Modern Vintage Watches...crystal matters
I write a lot about modern vintage inspired watches. Seeing as the top two contenders in this year's #microtournament were Baltic and Lorier, I figured I would write a bit about the topic of crystals which comes up a lot with these brands and other similar ones.
A thing I see a lot in posts when it comes to Lorier and Baltic is "But why do they use acrylic crystals? Shouldn't we get sapphire at that price?". And then people start comparing watches that have sapphire vs ones that don't as if that is what makes one better than the other. Well, let me tell you, IMO there is no perfect crystal out there, only the one you're willing to pay for.
Acrylic crystals are inexpensive yes, but they are also very easy to make in that beautiful box-shape. This shape is very classic looking and a big part of the look of vintage-inspired watches. The profile is not simple, it is flat-ish on the top with curved edges:
The pic in the title is the side profile of a Baltic MR01, which comes with an acrylic crystal. And it's not just the side that looks beautiful, it's the front as well:
So why don't they just make this Sapphire?! Well, has anyone noticed most sapphire crystals on inexpensive or similar priced watches are flat or double domed? That's because sapphire is harder to work with (literally). A sapphire crystal is about 8X the price for a box shaped crystal compared to acrylic or mineral glass. Flat sapphire or even double domed sapphire crystals can cost about $20-60 for the one part. But what is called "box shaped" sapphire can cost about $100-150 dollars a-piece.
Look at Kuoe watches as an example. Their 90-002 base model is around $400 with a mineral crystal. It's an additional $138 to get it with sapphire! To the point I actually think one day I'll buy one and replace the crystal myself with you know what? Acrylic!
Like I said, this box-shape is an essential part of vintage inspired looks. Doing it with acrylic is not only practical and true to form, it is also far less expensive. Acrylic is easily polished and it has been used in watches for a century before synthetic sapphire came to the market. It does not need AR treatment either. The maintenance costs, as long as it's a typical size, are also negligible compared to the watch price. Is it perfect? Of course not. But are any of these watches perfect?! Well, I think the Neptune is pretty close IMHO:
Other things to consider with crystals is the fact their practicality comes down to the use-case. Acrylic scratches but does not shatter. Sapphire does not scratch but does shatter. Acrylic is far lighter and less reflective. Sapphire weighs more and distorts more. Mineral crystal is an in-between of both. The list can go on and on.
Microbrands are funny to shop around sometimes, because on one end you can get a lot of good specs for a lot less money than mainstream brands. But on the other hand, sometimes you're not just paying for materials, you're paying for a design that is unique, and at that point materials might be based on cost+looks, not just cost+specs. Even Omega still makes Speedy's with Hesalite crystals!
Looks are subjective of course, but material properties, manufacturing costs, and market supply/demand pricing are not. In this OP's humble opinion, we would all do best to focus more on how we use the watches we buy, and how they make us feel vs what they are made out of.
Have fun out there you fellow modern-vintage lovers!
P.S. Sapphire, though very hard, can and will scratch. It will never buff out, it costs a lot to replace. If you're really banging your watch around, you know the standard answer to this question...GShock. And guess what they use? Hint: it's not sapphire.
Well rounded nerd, into music, guitar pedals, all things DIY, and watches!
No lies detected.
Box top acrylic on my vintage inspired watch.
Too true on the G Shock front, mineral for most main line 😂.
Funny how it's the NUMBER ONE recommended watch for a beater...yet to me has the worst crystal.
Granted it is recessed so harder to catch on anything but a cinder block corner, or metal rod.
I'll argue in favor of acrylic as an end user all day long....
For what I intend my watch to see, on wrist, acrylic is less of a hassle.
From a brand or owner perspective it's more annoying. Cost is higher, since you need to be careful you don't crack the thing putting it on, have to use a good tension ring system, it scratches, etc. plus you need to dedicate resources to that style crystal.
Funny how that scratch thing comes up as the end all be all to why sapphire better. YMMV ALWAYS applies.
One of these days, I'm gonna run some blast overpressure tests on a two identical watches. One with sapphire, and one with acrylic. Sapphire being more rigid should hold up easier, but it won't flex as much when subjected to the short positive pressure wave, followed by the longer negative pressure wave.
Don't know how much if any difference it will make, but I'm curious.
On the reflection thing....
Well let's just say I'm working on my reflection measuring device/light box. I have some ideas, and have run some handheld tests...
But I want a modicum of repeatability, for science 😂.
Example, two pics for fairness, since the first pics on the sapphire was autofocus on the phone getting confused.
