# Why does Citizen but mineral crystal on their diver watches?



## Verdict (Nov 3, 2011)

I've been looking at a couple of Citizen divers, and I'm baffled at why citizen would put mineral crystal in so many of their divers. Obviously in the ocean you're not going to smash the crystal against a door handle or something, but these are legit 200m ISO rated dive watches we're talking about, and some of these even have dive specific functions such as rapid ascent alarms and the like. So clearly these were meant to be actual diving watches, so why on earth would they put mineral crystal on them?


----------



## Ticktocker (Oct 27, 2009)

I'm sure the real answer is price. A mineral crystal is less expensive but price aside, I've never had a problem with mineral crystals and I don't get what the fuss is about when it comes to sapphire crystals. 
Also, most dive watches from all manufacturers seem to be classified as "real dive watch" by the company but they know that a huge percentage will never see more water than the kitchen sink can provide. There are even dive watches with push-pull crowns and no minute markers. Style over function.


----------



## Seabee1 (Apr 21, 2017)

Because if there's a heavy enough impact the sapphire will shatter where the mineral glass will only crack. A cracked crystal might retain its WR long enough to get to the surface while where a shattered crystal is immediately flooded


----------



## Verdict (Nov 3, 2011)

Seabee1 said:


> Because if there's a heavy enough impact the sapphire will shatter where the mineral glass will only crack. A cracked crystal might retain its WR long enough to get to the surface while where a shattered crystal is immediately flooded


This explanation makes sense. But then some of their other dive watches have sapphire too, I do think it's a decision made on price like ticktocker said.


----------



## Mitchtheitch (Dec 30, 2014)

Having worked for a retail store in the buying department and hearing Citizen's sales pitch they will tell you its mineral crystal because there are certain "advantages" over sapphire. I always believe it came down to a price point they're trying to hit with an acceptable margin.


----------



## d3xmeister (Sep 4, 2018)

There’s nothing wrong with mineral. Actually, a hardened mineral is quite tough, you cannot scratch it at all in normal use, you have to really knock it hard into something like hardened steel, rocks (walls etc).

Here’s a dirty secret, people that put serious scratches on their hardened mineral watches, will scratch sapphire too, I’ve seen it quite a few times. My wife is one of them. And when it comes to replacement, you can find mineral glass for your watch for 2-6 dollars, while sapphire will be at least 7-8 times more expensive, especially if you want it to be as clear as mineral.

Nothing agains sapphire I also prefer to have it all being equal, but mineral is just fine.

Also, if sapphire is the only thing keeping your for getting a watch you like, you can put it yourself or your local watchmaker.


----------



## d3xmeister (Sep 4, 2018)

I was given a Slava watch when I was 6 and a half years old, first day of school. I wore this watch every day not only in school bit everywhere. I stopped wearing it before high school because people started laughing at me because it was a kids watch. It has the original acrylic crystal that was never polished. It can be polished to look quite good (except for a few deeper scratches)

So if a kid can make an acrylic las through an 
entire childhood, you can make a hardened mineral last )


----------



## Seabee1 (Apr 21, 2017)

From a very old thread on this topic, additional information








Diver watch crystals - mineral of sapphire?


Diver watch crystals - mineral OR sapphire? Just curious do most diver watches tend to have mineral or sapphire glass? thnx |>




www.watchuseek.com







lysanderxiii said:


> The yield strength of sapphire is in the neighborhood of 2.25 GPa.
> The yield strength of mineral glass is around 75 GPa.
> 
> The modulus of elasticity (how easily the material deforms) for the two: sapphire - 250 GPa, and mineral glass - 82.5 GPa.
> ...


----------



## Nokie (Jul 4, 2011)

$$$$$$$, or lack of wanting to spend more.........


----------



## Skeptical (Sep 14, 2012)

d3xmeister said:


> There’s nothing wrong with mineral. Actually, a hardened mineral is quite tough, you cannot scratch it at all in normal use, you have to really knock it hard into something like hardened steel, rocks (walls etc).
> 
> Here’s a dirty secret, people that put serious scratches on their hardened mineral watches, will scratch sapphire too, I’ve seen it quite a few times. My wife is one of them. And when it comes to replacement, you can find mineral glass for your watch for 2-6 dollars, while sapphire will be at least 7-8 times more expensive, especially if you want it to be as clear as mineral.
> 
> ...


All I know is I have never scratched a sapphire crystal and I have scratched _every_ mineral crystal that I've worn for any length of time.


----------



## Verdict (Nov 3, 2011)

I cracked a Citizen mineral years ago. I was in a hurry and I swung my hand into someone else, and I knocked my watch into theirs'. It cracked but didn't shatter. Since then I've become more careful with my watches...


----------



## Seabee1 (Apr 21, 2017)

Skeptical said:


> All I know is I have never scratched a sapphire crystal and I have scratched _every_ mineral crystal that I've worn for any length of time.


Nobody is saying that sapphire will scatch, I was pointing out that where mineral crystal may crack, sapphire will shatter


----------



## litespud (Nov 15, 2018)

Verdict said:


> I've been looking at a couple of Citizen divers, and I'm baffled at why citizen would put mineral crystal in so many of their divers. Obviously in the ocean you're not going to smash the crystal against a door handle or something, but these are legit 200m ISO rated dive watches we're talking about, and some of these even have dive specific functions such as rapid ascent alarms and the like. So clearly these were meant to be actual diving watches, so why on earth would they put mineral crystal on them?


Because for “legit 200m ISO rated dive watches”, mineral crystal makes more sense. Sapphire might be more scratch-resistant, but also more shatter-prone. if your watch is being used as an actual diving tool, as opposed to plumbing the depths of a filing cabinet, a scratched crystal is irrelevant - a shattered crystal is serious


----------



## Verdict (Nov 3, 2011)

litespud said:


> Because for “legit 200m ISO rated dive watches”, mineral crystal makes more sense. Sapphire might be more scratch-resistant, but also more shatter-prone. if your watch is being used as an actual diving tool, as opposed to plumbing the depths of a filing cabinet, a scratched crystal is irrelevant - a shattered crystal is serious


So then, why does an actual diving tool, such as the BN2038 with the rapid ascent alarm have mineral crystal...









But then the higher priced BJ2169, with it's professional diving features, such as depth display to 50 meters, Auto Start dive mode, maximum depth memory, a one-second chronograph measuring up to 50 minutes and 12/24 hour time have sapphire?


Similarly, the higher priced NB6004 ISO rated 200m diver with 16,000 A/m of magnetic resistant have a sapphire? 










I think it has to do with cost savings more than anything. If what you said were true, than all promaster diving watches would have it too.


----------



## oprhodium39 (Apr 12, 2020)

It’s about cost saving (could be a saving of max. $5-10 per watch on a large scale) - I simply avoid buying watches without sapphire… (I broke only once the crystal of my watch - it was hardlex mineral….)


----------



## jmnav (May 18, 2019)

Verdict said:


> I've been looking at a couple of Citizen divers, and I'm baffled at why citizen would put mineral crystal in so many of their divers. Obviously in the ocean you're not going to smash the crystal against a door handle or something, but these are legit 200m ISO rated dive watches we're talking about, and some of these even have dive specific functions such as rapid ascent alarms and the like. So clearly these were meant to be actual diving watches, so why on earth would they put mineral crystal on them?


