? (Hint: the "Issue Spec" part of the name imply that this is a watch made to the specification of Britain's Ministry of Defence from 1990, which probably including that mineral glass should be used)

https://www.cwcwatch.com/collections/divers-watches/products/cwc-royal-navy-issue-divers-watch?variant=39756971606102

Mineral crystal is used in dive watches because it is less likely to shatter when struck, and back when the specs were written it was considered good enough. 

The Marathon GSAR, made to Canadian and US military specs uses sapphire crystal... 

If you're a professional diver there is a solid case for mineral crystal, but for a daily wear watch it is inferior to sapphire.