And here's flat sapphire, notice same issue with autofocus
Acrylic is king, by far my absolute favorite crystal material. I avoid mineral in any form, scratches far too easily. Sapphire is fine but it’s boring and shatters on impact. Acrylic has charm and it’s just so fun to look at. The thing with watches is that very few things come down to cold hard fact. Most watch buying decisions are completely emotional, what you enjoy vs what is actually useful. I don’t NEED a wristwatch, and if I did I’d only ever wear a gshock. I wear watches that bring me joy, so acrylic is my choice because it does just that.
Too true on the G Shock front, mineral for most main line 😂.
Funny how it's the NUMBER ONE recommended watch for a beater...yet to me has the worst crystal.
Granted it is recessed so harder to catch on anything but a cinder block corner, or metal rod.
I'll argue in favor of acrylic as an end user all day long....
For what I intend my watch to see, on wrist, acrylic is less of a hassle.
From a brand or owner perspective it's more annoying. Cost is higher, since you need to be careful you don't crack the thing putting it on, have to use a good tension ring system, it scratches, etc. plus you need to dedicate resources to that style crystal.
Funny how that scratch thing comes up as the end all be all to why sapphire better. YMMV ALWAYS applies.
One of these days, I'm gonna run some blast overpressure tests on a two identical watches. One with sapphire, and one with acrylic. Sapphire being more rigid should hold up easier, but it won't flex as much when subjected to the short positive pressure wave, followed by the longer negative pressure wave.
Don't know how much if any difference it will make, but I'm curious.
On the reflection thing....
Well let's just say I'm working on my reflection measuring device/light box. I have some ideas, and have run some handheld tests...
But I want a modicum of repeatability, for science 😂.
Example, two pics for fairness, since the first pics on the sapphire was autofocus on the phone getting confused.
And here's flat sapphire, notice same issue with autofocus
Are both variants readable? Yes.
The sapphire was definitely reflecting more, and getting blue halos, and other visual distortions compared to the acrylic.
Also on the explosive front, Elliot Brown did test their Holton Pro with up to 500g of plastic.
Which is why I recommend it to anyone and everyone who wants a "unit" watch, that's tough, and isn't digital.
It survived.
But they were testing literally everything. And I don't know exact positioning in relation to the blast waves front.
I'd be more interested in seeing failure point when the crystal is dead on the psi wave, or to the face as it were.
https://elliotbrownwatches.com/en-us/blogs/journal/is-holton-professional-bomb-proof
Too true on the G Shock front, mineral for most main line 😂.
Funny how it's the NUMBER ONE recommended watch for a beater...yet to me has the worst crystal.
Granted it is recessed so harder to catch on anything but a cinder block corner, or metal rod.
I'll argue in favor of acrylic as an end user all day long....
For what I intend my watch to see, on wrist, acrylic is less of a hassle.
From a brand or owner perspective it's more annoying. Cost is higher, since you need to be careful you don't crack the thing putting it on, have to use a good tension ring system, it scratches, etc. plus you need to dedicate resources to that style crystal.
Funny how that scratch thing comes up as the end all be all to why sapphire better. YMMV ALWAYS applies.
One of these days, I'm gonna run some blast overpressure tests on a two identical watches. One with sapphire, and one with acrylic. Sapphire being more rigid should hold up easier, but it won't flex as much when subjected to the short positive pressure wave, followed by the longer negative pressure wave.
Don't know how much if any difference it will make, but I'm curious.
On the reflection thing....
Well let's just say I'm working on my reflection measuring device/light box. I have some ideas, and have run some handheld tests...
But I want a modicum of repeatability, for science 😂.
Example, two pics for fairness, since the first pics on the sapphire was autofocus on the phone getting confused.
And here's flat sapphire, notice same issue with autofocus
Thanks for the insights! I didn't even mention how brands sometimes even "ruin" sapphire crystals...by adding AR to both sides! It does make for a beautiful look though 😉
Thanks for the insights! I didn't even mention how brands sometimes even "ruin" sapphire crystals...by adding AR to both sides! It does make for a beautiful look though 😉
Yup.
Which is why I get so perplexed at some who say: "For the love of Wildorf, THE SCRATCHES!"
Then turn around and go googly eyes over some Seamasters, Sinn's, Fortis', and Breitling (I think).
I mean double AR I pretty scratch proof but it will scratch, long before the sapphire does im guessing.
Yup.
Which is why I get so perplexed at some who say: "For the love of Wildorf, THE SCRATCHES!"
Then turn around and go googly eyes over some Seamasters, Sinn's, Fortis', and Breitling (I think).
I mean double AR I pretty scratch proof but it will scratch, long before the sapphire does im guessing.