In the end: mineral, hardlex, etc. is "good enough", even more than "good enough" for real tools (on top of it's higher resistance to shattering -everything else being equal, more on this latter, it's tad cheaper, which should be a consideration when crystal, along bezel and gaskets are wear parts to be substituted every one or two years) but sapphire, while more expensive, is better suited for "desktop diving" as it won't be exposed to real hazardrous environments, it's more scratch-resistant (better looks) and it also can be made to professional specifications so, when money is not a limitation (and for veblen goods being expensive is not only not a problem but an advantage) and in most cases than not we are not talking about tools but jewels, sapphire makes sense.

About "being equal": you can have a sapphire glass that will be fit for purpose, internal antiglare, thicker, assymetrically shaped... but it will be more expensive than the equivalent hardened mineral and, up to some years ago, almost un-procureable, so no wonder classic models stick with that.

About the ability of mineral and alikes: how many diving computers, nowadays "the true diver's tool", come with sapphire crystal?

About "professional": your tooling should be as much expensive as needed, but not more than that -moreso when considered a diver's watch is an expendable: it may come back to surface, or it may not, so you don't want for the latter to hurt you too much.


----------



## Seabee1 (Apr 21, 2017)

Sapphire has greater scratch resistance but beyond that it serves no more real purpose than a signed crown


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

d3xmeister said:


> Here’s a dirty secret, people that put serious scratches on their hardened mineral watches, will scratch sapphire too, I’ve seen it quite a few times. My wife is one of them. And when it comes to replacement, you can find mineral glass for your watch for 2-6 dollars, while sapphire will be at least 7-8 times more expensive, especially if you want it to be as clear as mineral.


Sure, you can chip sapphire if you hit it hard enough, but avoiding scratches on sapphire is much easier than on mineral glass. I put less serious scratches on mineral glass while my sapphire crystal stays pristine. Maybe it's because I don't wear diamond jewelry that can easily scratch sapphire, nor do I generally rub my watches against concrete that may have impurities that are comparably hard as sapphire.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

litespud said:


> Because for “legit 200m ISO rated dive watches”, mineral crystal makes more sense. Sapphire might be more scratch-resistant, but also more shatter-prone. if your watch is being used as an actual diving tool, as opposed to plumbing the depths of a filing cabinet, a scratched crystal is irrelevant - a shattered crystal is serious


It's really not that easy to shatter a sapphire crystal under water, since your hands can't move that fast through the water due to the added mass effects. A sapphire crystal that is comparable in thickness to the mineral glass it replaces in a dive watch is not going to be particularly shatter-prone, and at the end of the day it's about price vs. performance, and mineral glass is good enough and much cheaper.


----------



## jmnav (May 18, 2019)

Seabee1 said:


> Sapphire has greater scratch resistance but beyond that it serves no more real purpose than a signed crown


Well, that's like saying that beyond the ability to transporting your here and there, a car serves no more real purpose than a sculpture.

Being unscratched for years _is_ an objective advantage.


----------



## jmnav (May 18, 2019)

mleok said:


> It's really not that easy to shatter a sapphire crystal under water, since your hands can't move that fast through the water due to the added mass effects.


Kinetic energy is both function of (squared) speed... and mass. You can easily shatter a watch if hitted by a heavy wrench, even if it moves slowly.



mleok said:


> A sapphire crystal that is comparable in thickness to the mineral glass it replaces in a dive watch is not going to be particularly shatter-prone, and at the end of the day it's about price vs. performance, and mineral glass is good enough and much cheaper.


That's true.


----------



## MissileExpert (Mar 18, 2018)

Seabee1 said:


> Because if there's a heavy enough impact the sapphire will shatter where the mineral glass will only crack. A cracked crystal might retain its WR long enough to get to the surface while where a shattered crystal is immediately flooded


Makes you wonder why anyone would use sapphire in a dive watch. Not sure I'm buying that Citizen's rationale is that it provides better resistance to shattering. I'm voting for it's purely a cost thing. Citizen isn't really a high end watch company. Also consider that a sapphire layer on top of mineral glass provides better impact and scratch resistance. 

If mineral glass really provides better performance for a dive watch, I wonder why the likes of Rolex, Omega, Momentum, Oris, Panerai, Blancpain, Longines, Deep Blue, Tissot, Squale, Christopher Ward, etc. have elected to go with sapphire?


----------



## dan360 (Jun 3, 2012)

At certain places where I work, they disallow wearing a watch with sapphire. The risk of shatter and FOD outweighs the scratch resistance.


----------



## jmnav (May 18, 2019)

MissileExpert said:


> If mineral glass really provides better performance for a dive watch, I wonder why the likes of Rolex, Omega, Momentum, Oris, Panerai, Blancpain, Longines, Deep Blue, Tissot, Squale, Christopher Ward, etc. have elected to go with sapphire?


Because they sell jewelry, not tools?


----------



## Rojote (Oct 30, 2009)

Some dive watches use acrylic, mineral or sapphire. Don’t sweat the mineral on a Citizen. I have never scratched a mineral crystal on a watch wearing them on/off for over 40 years.


----------



## grenert (Dec 9, 2016)

I've never scratched or shattered a sapphire crystal, despite banging into doorways and other terrestrial objects. I have put scratches of varying severity in mineral crystals. These days I have gotten more careful and bump into fewer things, but it still happens from time to time.

I won't totally avoid a mineral crystal, especially on an inexpensive watch (NY0040 for example). But for a more expensive watch or a case where two similar watches are available and only one has sapphire, it's something I consider in my purchase.


----------



## jmichaelc (Mar 30, 2014)

I've wondered that about Citizen for years. I have read that they will replace a mineral crystal with a sapphire one for $80 if you send them the watch, but I haven't bothered yet. I still ponder the upgrade, but I only have a single Citizen, and the rest of my collection is mostly Bertucci field watches and Phoibos / San Martin dive watches, all with sapphire, so the Citizen is a low priority.

As far as Rolex, Omega, Momentum, and Deep Blue being jewlery, I'll have to respectfully semi--disagree. Their watches /do/ tend to be worn as jewelry, which is fine, but they also have real watches made for real duty. I'd never wear a Rolex myself, even if it were given to me, but I have to respect how they have pushed the envelope over the years for accuracy and dive depth.


----------



## jmnav (May 18, 2019)

jmichaelc said:


> As far as Rolex, Omega, Momentum, and Deep Blue being jewlery, I'll have to respectfully semi--disagree.


That means you also semi-agree 



jmichaelc said:


> Their watches /do/ tend to be worn as jewelry, which is fine, but they also have real watches made for real duty. I'd never wear a Rolex myself, even if it were given to me, but I have to respect how they have pushed the envelope over the years for accuracy and dive depth.


I was not implying that because of being jewelry they forgot making them fitting the tool-bill, just that because they are making jewelry (which they make: no way for a steel three-arrows mass-produced watch to command the prices they do on the "tool" alone), their market proposition focus on the jewelry aspect (since only by nurturing and coping for those jewel demands, they can get away with the prices they put on the stick)... if that means sapphyre, despite hardened mineral being good enough (and cheaper in the long run, running costs considered), so be it.

But now that we are at it... I only know one guy that uses (used to use) his Omega Seamaster 300m chrono for its intended purpose: heavy-duty diver's watch, pushing the chrono buttons underwater (which, by the manual is perfectly safe and intended) and all the stuff for like over 100 divings/year. Net result? His watch allowed water ingress about two and half years from new. It was revised and repaired... just to let water ingress like two years later. It's not his diving watch anymore.


