# Final end to the hesalite vs. sapphire argument



## jmsrolls (Feb 10, 2006)

Try this:


Remove the crystals from a 3570.50 and a 3573.50.

Drop the hesalite crystal from five feet onto a concrete floor.

Repeat with the sapphire crystal.
Restore the crystals to their appropriate watches. ;-)

Scratching vs. shattering. Which do you prefer?

I again state that I am more fearful of chipping the sapphire crystal on my Explorer II than scratching the hesalite on my Speedy Pro.

Fr. John†


----------



## WiscOmega (Feb 11, 2008)

Agreed. Shattering/chipping is far worse. It's also part of the reason I cannot stand cyclops on watches.

Plus a replacement hesalite crystal is like $25 or close to that.

Ciao,


----------



## DaveInLA (May 9, 2008)

I want to make a couple comments on this. 

I have a few sapphire watches, and chips or even scratches are things I fear because replacement would be very expensive.

I read about Hesalite and how easy it was to buff off. People said it was very scratchable, but to be honest, I had no idea just how un-glass like this material is. It feels like the same material you see inside banks separating you from the tellers, ie, bulletproof glass.


----------



## anonymousmoose (Sep 17, 2007)

Been wearing my SMP ever since I joined this forum (or close to it). Not a scratch or ship in the sapphire.


----------



## kimnkk (Jan 11, 2008)

I don't see the plus side of coated sapphire over hesalite. 

A lot of watches come with double AR coated sapphire, the popular PO included. Everyone knows that once you scratch the AR, you'll have to get the crystal replaced, or remove the AR (and to some people that's not really an option as they might prefer all-original). Removing AR or polishing out scratches? 

I know which i prefer. I've put some marks on my speedy's crystal and every single time, polywatch has never failed to impress. I'm much more careful with my PO than i am with my speedy. I'm always worried about smacking the crystal on something. That fear doesn't exist with the speedy because i know i can polish out the dings that develope on the hesalite. 

To me, the speedy is more durable, rather than fragile as most like to think. 

Not to mention of course, hesalite is tougher, while sapphire is harder & brittle.


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

And of course acrylic looks far better on a watch than sapphire or mineral. ;-)


----------



## OddE (Nov 21, 2007)

jmsrolls said:


> Scratching vs. shattering. Which do you prefer?
> 
> I again state that I am more fearful of chipping the sapphire crystal on my Explorer II than scratching the hesalite on my Speedy Pro.


-I'd surely prefer none of the above, as would everybody else, I think. 

That being said, I really feel that the risk of chipping or outright shattering a sapphire crystal is being overplayed.

All of my watches have sapphire crystals - only one of them has ever chipped off a tiny wedge of the crystal; that was after a blow that would surely have killed off a hesalite crystal and the dial beneath it.

Yes, when I get myself a Speedy, it will be one with a hesalite crystal. That will be in order for it to be as moonwatch-like as possible, though - not to avoid any shattering... (Besides, at least on the Speedy the shape of the hesalite looks better than that of the sapphire - still IMHO...)


----------



## sunster (Apr 17, 2007)

Owned a speedy Hesalite for 2 years, no scratches nor problems...I love the hesalite, just as much as I love the sapphire on my seamasters....hesalite befits this classic watch and I wouldn't want to change it.


----------



## Wytnucls (Nov 30, 2007)

Of all my watches, the only ones collecting dents and gouges are the ones with Hesalite and crystals. I'll take sapphire any day, for peace of mind.


----------



## eptaz (Feb 10, 2006)

I doubt the "argument" will ever end, until people stop looking at it as an argument, and realize that both sapphire and hesalite have appealing qualities. 

It's worth noting that far, far more modern watches use sapphire crystals, despite the higher cost, and for very good reason. Sapphire is durable, rugged, scratch-resistent, and unless, for some reason, you remove it from your watch and drop it five feet onto a concrete floor, is very unlikely to shatter. Honestly, how often do we hear about shattered sapphire crystals? Almost never.

I choose hesalite for my Speedmasters, but because of the wonderfully warm and vintage appearance it lends, maybe partially because of tradition. It's not out of fear of shattering, or even to avoid being thought "ignorant" for buying sapphire.

eric


----------



## Torrid (May 20, 2007)

I've never shattered a sapphire crystal, but I have shattered a hardlex crystal. To the crystals defense, I was pull starting a 5hp Briggs motor I had rebuilt and managed to full on smash the crystal on to the corner of the brick wall of the shop. That hurt!