The SMP is probably the most unknown of the bunch. And yes indeed, the top coating scratches, and yes it's visible in certain angles.
Thanks for the interesting info! ⭐️
Sapphire is almost a must for me. I'll deal with acrylic if I like the watch enough, but mineral is by far the worst option for me. I'll inevitably scratch it significantly, as I have with almost every watch I've had with mineral. Nowadays, if a watch I like has mineral, either I'm skipping it, or replacing it with a sapphire one.
Sapphire is essentially scratch-proof, and you'd have to give it some serious impact in order to shatter it.
If you're a lefty who wears his watches on the left wrist, like myself, sapphire not only saves your watches and saves you time and money in the long run.
Sapphire is almost a must for me. I'll deal with acrylic if I like the watch enough, but mineral is by far the worst option for me. I'll inevitably scratch it significantly, as I have with almost every watch I've had with mineral. Nowadays, if a watch I like has mineral, either I'm skipping it, or replacing it with a sapphire one.
Sapphire is essentially scratch-proof, and you'd have to give it some serious impact in order to shatter it.
If you're a lefty who wears his watches on the left wrist, like myself, sapphire not only saves your watches and saves you time and money in the long run.
The lefties wearing on the right hand & therefore closer to wall in most countries where traffic is on the right side of the hallway (or righties in opposite countries) is an overlooked aspect of watch ownership
I'll even double down lol....
Stupid thick*, no cyclops box, but with a bezel/insert combo that slopes down to the crystal, might be fun to try 😂. Better if oil filled, HAQ, bellows system to allow end user batt replacement. (If an oil combo doesn't eat thru the acrylic or something)
But it'd cost too much to be viable for me 😂. And prolly can't exist except for in Science Fiction..
👀🤏🏻🤔🤨😜
*Not to the point of bubble level unreadable mind you.
Great stuff! Thanks for the education!
I don't know, I think cost is always an issue. A Sellita movement is only about $100 more than an SII movement, yet as soon as a watch has Sellita in it the price goes up by $200-400. Even if you found a box Sapphire for $50 is that the average cost? Every design has its own dims and specs varying by fractions of a mm. Acrylic and mineral parts all cost well below $50, even below $20, on average, not as an exception is all I'm saying.
That said, markups also vary widely. Yes, every company could lower their margins and spend more on materials. But they won't do it because they all follow industry norms and the norms have general guidelines markups depending on the specs, name and design. The difference I think is not significant in low production numbers, but definitely in higher ones.
But yes, the shiny objects do look good either way. Just in different ways.
The sellita vs SII price difference will never be proportionally reflected in any brand other than Chinese "homage" specialists, where they DO only charge the price difference to upgrade movements (it's mostly from seagull 2824 to sellita but you get my point).
Also you have watches with sellita that sells at similar pricepoint to watches with Miyota/Seiko (Nodus and Baltic probably the two worst offenders that overcharge for those movements), it all comes down to other costs + margin.
A less capitalistic explaination would be to say that you can't just upgrade the movment. Usually when people pay for a Swiss movement they also expect better dial/case finishing etc. Only doing one without the others you end up with the new Seiko KS.
The sellita vs SII price difference will never be proportionally reflected in any brand other than Chinese "homage" specialists, where they DO only charge the price difference to upgrade movements (it's mostly from seagull 2824 to sellita but you get my point).
Also you have watches with sellita that sells at similar pricepoint to watches with Miyota/Seiko (Nodus and Baltic probably the two worst offenders that overcharge for those movements), it all comes down to other costs + margin.
A less capitalistic explaination would be to say that you can't just upgrade the movment. Usually when people pay for a Swiss movement they also expect better dial/case finishing etc. Only doing one without the others you end up with the new Seiko KS.
Yes, agreed on most points. The reason I don't own Baltic myself is precisely because I can't swallow the price point compared to similar brands. But that said, they're not charging for just the parts cost. And even so, a Neptune is less expensive than an Aquascaphe, so we are seeing the price difference in materials in a way?
I am also one of those lunatics that buys "overpriced" Seikos. And I know full well I'm paying for the unique design and the brand name more so than anything else. But I do it because in that case it's worth it to me, I love them. The specs are only about 20% of my decision factor there. And that all changes depending on the watch.
I think they use mineral glass? But either way, they do have that beauty shape.
You’re right, they use hardlex crystal. But my point persist, they won’t be able to do it as beautifully or as economical if they use sapphire crystal
If it makes it any easier, pick up a used one, that way it's already got some swirls and light scratches.
Since someone used it like mine, they would either put some SERIOUS work in Polywatching it, or not get nearly what they wanted out of it 🤣😂.