----------



## Seabee1 (Apr 21, 2017)

MissileExpert said:


> Makes you wonder why anyone would use sapphire in a dive watch. Not sure I'm buying that Citizen's rationale is that it provides better resistance to shattering. I'm voting for it's purely a cost thing. Citizen isn't really a high end watch company. Also consider that a sapphire layer on top of mineral glass provides better impact and scratch resistance.
> 
> If mineral glass really provides better performance for a dive watch, I wonder why the likes of Rolex, Omega, Momentum, Oris, Panerai, Blancpain, Longines, Deep Blue, Tissot, Squale, Christopher Ward, etc. have elected to go with sapphire?


It in fact doesn't provide better resistance, it's more prone to shatter than mineral/hardlex. As for a fused crystal, I think the only advantage is scratch resistance


----------



## ugawino (Jan 20, 2019)

99.99% of them will never do any "diving" beyond the deep end of a swimming pool.

Besides, unless you're into wreck diving or cave diving, you shouldn't be scratching your watch on anything anyway.


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

I have half a dozen citizen divers - only 1 has sapphire - yep, the most expensive one


----------



## Medusa (Feb 6, 2010)

The mineral crystal is made in Japan so that's one advantage. Made in Japan means made in Japan. They have control of it and do not have to import.

Another is that mineral crystal is still a mix and a process so all mineral crystal is not alike. Recipes are formulated for certain applications and performance. Mineral glass is tempered like steel.

As far as toughness for tool watches hardness is not necessarily better.

Sapphire is hard and resists scratches, but it will totally fail.

Mineral is less scratch resistant but more break resistant. This can be adjusted during the tempering process.

Poly-carbonate is the easiest to scratch and is sometimes considered the cheapest but it is by far the strongest as far as shatter resistance.


----------



## leadbelly2550 (Jan 31, 2020)

First, I don’t think it matters. i’m fine with mineral crystals. They can scratch a little easier but are still very durable. 

Second, Citizen puts sapphire glass on some watches, independent of price. The 1000 meter promaster diver has sapphire, so does the promaster tough. On the other hand, the Aqualand and most of their other ISO-standard dive watches have mineral crystals.


----------



## MissileExpert (Mar 18, 2018)

Seabee1 said:


> It in fact doesn't provide better resistance, it's more prone to shatter than mineral/hardlex. As for a fused crystal, I think the only advantage is scratch resistance


A sapphire layer on top of mineral crystal doubles the impact resistance.


----------



## Seabee1 (Apr 21, 2017)

MissileExpert said:


> A sapphire layer on top of mineral crystal doubles the impact resistance.


Wouldn't it be entirely dependent upon the thickness of the sapphire layer? And a layer added for scratch resistance doesn't seem like it would be thick enough to lend any additional support but maybe you have more info?


----------



## TransporterG (Aug 21, 2020)

When you control the whole or most of the supply chain through vertical integration of your design, materials, as well as your manufacturing processes and cost for a "functional" product, you are able to understand the Cost vs Performance tradeoffs and make better decisions for your product performance and profitability. Looking at mineral crystal vs sapphire only is looking at that one binary decision only--the tree--rather the total offering--the forest--to achieve customer value and financial results / ROI. That's the whole idea. No different than Grand Seiko / Seiko...and of course Rolex. Apple iphone would come under this as well as Tim Cook is the supply chain architect. 

Those companies that control a significant percentage of their entire supply chain and thus manage the cost/performance have huge competitive advantage--and they can directly control cost. Big deal in Japan.


----------



## Medusa (Feb 6, 2010)

MissileExpert said:


> A sapphire layer on top of mineral crystal doubles the impact resistance.


That's what this is.


----------



## dan360 (Jun 3, 2012)

Sapphire has become another notch in the marketeering wank. In-house, sapphire, micro adjust, AR coating, guilloche--which is just a fancy French way to say pattern, what's next?


----------



## Seabee1 (Apr 21, 2017)

jmnav said:


> Well, that's like saying that beyond the ability to transporting your here and there, a car serves no more real purpose than a sculpture.
> 
> Being unscratched for years _is_ an objective advantage.


I think maybe you got confused, it's okay it happens. Maybe go back and read what I said about sapphire and scratch resistance. My comparison of sapphire to a signed crown probably was incorrect, as it suggested that a signed crown has some use...and it doesn't


----------



## Docrwm (Feb 10, 2006)

Verdict said:


> So then, why does an actual diving tool, such as the BN2038 with the rapid ascent alarm have mineral crystal...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It has more to do with consumer expectations than anything else. At higher price points the very strong expectation is that it will have the more expensive sapphire. Resistance to shattering is a real concern, or should be, when actually diving. That said, few use any of these watches in place of a dive computer.


----------



## LosAngelesTimer (Aug 24, 2017)

I scratched the mineral crystal on my Citizen a few days after purchasing it - never again. I'm gonna ignore the wankery and suggest the decision is all about building watches to a price.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

jmnav said:


> Kinetic energy is both function of (squared) speed... and mass. You can easily shatter a watch if hitted by a heavy wrench, even if it moves slowly.


You have other things to worry about if your wrist is hit by something massive enough to shatter sapphire under water.


----------



## dan360 (Jun 3, 2012)

Sapphire can be shattered by energy imparted on it that will not hurt the wearer. It is possible to shatter sapphire before cracking acrylic. It's about how the force is imparted. Sapphire is very hard. It does not give. A sharp corner or pointed object can shatter it easier than the same will crack acrylic or mineral. Unfortunately I have done it more than once....

Doesn't mean sapphire isn't superior as everyday wear because, quite factually, it is. Until that one moment when it shatters. Which is why in many instances it becomes a FOD--foreign object debris--liability in certain environments.


----------



## seadial (Jan 14, 2010)

The original Seiko Professional 600 auto, later known as the "Tuna", has a Hardlex crystal and they were not concerned with economy there. When diving and swimming at the surface near reef the surge can get you and pile you into the rocks, especially if looking for an exit point. If unlucky your watch can whack a rock and easily damage it. Diving is not always a totally controlled activity and conditions can be far from a mill pond, so damage to dive gear is always on the cards and you use your experience to minimise the possibility as far as possible. As a scuba diver and spearfisherman (but not at the same time) I have had a number of encounters with rocks when conditions turned nasty.


----------



## Grasshopperglock (Jul 31, 2021)

My Citizen corso is littered with scratches and nicks. I've smacked a few door knobs. It's a 2017 model.

There's no scratches or chips on the crystal. And I've never babied it either.


----------



## Ziptie (Jun 25, 2016)

I wonder if the sapphire-equipped divers have crystals that are recessed deeper into the bezel. 

Given that Citizen sells sapphire equipped models all over their lineup, starting with very affordable models, I can’t believe the cynics who say it’s just a price issue. 

I suspect they sell models to meet the needs of a variety of customers, so no matter which camp you’re in there’s a product for you.


----------



## brash47 (Jul 14, 2018)

They do it because they know for certain that someone will get their panties in a bunch over it and spend more money on a watch that costs pennies more for them to produce. 

For the "I don't care as long as it does what it's supposed to do crowd," they will buy the watch they like better regardless and be happy with it. 

This ensures that people purchase in all price points they sell at while having a minimal cost difference in the long run. 

Threads like this keep this exact product selling model alive. Those who have dived really don't care, as long as the product performs to standards. 

Those who pick over this particular subject make the company alot of money. 