----------



## Hansch99 (Oct 3, 2008)

jmsrolls said:


> Try this:
> 
> 
> Remove the crystals from a 3570.50 and a 3573.50.
> ...


Did you do this experiment that purports to end the hesalite v. sapphire argument?

Because my personal experience cuts against it. My SMP has taken a bad fall onto a tile floor crystal first, as well as the occasional smack into a doorknob while on my wrist, and it looks brand new. I know sapphire _can_ shatter, but really, how many people has this happened to in a real-life situation?

Even if your experiment has some basis in reality, I don't think it ends the debate. Point is: virtually all sapphire owners will enjoy their watches indefinitely without a single imperfection on their crystals, while hesalite owners are practically guaranteed scratches. Point in fact, I tried on a new Speedy at an AD last week, and it had multiple scratches on the hesalite already without having left the store.

I'll take sapphire.


----------



## zeppelin (Mar 1, 2008)

I turned my buddy on to Omega a few years back, and he ended up buying the Bond SMP that you see on here so often. Every time we hang out and I ask him about how he is liking his watch (mostly out of jealousy, because I still don't have an Omega) -- the first thing he ALWAYS mentions is how much he loves the sapphire crystal. He's always like "look how perfect this thing still looks!"

I'm still debating on PO vs. Moonwatch, but if/when I get a Speedy Pro, it will be the sapphire sandwich. I want the sapphire on top, and I want to be able to see the movement through the back...and no, I do not think the 3572 is the best of both worlds.

It seems to me that a lot of people think the Hesalite is the only "true" Moonwatch....and it kind of reminds me a bit of how some guys on here think that the 45.5 is the only PO that a man should wear. In both cases, these are usually positions held by people that justify their own purchases.

To be quite frank, I view the "moon" element of the 357x watches to be an interesting bit of trivia...as well as a fascinating bit of marketing. It would surely be something I would mention to anyone asking about the watch, but it would never be my reason for owning the watch in the first place. I think that it's "cool" or "neat," but I don't ever plan to go to the moon...and wearing a moonwatch isn't going to make me feel like I'm one of the astronauts.

In the same regard, I'm not going to be going 600m down in the ocean (or even 300m). When it boils down to it, I would argue that 99% of watches are never pushed to their limits or worn for their intended purposes. In fact, the only intended purpose most people will ever wear their watch for is to look good and to tell time -- and this can surely be accomplished with much cheaper timepieces.

Which brings us to why most guys buy nice watches in the first place -- it's the same reason guys will buy sportscars -- it turns you on...it makes you passionate. In its purest sense, a car is made to get from Point A to Point B, but driving to work in a 911 sure gets your blood flowing a bit more than a Ford Taurus. Likewise, there is something that "feels good" about putting a nice, wellmade timepiece on your wrist instead of a digital Timex from Wal-Mart. And, for everyone, the reasons are different. Some people just enjoy the look, some people enjoy the history behind the piece, some people enjoy the technology behind the movements, etc. Ultimately, I find these arguments a lot more convincing because they boil down to personal preference.

I think if people prefer the "warmth" or the "history" of Hesalite, that is splendid reason to get one. Others may prefer the sapphire's unarguably better scratch-resistance. The "shatter" arguments are not persuasive to me, because frankly I have maybe seen one person on here ever complain of a shattered sapphire. I know a lot of guys with fine watches, and I have never heard of them complain of shattering their crystals...and when I see their wrists, all I see is a scratch-free crystal. I think it's a nice quality that you can buff out the Hesalite, but frankly, a lot of people don't want to have to buff out the crystal on their watch every so often...just like some others don't want to have to wind a watch every day or so...

I don't think one is better than the other...it all just boils down to the relationship you want to have with your watch...I think a lot of 3570 guys think that the daily winding and periodic Polywatch sessions bring them "closer" to their watch...and that is part of the "passion" they have for that timepiece, but I think it's unfair to characterize someone who wears sapphire or an automatic as a poseur. They're all great watches -- to each his own.


----------



## inlanding (Feb 20, 2008)

zeppelin said:


> I turned my buddy on to Omega a few years back, and he ended up buying the Bond SMP that you see on here so often. Every time we hang out and I ask him about how he is liking his watch (mostly out of jealousy, because I still don't have an Omega) -- the first thing he ALWAYS mentions is how much he loves the sapphire crystal. He's always like "look how perfect this thing still looks!"
> 
> I'm still debating on PO vs. Moonwatch, but if/when I get a Speedy Pro, it will be the sapphire sandwich. I want the sapphire on top, and I want to be able to see the movement through the back...and no, I do not think the 3572 is the best of both worlds.
> 
> ...