Or out up a WC post for the collective hive mind, there's prolly more out there at all price points than just Imperial and Wolbrook.
I looked into both companies. Just not my cup of tea but thanks for trying!
I hope you don't feel like you really settled, I think you got a great watch either way!
Not settled for somthing lesser. Just Baltic is on the same playing field and makes great vintage look watches with sapphire. I’ll admit I did have my eye on Lorier first but it is what it is!
I am pro-acrylic and pro-sapphire, it's mineral crystal that is "the Devil"!
Dude, are you secretly working for an acrylic manufacturing company? Haha. You really have this research down!
Nope. Just can nerd out about details.
And I am a sample of one. But for as much hate as acrylic gets, after getting my first variant in '21, I was expecting to hate it.
Turns out not the case lol.
It's the same product sold as cell phone screen protectors. Basically a solution of silica which when applied will create a thin film of scratch resistant glass.
I did mentioned it in the past here:
Acrylic maintenance made simple
On the caring and feeding of amphibians
Thanks!
You're going right to the source for one I think. When you're buying straight from a Chinese manufacturer the markup tends to be far less. Those crystals are also alot less "boxy". As in they have more of a curve, almost like a double dome. But they are still that general shape I agree. I wonder if that's part of it?
That said, we all get what we pay for. I would be curious what the long term quality of watches is like for brands like Red Star. I haven't looked into it tbh.
I think that's all probably true. Thinking about this further, I'm also guessing that for non-Chinese watches, in addition to the cost of the sapphire itself, there is the added expense of keeping crystals on hand that are of the precise shape and size needed for their individual pieces. In contrast, Chinese-made watches often use essentially the same case for many of their models. But for non-Chinese watches I suspect we may pay an additional surcharge that may not fully reflect the company's actual cost, like the undercoating offered by car dealers. Not that I begrudge them, we all have to make a living.
Concerning the 1963, so many people have these in their collections that if there were sapphire quality issues we probably would have heard them by now. So far, I'm only aware of anecdotal reports of occasional movement or QC problems, especially with watches produced by the less mainstream Chinese companies. Knock on wood, the one I own has been great so far, and really an engineering marvel, especially given the cost.
An excellent and comprehensive article. Well done!
I think that's all probably true. Thinking about this further, I'm also guessing that for non-Chinese watches, in addition to the cost of the sapphire itself, there is the added expense of keeping crystals on hand that are of the precise shape and size needed for their individual pieces. In contrast, Chinese-made watches often use essentially the same case for many of their models. But for non-Chinese watches I suspect we may pay an additional surcharge that may not fully reflect the company's actual cost, like the undercoating offered by car dealers. Not that I begrudge them, we all have to make a living.
Concerning the 1963, so many people have these in their collections that if there were sapphire quality issues we probably would have heard them by now. So far, I'm only aware of anecdotal reports of occasional movement or QC problems, especially with watches produced by the less mainstream Chinese companies. Knock on wood, the one I own has been great so far, and really an engineering marvel, especially given the cost.
Agree, the 1963 and the likes from Red Star are a bit of an anomaly in the watch world. You just get a great watch for little money. I had a 1963 myself before, but it was an acrylic crystal haha.
Thank you for the detailed info on acrylic and top hat crystals, very interesting! I personally prefer flat and flush mounted saphire on all watches as I just don’t want the added thickness of a top-hat crystal. Also, I really don’t care about the “vintage” top hat look with the distortion it brings. Some things are just better using modern technology, IMO!
Agree, the 1963 and the likes from Red Star are a bit of an anomaly in the watch world. You just get a great watch for little money. I had a 1963 myself before, but it was an acrylic crystal haha.
Yep, I flouted tradition by buying the sapphire! I like having to worry less about scratches. Of course, the original didn't have an exhibition case back either, but who wouldn't want to see that elaborate chronograph movement? Why did you give yours up?
Yep, I flouted tradition by buying the sapphire! I like having to worry less about scratches. Of course, the original didn't have an exhibition case back either, but who wouldn't want to see that elaborate chronograph movement? Why did you give yours up?
I got rid of mine because it was too militaristic for my taste. Not to say I don't like the military style, I just prefer it on simple 3-hand field watches or dive watches. I'm also not too much for chronos, but the 2 I own are racing themed. I even recently "retired" my moonswatch because I just don't wear it.
Interesting. I currently own two other chronos, one of which I inherited, while the other (a Victorinox speedmaster copy) was a gift from the missus. I've no immediate plans to get another, but if I do, it will probably be something more Monaco-like.