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk


----------



## d3xmeister (Sep 4, 2018)

Skeptical said:


> All I know is I have never scratched a sapphire crystal and I have scratched _every_ mineral crystal that I've worn for any length of time.


I’ve heard that so many times but I never actually saw it. I even “caught” some of my friends that were saying the same thing, eventually scratch or chip their sapphire. More than once.

Not saying or implying you’re lying, of course it is absolutely possible if your usual situation or activity consists of actions that can scratch hardened mineral (which are not that many) but not sapphire.

I can say that implying sapphire does not scratch/chip while hardened mineral is, its misleading and not true. It’s just scenarios based. 

I worked for 2 years repairing industrial machines, in factories. For almost all that time I wore a Seiko 5 Sports with hardlex. Daily my hands were into those machines constantly banging the watch or rubbing it while operating wrenches etc. I have not put a single scratch on that crystal in those two years.

With another swiss quartz I had with K1 mineral, I was running and had to go through a whole in a wall, there was no door or door frame, and I hit the wall so hard with my watch I was sure It was broken. Not only it wasn't broken, there was not a single scratch on it.

Another time I was wearing my SKX with hardlex and a friend tried to make a stupid joke with a lighter, I jumped back quickly and I hit the hardlex on a old school metal stove (those old ones that weight a ton), but again, no scratches

I did scratch a normal mineral on one of my Orients, by banging it hard on a door frame. But so what, I still have the watch as it is.

Personally I don’t know what it takes to scratch a hardened mineral. However, my wife did managed to put scratches on every watch she has. Mineral or hardlex mineral she gets a new scratch every single week, but she also scratched her 2 sapphire watches too. I don’t know how, she doesn’t know how


----------



## Medusa (Feb 6, 2010)

It's interesting that Citizen uses sapphire on the Ecodrives and mineral glass on their divers.


----------



## cleger (Sep 11, 2009)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> I scratched the mineral crystal on my Citizen a few days after purchasing it - never again. I'm gonna ignore the wankery and suggest the decision is all about building watches to a price.


Hear, hear.

It's to save $5 per watch.


----------



## Skeptical (Sep 14, 2012)

d3xmeister said:


> I’ve heard that so many times but I never actually saw it. I even “caught” some of my friends that were saying the same thing, eventually scratch or chip their sapphire. More than once.
> 
> Not saying or implying you’re lying, of course it is absolutely possible if your usual situation or activity consists of actions that can scratch hardened mineral (which are not that many) but not sapphire.
> 
> ...


Here's my Wenger Off Road after 24 hours of ownership. 










And my Orient Mako (9 years old, though seldom worn these days)


----------



## d3xmeister (Sep 4, 2018)

cleger said:


> Hear, hear.
> 
> It's to save $5 per watch.


It doesn’t work like that, especially for huge companies like Citizen or Seiko, they do not operate like a small micro-brand sourcing parts from third party factories from China. It’s a common misconception.


----------



## d3xmeister (Sep 4, 2018)

Skeptical said:


> Here's my Wenger Off Road after 24 hours of ownership.
> 
> View attachment 16211332
> 
> ...


Mako mineral is notoriously weak, not surprised at all. All lower end Orients use minerals that don’t seem to be hardned at all, that makes them no much harder than acrylic

The swiss took quite a hard knock it seems, if you had sapphire it would not match the bezel now )) Seriously, if you’re routinely bang your watch like that, it’s a matter of time until you damage a sapphire too, espcially special form sapphire with bevel edges, they can chip quit easily in such situations


----------



## Skeptical (Sep 14, 2012)

d3xmeister said:


> Mako mineral is notoriously weak, not surprised at all. All lower end Orients use minerals that don’t seem to be hardned at all, that makes them no much harder than acrylic
> 
> The swiss took quite a hard knock it seems, if you had sapphire it would not match the bezel now )) Seriously, if you’re routinely bang your watch like that, it’s a matter of time until you damage a sapphire too, espcially special form sapphire with bevel edges, they can chip quit easily in such situations


I guess it's nice to know everything.


----------



## seadial (Jan 14, 2010)

Scratches are created by different forms of collisions and the contact pressure and energy of the collision are determining factors. A watch brushing past a steel door jamb may get scratched by particles in the paint or surface dust being dragged across the face of the crystal, but not that much energy is being transferred to the watch. A brick wall or a rough plaster wall can hand out similar damage. If the watch collides and rebounds back off the obstruction it puts much more energy into the watch and if concentrated at a couple of points will dig small grooves in the crystal and may crack or chip it if it hits a bevel edge. Sapphire is probably superior for rubbing contact wear, especially with domed crystals during everyday use, but it does not confer immunity during the type of collisions sustained by dive watches used underwater where sharp and hard surfaces can be frequently encountered. Although very unlucky it is also possible to bang your watch against the boat hull and whatever is coating it!


----------



## cleger (Sep 11, 2009)

d3xmeister said:


> It doesn’t work like that, especially for huge companies like Citizen or Seiko, they do not operate like a small micro-brand sourcing parts from third party factories from China. It’s a common misconception.


Tell us more. How does it work? Let's clear up all the misconceptions, then.


----------



## Terra Citizen (Oct 26, 2021)

When I was on the phone with Citizen about a year ago, I inquired about this. It's for both reasons, shatter resistance and cost.

In order to achieve ISO Diver's 200m Certification, they have to be shatter resistant. Combine 200m of water pressure with a scratch from brushing the crystal against a corral reef or a rock, it could cause the crystal to shatter. As mentioned above, Mineral Crystal is less prone to shattering under these conditions. Sapphire under these conditions, with a scratch from a coral reef, would not be as resilient. 

In order to achieve the 200m Diver's certification, with Sapphire Crystal, it get's exponentially more expensive, because the crystal has to be much thicker. At a certain price point, to be durable and certified as a 200m Diver's watch, Mineral Crystal makes sense. With the more expensive watches, the cost of the Sapphire is part of that expense. 

With dress watches or non-diver's, the Sapphire doesn't have to be as thick and therefore not as expensive.

Also, it is really affordable to have Citizen factory replace a scratched mineral crystal, somewhere around $20.


----------



## jwernatl (Dec 21, 2014)

Verdict said:


> I've been looking at a couple of Citizen divers, and I'm baffled at why citizen would put mineral crystal in so many of their divers. Obviously in the ocean you're not going to smash the crystal against a door handle or something, but these are legit 200m ISO rated dive watches we're talking about, and some of these even have dive specific functions such as rapid ascent alarms and the like. So clearly these were meant to be actual diving watches, so why on earth would they put mineral crystal on them?


Its not about price. A mineral crystal will not shatter.


----------



## jwernatl (Dec 21, 2014)

jwernatl said:


> Its not about price. A mineral crystal will not shatter.


On top of that, I have 3 Citizen dive watches. 2 with mineral crystal's. Ive put them through everything. And im not easy on my watches. At all. 

The below watch has been around a very long time, its my go to watch. Always accurate. So crazy tuff. But not one scratch. 

You have nothing to worry about.


----------



## abccoin (Jul 18, 2012)

It is 100% about cost saving. Much more expensive dive watches almost all use sapphire.

I personally will not buy anything that doesn't have sapphire....might be the most important feature for me.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

d3xmeister said:


> It doesn’t work like that, especially for huge companies like Citizen or Seiko, they do not operate like a small micro-brand sourcing parts from third party factories from China. It’s a common misconception.