Well-said. My sentiments, too! ;-)

Glen


----------



## nathantw666 (Aug 6, 2007)

zeppelin said:


> It seems to me that a lot of people think the Hesalite is the only "true" Moonwatch....and it kind of reminds me a bit of how some guys on here think that the 45.5 is the only PO that a man should wear. In both cases, these are usually positions held by people that justify their own purchases.


Personally, I wanted the sapphire version of the Speedmaster. I liked the glass back and front. Then I realized why I liked the old one with the caseback. It was because of the sea monster. I wanted the sea monster imprinted on my wrist when I take the watch off. So, the old version was the one I got.

I already had other watches with plastic crystals and frankly it kind of irritated me each time it got scratched. I got a Seiko 5 that had something similar to sapphire, well, not quite, but close enough. I loved how it didn't scratch...so I thought. One day I saw a speck on the glass. I tried wiping it off, couldn't do it. I looked closer and it was a chip in the glass. Argh! I also saw that there's scratches on it too. So, those are there for as long as I have that watch. The plastic crystals, on the other hand, have scratches on it, but people say you can take them out with Polywatch. I'll try that. It'll be like waxing my car every now and then to keep it looking good.

So, in the end, I like the idea that I can polish the scratches out more than the fact that a crystal will have a permanent scratch or chip in it.


----------



## 23fengshui (Aug 21, 2007)

Hansch99 said:


> I know sapphire _can_ shatter, but really, how many people has this happened to in a real-life situation?


It's called risk management. I've thought that certain things were unlikely to happen to me -- well, things happened!

I know what to expect with hesalite, even in the worst circumstance. $30 fix to replace a broken hesalite, done. Even way out of warranty. Scratches? I can fix those myself.

I am not prepared to accept the worst circumstance for a broken or even slightly chipped sapphire. I prefer to eliminate this risk altogether from my life. Same with outer AR coating. It's another reason why I maintain high uninsured motorist coverage on my auto insurance (considering where I live, you'd understand). That's also why people get life insurance -- to be prepared for the worst, no matter how remote the chance.

At least the Speedy gives us the option. I would prefer this option on more watches, but the companies have made the decision for us, unfortunately.


----------



## Nick1016 (Aug 29, 2007)

The original premise of this thread seems a little "Rolex vs. Omega"-ish to me, but much to my amazement, unlike those threads, which innevitably devolve into a flame wars, this one has stayed remarkably civil. Hansch and Zeppelin, in particular I found your arguments compelling and your posts to be very interesting reads. 

Personally, I am a big fan of the hesalite Speedy Pro and will never give mine up. It has nothing to do with shatter vs. scratch resistance (very overstated concern, IMHO), "trueness" to the real moon watch or anything else. I just like the "warm" look better and find it more fitting to the watch. 

The ultimate point is this: which crystal you choose for the Speedy Pro is a personal decision and each side has its merits. Those who are on the fence should just be sure to see both models in person before they buy. I know I was leaning toward the Sapphire Sandwich until I saw both models side-by-side.


----------



## eptaz (Feb 10, 2006)

nathantw666 said:


> Personally, I wanted the sapphire version of the Speedmaster. I liked the glass back and front. Then I realized why I liked the old one with the caseback. It was because of the sea monster. I wanted the sea monster imprinted on my wrist when I take the watch off. So, the old version was the one I got.
> 
> I already had other watches with plastic crystals and frankly it kind of irritated me each time it got scratched. I got a Seiko 5 that had something similar to sapphire, well, not quite, but close enough. I loved how it didn't scratch...so I thought. One day I saw a speck on the glass. I tried wiping it off, couldn't do it. I looked closer and it was a chip in the glass. Argh! I also saw that there's scratches on it too. So, those are there for as long as I have that watch. The plastic crystals, on the other hand, have scratches on it, but people say you can take them out with Polywatch. I'll try that. It'll be like waxing my car every now and then to keep it looking good.
> 
> So, in the end, I like the idea that I can polish the scratches out more than the fact that a crystal will have a permanent scratch or chip in it.