So, you’re saying they save even less money?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

d3xmeister said:


> Mako mineral is notoriously weak, not surprised at all. All lower end Orients use minerals that don’t seem to be hardned at all, that makes them no much harder than acrylic
> 
> The swiss took quite a hard knock it seems, if you had sapphire it would not match the bezel now )) Seriously, if you’re routinely bang your watch like that, it’s a matter of time until you damage a sapphire too, espcially special form sapphire with bevel edges, they can chip quit easily in such situations


You seem to have an excuse for everything…


----------



## Jean1888 (Jul 14, 2020)

As many pointed out, prob cheaper. But also less reflective.


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

Seabee1 said:


> Because if there's a heavy enough impact the sapphire will shatter where the mineral glass will only crack. A cracked crystal might retain its WR long enough to get to the surface while where a shattered crystal is immediately flooded


That’s a legitimate response, but that’s not why Citizen uses mineral crystals. Right?


----------



## d3xmeister (Sep 4, 2018)

mleok said:


> You seem to have an excuse for everything…


Is the issue that serious that no sense of humor can be dug out of some people ?


----------



## d3xmeister (Sep 4, 2018)

cleger said:


> Tell us more. How does it work? Let's clear up all the misconceptions, then.


It would take over this whole thread, but here’s the shot version: If you want to change the toilet paper type and brand at your house, it’s the simplest and easiest thing possible, you just buy what you want from the supermarket. Try doing the same thing across all Microsoft offices.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

d3xmeister said:


> It would take over this whole thread, but here’s the shot version: If you want to change the toilet paper type and brand at your house, it’s the simplest and easiest thing possible, you just buy what you want from the supermarket. Try doing the same thing across all Microsoft offices.


Translation, it’s got nothing to do with performance, and everything to do with logistics, but really cost.


----------



## MissileExpert (Mar 18, 2018)

Seabee1 said:


> Wouldn't it be entirely dependent upon the thickness of the sapphire layer? And a layer added for scratch resistance doesn't seem like it would be thick enough to lend any additional support but maybe you have more info?


This article does not specify the thickness. I know in my world, a sapphire window for an airborne electro-optical sensor provides much better erosion protection than any available optical quality glass such as zinc sulfide. I agree that above a certain impact force, a mineral glass crystal will tend to crack vs. sapphire shattering. 









Mineral or Sapphire Glass - What is the Difference Between Watch Glasses?


Mineral or sapphire crystal explained – What is the difference between watch glasses? The glass affects the durability of your watch.




aarniwood.com


----------



## jmnav (May 18, 2019)

abccoin said:


> It is 100% about cost saving. Much more expensive dive watches almost all use sapphire.


It is not about "cost saving" but about "price selling".



abccoin said:


> I personally will not buy anything that doesn't have sapphire....might be the most important feature for me.


See? I bet you don't scuba dive at all. But for you to pay 10x for a watch, it must have sapphire, so sapphire you get.


----------



## Rojote (Oct 30, 2009)

I have watches with both and can appreciate the watch regardless of the crystal material… lol.



Comparing Acrylic Crystal, Mineral Crystal, K1 Crystal & Sapphire Crystal


----------



## jwernatl (Dec 21, 2014)

Robotaz said:


> That’s a legitimate response, but that’s not why Citizen uses mineral crystals. Right?


Its true, if have a sapphire crystal and a mineral crystal side by side (in the exact same environment with all conditions equal) -

If you were to hit both (again all forces identical) a sapphire crystal will shatter/burst vs. a mineral crystal will flex. 

And think about the pressure thats is applied to an object with the weight of 400 feet of water on top of it. 

crazy situation -.- you slam your hand on an object at that depth with enough force to shatter that sapphire? The mineral crystal would not. 

That is a matter of truth. I thought we covered this in diving class?


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

jwernatl said:


> Its true, if have a sapphire crystal and a mineral crystal side by side (in the exact same environment with all conditions equal) -
> 
> If you were to hit both (again all forces identical) a sapphire crystal will shatter/burst vs. a mineral crystal will flex.
> 
> ...


I’ve heard probably 100 argument threads about Hardlex vs sapphire, and I’m definitely not trying to start another one about Citizen mineral glass vs sapphire.

What I’m hinting at is that Seiko has been switching across the board to sapphire. I think that indicates they were previously saving money. It may mean the previously didn’t have the engineering in sapphire to surpass hardlex performance. I’m really not sure, but reality is, they switched other than their very cheapest watches.

If the bezel protects the crystal, I don’t have a big issue with mineral, for what it’s worth. But I would always prefer sapphire and wish the BN022x has sapphire.

I’ll leave it at that.


----------



## litespud (Nov 15, 2018)

Medusa said:


> It's interesting that Citizen uses sapphire on the Ecodrives and mineral glass on their divers.


You realize that many/most of their divers are Eco-Drives? Which makes your comment not so much interesting as nonsensical.


----------



## jwernatl (Dec 21, 2014)

Robotaz said:


> I’ve heard probably 100 argument threads about Hardlex vs sapphire, and I’m definitely not trying to start another one about Citizen mineral glass vs sapphire.
> 
> What I’m hinting at is that Seiko has been switching across the board to sapphire. I think that indicates they were previously saving money. It may mean the previously didn’t have the engineering in sapphire to surpass hardlex performance. I’m really not sure, but reality is, they switched other than their very cheapest watches.
> 
> ...


Instead of SEIKO switching to sapphire- dont you think seiko should spend that money on q.c.? 

jeeze, get out the nursery sweatshops? Lookong at the last three SEIKO watches i purchased, you would think its a blind 4 y.o. that assembled them.


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

litespud said:


> You realize that many/most of their divers are Eco-Drives? Which makes your comment not so much interesting as nonsensical.


That’s a rather rude response to a totally benign comment. This isn’t Twitter.

I do think it’s interesting which models Citizen is using sapphire on.

It’s possible they have their heels dug in on the mineral glass being more durable, but the expensive divers are sapphire.


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

jwernatl said:


> Instead of SEIKO switching to sapphire- dont you think seiko should spend that money on q.c.?
> 
> jeeze, get out the nursery sweatshops? Lookong at the last three SEIKO watches i purchased, you would think its a blind 4 y.o. that assembled them.


Don’t get me started. I’m the last 6-8 weeks I’ve had to return two new MM300 models with defective crown tubes


----------



## litespud (Nov 15, 2018)

abccoin said:


> It is 100% about cost saving. Much more expensive dive watches almost all use sapphire.
> 
> I personally will not buy anything that doesn't have sapphire....might be the most important feature for me.


I think you're right - it is about saving costs. This is the difference between an actual tool that does the job competently for minimal outlay vs diver-flavored man-bling that does the same job for 10-20...40x the cost.
IMO this Eco-Drive is the best bang-for-the-buck diver out there - ISO-compliant 200M, rugged and accurate movement, good lume, no batteries, clear uncluttered face, and, yes, a mineral glass crystal - for $280 MSRP. If you scratch it, big woop; if you kill it (assuming you can), buy another - it's a tool. For some people, getting a scratch on their luxury diver precipitates a crisis, so sapphire makes sense in a desk diver. Sure, sapphire costs more, but for luxury desk divers, the cost a feature, not a flaw - no other way to explain why people fork out $5K-$10K or more for a watch that is no more competent, and arguably less competent, than the $280 Citizen below.


----------



## d3xmeister (Sep 4, 2018)

I love how watch people think everything is a free lunch. They really do believe that.

Sapphire, bracelet screws, ceramic, signed crowns, screw down crowns, solid links, hacking, ultimate precision and so on and so on.

There’s nothing in life with only upsides and no downsides. And different people like or appreciate different things. These simple life concepts seems like something watch enthusiast completely miss.

It’s fascinating.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

d3xmeister said:


> I love how watch people think everything is a free lunch. They really do believe that.
> 
> Sapphire, bracelet screws, ceramic, signed crowns, screw down crowns, solid links, hacking, ultimate precision and so on and so on.
> 
> ...


Nobody is suggesting it’s free, that’s a straw man argument. But, for me at least, I would be willing to pay a reasonable premium for sapphire.

Now, others can certainly feel that mineral glass is a reasonable compromise for a lower cost, and Citizen might think that losing a few customers for whom mineral glass is a deal breaker is better than the number of customers lost for pricing their watches higher.

At the end of the day, our notion of value and what is reasonable is shaped by what other companies are capable of offering at a comparable price point. When small Chinese brands are able to offer substantially better specifications and quality control, it’s only reasonable to ask what one is getting from the bigger Japanese brands like Seiko and Citizen.


----------



## litespud (Nov 15, 2018)

Robotaz said:


> That’s a rather rude response to a totally benign comment. This isn’t Twitter.
> 
> I do think it’s interesting which models Citizen is using sapphire on.
> 
> It’s possible they have their heels dug in on the mineral glass being more durable, but the expensive divers are sapphire.


Quite right - I apologize for my tone - uncalled for.
That being said, given that there's significant overlap between "Ecodrives" and "divers", I don't know what the OP meant when they said that one had mineral glass and the other had sapphire. There appears to be no rhyme or reason for which Citizen watches comes with mineral crystal vs sapphire, that I can discern, at least. Case in point - my daily is a Citizen BN0100-51 (aka an "Excalibur"), which has a mineral glass crystal. There is, apparently, an almost identical variation (BN0100-85) that has a sapphire. A little more expensive, but still well under $300 if you can find one.


----------



## d3xmeister (Sep 4, 2018)

mleok said:


> Nobody is suggesting it’s free, that’s a straw man argument. But, for me at least, I would be willing to pay a reasonable premium for sapphire.
> 
> Now, others can certainly feel that mineral glass is a reasonable compromise for a lower cost, and Citizen might think that losing a few customers for whom mineral glass is a deal breaker is better than the number of customers lost for pricing their watches higher.
> 
> At the end of the day, our notion of value and what is reasonable is shaped by what other companies are capable of offering at a comparable price point. When small Chinese brands are able to offer substantially better specifications and quality control, it’s only reasonable to ask what one is getting from the bigger Japanese brands like Seiko and Citizen.


That’s not what a straw man argument is. I think it was pretty clear in what I wrote. And it is also pretty clear that things are not like what you said in your reply (which I agree with) generally on these forums.

It’s absolutely fine if sapphire or anything else is a MUST for YOU, there is nothing wrong about that and I never implied otherwise. And also there is nothing wrong with saying your opinion.

We all have our preferences. You want to hear my absolute MUST ? I’m not interested in any watch without a day/date complication as a daily or frequent wearer. I only make few exceptions for mostly dress watches I only wear on special occasions. Almost all of my personal collection watches are day/date, and I did not bought watches that I really, really liked because they did not have the day complication. However you didn’t see me on every thread *****in’ about the lack of day complication and how brand or watch X sucks for not having it. This is the difference.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

d3xmeister said:


> That’s not what a straw man argument is. I think it was pretty clear in what I wrote. And it is also pretty clear that things are not like what you said in your reply (which I agree with) generally on these forums.


Your claim that nobody seems to understand that nothing is a free lunch is a strawman argument.


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

litespud said:


> Quite right - I apologize for my tone - uncalled for.
> That being said, given that there's significant overlap between "Ecodrives" and "divers", I don't know what the OP meant when they said that one had mineral glass and the other had sapphire. There appears to be no rhyme or reason for which Citizen watches comes with mineral crystal vs sapphire, that I can discern, at least. Case in point - my daily is a Citizen BN0100-51 (aka an "Excalibur"), which has a mineral glass crystal. There is, apparently, an almost identical variation (BN0100-85) that has a sapphire. A little more expensive, but still well under $300 if you can find one.


I’m in the same boat, but honestly this conversation is the first to really get me thinking. I’m going to pay a lot more attention and see if I can make sense of it.


----------



## d3xmeister (Sep 4, 2018)

mleok said:


> Your claim that nobody seems to understand that nothing is a free lunch is a strawman argument.


No, it’s reality. Hardly anyone said anything about being a personal preference and opinion, and that’s in every topic about this subject ( a few exceptions of course ) People in the “sapphire” camp can’t accept that having mineral, or acrylic, can have advantages.

I wish the discussions went the way you describe, it would have been a much better and useful forum in my opinion.

That’s why I gave the example with my day/date preference. I’m not starting controversial discussions about how I want a Seiko SPB245 and I would buy it today but it doesn’t have a date. The Certina DS-4 has it, and it is cheaper. Seems like a cost cutting measure from Seiko. And I could argue that having a date can’t be a bad thing, it’s a extra function, extremely useful for me, so why not have it ? Then others chime and and tell me how it can ruin the dial symmetry or that nobody really needs a day complication I mean how stupid can you be to not know what day it is ……………………. And …it ….is ….ON !!! There you have it, welcome to the forums !

Hope my example illustrate what I’m talking about.


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

d3xmeister said:


> No, it’s reality. Hardly anyone said anything about being a personal preference and opinion, and that’s in every topic about this subject ( a few exceptions of course ) People in the “sapphire” camp can’t accept that having mineral, or acrylic, can have advantages.
> 
> I wish the discussions went the way you describe, it would have been a much better and useful forum in my opinion.
> 
> ...


Reality: everyone wants sapphire. Using mineral is a disappointment unless the buyer doesn’t know better.


----------



## d3xmeister (Sep 4, 2018)

Robotaz said:


> Reality: everyone wants sapphire. Using mineral is a disappointment unless the buyer doesn’t know better.


Count me in for 1 that don’t care one bit about sapphire. So there, you’re already down to 99%. And thank you for proving my point.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

d3xmeister said:


> Count me in for 1 that don’t care one bit about sapphire. So there, you’re already down to 99%. And thank you for proving my point.


The same point also applies to your claim that “NOBODY realizes it’s not a free lunch.”


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

I don't know whether to be thankful or annoyed that Citizen doesn't use sapphire crystal on their collaboration watches, like their Mickey Mouse and Star Wars watches. I guess that just saves me a bit of money.


----------



## d3xmeister (Sep 4, 2018)

mleok said:


> The same point also applies to your claim that “NOBODY realizes it’s not a free lunch.”


You just missed Robotaz post ? “Using mineral is a disappointment unless the buyer doesn’t know better.”


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

d3xmeister said:


> You just missed Robotaz post ? “Using mineral is a disappointment unless the buyer doesn’t know better.”


When you say "nobody," all it takes is one counterexample to undermine your argument, which is exactly the point you made in response to Robotaz.


----------



## d3xmeister (Sep 4, 2018)

mleok said:


> When you say "nobody," all it takes is one counterexample to undermine your argument, which is exactly the point you made in response to Robotaz.


I did not said that. Please read what I posted again. Thank you


----------



## abccoin (Jul 18, 2012)

jmnav said:


> It is not about "cost saving" but about "price selling".
> 
> 
> 
> See? I bet you don't scuba dive at all. But for you to pay 10x for a watch, it must have sapphire, so sapphire you get.


I think cost saving and price selling as you say are the same thing. To me, the additional cost of sapphire is well worth it and I would gladly pay it. It is probably close to $20 - $30 dollars in added cost (I don't know this, just a guess). Citizen does include it on some surprisingly low-cost watches, so it cannot be prohibitively expensive.

One place I wish they used it was on the 2100 flyback chronos...a gorgeous amazing watch, but most versions come with a mineral crystal that scratches very easily. Even lightly worn examples can look bad because of it.

As for water activities, I generally use my G-shocks for that and previously used a Citizen Orca which I sadly don't have anymore.

For regular everyday use, I think sapphire is a great feature (one of the best actually) to have on a watch.


----------



## will_atl (Aug 22, 2021)

LosAngelesTimer said:


> I scratched the mineral crystal on my Citizen a few days after purchasing it - never again. I'm gonna ignore the wankery and suggest the decision is all about building watches to a price.


I am right there with you, a few months ago I bought a BN0200-05X that came with mineral crystal. I wore it a hand full of times doing odd jobs around the house, and at some point I put a scratch in the crystal, I have no idea when or how. I tried to polish it out, but that didn't go well  
I ended up performing surgery on it, and now it has a sapphire crystal (BN0200-05X Sapphire Crystal Mod).
My personal usage is as a desk diver, and maybe in the pool/ocean, I know that I am not going scuba diving any time soon, so sapphire crystal is something that I look for in a new purchase.



seadial said:


> When diving and swimming at the surface near reef the surge can get you and pile you into the rocks, especially if looking for an exit point. If unlucky your watch can whack a rock and easily damage it.
> As a scuba diver and spearfisherman (but not at the same time) I have had a number of encounters with rocks when conditions turned nasty.


I think that these are some very valid points, and are maybe more of a reality of the type of abuse that the average user will put a diver through, and based on this thread it seems that mineral crystal would likely fare better in these situations.


----------



## jmichaelc (Mar 30, 2014)

jmnav said:


> That means you also semi-agree


 Yes I do. Perhaps I should have lead with that.

Given that it's possible to find a good 1000-meter dive watch for $500 to $1,000, either quartz or auto, I personally can't process using something that costs ten times that much. Particularly because anyone going beyond 100 feet is likely to use an actual watch only as a backup.

So I guess I agree, but I'll grudgingly give honors to the costly dive watches for having specs one /could/ use deep under the ocean.




jmnav said:


> It's not his diving watch anymore.


 Ouch!

While I don't mind twisting a bezel because it's outside the watch, I'd never push mechanical buttons underwater on an automatic, regardless of the warranty. I didn't know people did that. Water pressure, salt, and gasket wear never stop.


----------



## jacgul (Oct 28, 2020)

I had a citizen diver with a mineral crystal. It has turned me off from ever buying another mineral crystal watch. After about 6 months of daily wear in the military, the crystal looked like I put sandpaper to it. On the other hand, I had several sapphire crystal watches that I have put through far tougher environments through far longer, not once have I marked a sapphire crystal.
Can sapphire scratch? Yes, however I think most anecdotes about scratched sapphire are actually an external AR coating scratch.
I will say, there are advantages to acrylic and there would be some to a very well formulated mineral glass. However, the mineral will be different from brand to brand and perhaps from model to model.
For me, the best crystal is a thick dive sapphire. The second best, best if shattering is likely or especially dangerous, is acrylic. However, sapphire with external AR is an absolute no go for me. I believe it is a terrible idea. If anti reflection is that much of a goal, acrylic would again be better.
And yes, I dive as well.


----------



## Kurt Behm (Mar 19, 2006)

Ticktocker said:


> I'm sure the real answer is price. A mineral crystal is less expensive but price aside, I've never had a problem with mineral crystals and I don't get what the fuss is about when it comes to sapphire crystals.
> Also, most dive watches from all manufacturers seem to be classified as "real dive watch" by the company but they know that a huge percentage will never see more water than the kitchen sink can provide. There are even dive watches with push-pull crowns and no minute markers. Style over function.


I've never had a mineral crystal that didn't scratch and scratch badly.


----------



## Kurt Behm (Mar 19, 2006)

litespud said:


> Because for “legit 200m ISO rated dive watches”, mineral crystal makes more sense. Sapphire might be more scratch-resistant, but also more shatter-prone. if your watch is being used as an actual diving tool, as opposed to plumbing the depths of a filing cabinet, a scratched crystal is irrelevant - a shattered crystal is serious


At the same thickness, sapphire is not more prone to shattering than mineral.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Ticktocker said:


> I'm sure the real answer is price. A mineral crystal is less expensive but price aside, I've never had a problem with mineral crystals and I don't get what the fuss is about when it comes to sapphire crystals.
> Also, most dive watches from all manufacturers seem to be classified as "real dive watch" by the company but they know that a huge percentage will never see more water than the kitchen sink can provide. There are even dive watches with push-pull crowns and no minute markers. Style over function.


Yeah, I don't see what the big deal is with everything having to be sapphire. It's tougher, sure but 99% of military use watches with some kind of mineral glass (gshocks, dive computers etc...). 

If mineral glass is fine for those guys, then it's fine for freaking desk divers and couch surfers.


----------



## Ticktocker (Oct 27, 2009)

Kurt Behm said:


> I've never had a mineral crystal that didn't scratch and scratch badly.


I have no idea how many mineral crystals you’ve had. But I’m sure a lot of people are tough on their watches. I’m sure your clasps don’t look too good either. 
I’ve never had a clasp that I scratched and that sounds unbelievable too. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jacgul (Oct 28, 2020)

Ticktocker said:


> I have no idea how many mineral crystals you’ve had. But I’m sure a lot of people are tough on their watches. I’m sure your clasps don’t look too good either.
> I’ve never had a clasp that I scratched and that sounds unbelievable too.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The difference is a scratched clasp doesn't effect legibility nor require replacement to correct.


----------



## Batboy (Dec 2, 2020)

Thankfully, Citizen now offers some Fugu divers with sapphire crystal: the latest limited editions, NY011 and NY013 ranges, have sapphire. (They also have updated bezel mechanisms and straps.)



jacgul said:


> For me, the best crystal is a thick dive sapphire. The second best, best if shattering is likely or especially dangerous, is acrylic. However, sapphire with external AR is an absolute no go for me. I believe it is a terrible idea. If anti reflection is that much of a goal, acrylic would again be better.
> And yes, I dive as well


My watches are frequently immersed and used for timing in the water. I have technical dived, and – when I’ve misjudged choppy sea conditions – shore dump has dashed me against rocky beaches.

I agree entirely with @jacgul. I won’t ever buy a watch with outer AR again, and mineral glass is also a ‘no’.


----------



## journeyforce (Apr 20, 2013)

Usually a mineral crystal is used on a cheaper watch but with Citizen, there is no rhyme or reason for what watches get sapphire crystal or mineral and it has nothing to do with price points. For example up until the current model of Skyhawk, Citizen used mineral crystal on all the previous ones except for special editions. So if you went out in 2016 and bought the Citizen Blue Angels Skyhawk model JY8058-50L for the full MSRP of $775, then you were getting a watch with mineral glass. By contrast if you were buying a Citizen model with the E650 movement in it for an MSRP of about $500, you got a sapphire crystal. So you are getting a sapphire crystal on a cheaper watch.


----------



## Ticktocker (Oct 27, 2009)

jacgul said:


> The difference is a scratched clasp doesn't effect legibility nor require replacement to correct.


Some people do need to replace their clasps due to heavy use but no one said a scratched clasp is equal to a scratched crystal. My point is that everyone treats their watches differently and most would be just fine without the need of sapphire on their crystal. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## grenert (Dec 9, 2016)

It's a mystery to me how Citizen decides whether to do mineral or sapphire. I'm also a little puzzled that some people are so steadfast about not caring. I've scratched mineral crystals and purchased plenty of secondhand watches with scratched mineral crystals. The scratches caused by me happened while doing nothing more than ordinary daily life. Usually just swinging my arm too wide and hitting a metal doorway or other object. I've never scratched a sapphire crystal on watches treated the same way. Even if you've never scratched a mineral crystal, the fact is that it _is_easier to scratch. Citizen doesn't seem to link watch price to crystal type, so I think it's a no-brainer to want a sapphire crystal, especially on a watch costing more than a couple hundred dollars.


----------



## jmichaelc (Mar 30, 2014)

jmnav said:


> I only know one guy that uses (used to use) his Omega Seamaster 300m chrono for its intended purpose: heavy-duty diver's watch, pushing the chrono buttons underwater (which, by the manual is perfectly safe and intended) and all the stuff for like over 100 divings/year. Net result? His watch allowed water ingress about two and half years from new. It was revised and repaired... just to let water ingress like two years later. It's not his diving watch anymore.


I know this is sort of a delayed reply, but I keep thinking about this when changing watches each day, particularly when going from watches I care about to cheaper, more rugged watches for work. Since we just finished up the fall season where there was lots of time doing leaf-blowing and road maintenance in preparation for the winter, I've had a lot of time to ponder things, and the watch depth issue stuck in my brain.

Here's a rule-of-thumb I learned years ago:

- 100m water resistance = go ahead and shower, maybe splash in the pool
- 200m water resistance = feel free to snorkel as deep as you want, but no buttons
- 300m water resistance = now you can go scuba diving, but still, no buttons
- 500m+ water resistance = dive as deep as you want recreationally, use buttons only if necessary
- But really, past 30m, shouldn't the watch be a second or third backup to oe or more dive computers?

As a result, I take any depth rating with a grain of salt. The depth ratings are more like classes of watch where it's okay to do certain activities, not actual depths where everything is guaranteed to work.


----------



## Ticktocker (Oct 27, 2009)

grenert said:


> It's a mystery to me how Citizen decides whether to do mineral or sapphire. I'm also a little puzzled that some people are so steadfast about not caring. I've scratched mineral crystals and purchased plenty of secondhand watches with scratched mineral crystals. The scratches caused by me happened while doing nothing more than ordinary daily life. Usually just swinging my arm too wide and hitting a metal doorway or other object. I've never scratched a sapphire crystal on watches treated the same way. Even if you've never scratched a mineral crystal, the fact is that it _is_easier to scratch. Citizen doesn't seem to link watch price to crystal type, so I think it's a no-brainer to want a sapphire crystal, especially on a watch costing more than a couple hundred dollars.


So in other words....... It's a no-brainer even if you want to skip the higher price of a sapphire crystal because you've never scratched a mineral crystal or don't care if you do, you should get a sapphire crystal because some people do scratch their mineral crystals? 
Is that like getting insurance to cover your possible sky diving accident although you have no plans on sky diving because some people do have sky diving accidents?
I suppose it could be a good idea...... you never know.


----------



## Munchie (Dec 20, 2013)

Sapphire is over rated

Citizen often describes their mineral crystal as "toughened" and I have to say that I have yet to scratch a Citizen mineral crystal.

One advantage of mineral that I have found is that it is less reflective than sapphire


----------



## captious (Nov 12, 2020)

Munchie said:


> Sapphire is over rated
> 
> Citizen often describes their mineral crystal as "toughened" and I have to say that I have yet to scratch a Citizen mineral crystal.
> 
> ...


Indeed.


----------



## jacgul (Oct 28, 2020)

Just Google citizen scratched watch crystal. This discussion is insane. One side is that "Sapphire is harder to scratch than mineral" and the other side is "I've never scratched my mineral crystal so...." What is the point? Sapphire is empirically the superior material. The only reasonable arguments against it are price and shatter-ability. In those cases it is beaten by acrylic and acrylic can be polished with relative ease, yet again something that mineral cannot do.
This is the same argument as "I've never been in a car accident, therefor seatbelts aren't useful". You can baby your watch all you want, but all it takes is one bit of mildly bad luck and your mineral crystal is permanently scarred. And no, it hasn't happened, nothing has ever happened until it did happen.


----------



## Rojote (Oct 30, 2009)

Super easy to ceramic coat a mineral crystal folks…


----------



## jmichaelc (Mar 30, 2014)

Ticktocker said:


> Is that like getting insurance to cover your possible sky diving accident although you have no plans on sky diving because some people do have sky diving accidents?





jacgul said:


> This is the same argument as "I've never been in a car accident, therefor seatbelts aren't useful".


Both are good points. Though I prefer the latter because I have scratched several mineral crystals, have never scratched a sapphire crystal, and have never broken a watch crystal, acrylic, mineral, or sapphire. Plus the watches I wear for manual labor are all Bertucci field watches with raised bezels that offer additional protection.

If I were worried about breaking the crystal, my first instinct would be to get a watch with a flat crystal and raised bezel, and then my second instinct would be to get a protective bumper for it, the way you can add one on for the Bertucci's. Note: while I'm a Bertucci fan, I'm not trying to push the brand -- I'm sure this combination is available elsewhere.

Though if I needed to have another brand on my wrist, and I just /had/ to have a working watch at all times, such as when diving, then I'd likely go with acrylic like the original submariners and speedmasters. If you're going to tout non-shatterability, I say go all the way and skip the intermediate mineral option.

(That said, one could argue that the mineral crystals are a reasonable middle-of-the-road compromise)


----------



## jmnav (May 18, 2019)

jmichaelc said:


> I know this is sort of a delayed reply, but I keep thinking about this when changing watches each day, particularly when going from watches I care about to cheaper, more rugged watches for work. Since we just finished up the fall season where there was lots of time doing leaf-blowing and road maintenance in preparation for the winter, I've had a lot of time to ponder things, and the watch depth issue stuck in my brain.
> 
> Here's a rule-of-thumb I learned years ago:
> 
> ...


This all starts from ISO-2281 which is basically a scam from brands so they can plaster larger numbers without due diligence. As a result, there are watches which I wouldn't put anywhere near water no matter the number.

But then, there are brands that never entered that game: they stay by the number they stamp on their watches. Of course, QA may still be an issue, watches are not going to be water tight forever and it's a fact that the only watch that will ingress water is the one that it's near water. All taken into account, I have no problems swimming with my 30m Omega watch, for instance.


----------



## abccoin (Jul 18, 2012)

1-There are plenty of beat up watches with very clear scratch-free sapphire crystals (see used Seamasters for examples)

2-There are plenty of lightly worn watches with very scratched up mineral glass (see used Citizen Nighthawks for examples)

Sapphire is a far superior material to regular glass. There's no shame in admitting that even if you have managed to avoid scratching regular glass.


----------



## abccoin (Jul 18, 2012)

Some fine mineral glass here:


----------



## jacgul (Oct 28, 2020)

abccoin said:


> Some fine mineral glass here:
> View attachment 16297083


But it can't scratch...


----------