Just to clarify, your Seiko crystal is neither plastic/acrylic/hesalite, nor sapphire. It's a third type: mineral glass (Seiko calls it Hardlex). It is harder than hesalite, but not as hard as sapphire. So, it can scratch and chip, but can't be polished by hand.

eric


----------



## Torrid (May 20, 2007)

eptaz said:


> Just to clarify, your Seiko crystal is neither plastic/acrylic/hesalite, nor sapphire. It's a third type: mineral glass (Seiko calls it Hardlex). It is harder than hesalite, but not as hard as sapphire. So, it can scratch and chip, but can't be polished by hand.
> 
> eric


It can still be polished, I've polished out scratches before, but your arm will go numb by the time you get even light scratches out.


----------



## joe band (May 31, 2008)

Nick1016 said:


> The original premise of this thread seems a little "Rolex vs. Omega"-ish to me, but much to my amazement, unlike those threads, which innevitably devolve into a flame wars, this one has stayed remarkably civil.


 actually i thought it more like "the stones vs the who".

i am wondering why fr john didn't save this topic for april 1st, as i think it is a bit tongue in cheek to presume it would be "the end". a bit devilish dear father?


----------



## Bezel (Feb 10, 2006)

I have many watches from Omega to Seiko (my Black Monster is my beater watch). The only watch that I had trouble with scratching was a Tudor sub copy that I bought in 1985. The crystal seemed to always be scratched up......I wonder what that crystal was made of? :think: 

Bezel


----------



## GJ (Feb 8, 2006)

jmsrolls said:


> I am more fearful of chipping the sapphire crystal on my Explorer II than scratching the hesalite on my Speedy Pro.


Well said Fr. John.
:-!:-!


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

Bezel said:


> I have many watches from Omega to Seiko (my Black Monster is my beater watch). The only watch that I had trouble with scratching was a Tudor sub copy that I bought in 1985. The crystal seemed to always be scratched up......I wonder what that crystal was made of? :think:
> 
> Bezel


It would have been acrylic like this one of mine.


----------



## Bezel (Feb 10, 2006)

Yes that's the Tudor I own. It was my first "good" watch. For a couple hundred dollars more I could have bought a Rolex. I didn't know anything about watch brands and I liked the date feature so I bought the Tudor. I also didn't know anything about watch maintenance and right now my Tudor is sitting at home and will not run. o| My fault.....and I will be getting it fixed.

Thanks for the info about the crystal!

Bezel


----------



## G M Fude (May 27, 2006)

Hansch99 said:


> Point is: virtually all sapphire owners will enjoy their watches indefinitely without a single imperfection on their crystals, while hesalite owners are practically guaranteed scratches.


That's the way I see it, and it has been my experience with the watches I own that have acrylic or sapphire. All the sapphires are pristine, the acrylics are all scratched and I even broke one. Plus, I'm not stumping up thousands of dollars for a fine Omega to have plastic on it.


----------



## GavH (Mar 29, 2008)

I've had a couple of scratches on my hesalite clad Speedy which buffed out nigh on instantly with some brasso. Thus I haven't even bothered with the two blemishes on it now because I know they'll dissapear once I get around to removing them. I'm really not worried about them or any future scratches.

Meanwhile, my PO has no scratches and my AD reckoned at point of sale that it was practically impossible to scratch the sapphire crystal. However, if I do scratch it, the mark is there to stay as it won't come out. No matter how hard I try. A replacement will cost hundreds rather than next to nothing.

In my book that makes the heaslite a touch more versatile.


----------



## whifferdill (Jan 11, 2007)

As others have said - each has their appeal and quality and it's about what is appropriate for an individual and an individual watch.

For me - the Speedy _needs_ the hesalite - it's just part of the character and appeal of that watch for me. Owning one, and using it in quite exposed situations - skiing, mountain biking etc - I'm a lot less fearful than I was when I first bought it re the scratching etc.

However - I have a couple of watches with sapphire and one that was my only, yes, _only_ watch for over four years. While the watch itself has been serviced twice and the case has more dings than you can count, the crystal is as sharp and as new looking as the day I bought it. It's tougher than the watch. It's survived bashes against concrete floors and door frames galore.

With hesalite - I expect wear, marks, scratches and they're easily polished out or the whole thing is cheaply replaced if it's really bad - plus, you can't beat the look of an acrylic IMHO.

With Sapphire - you know it's going to last!


----------



## r1lee (Jan 15, 2008)

GavH said:


> I've had a couple of scratches on my hesalite clad Speedy which buffed out nigh on instantly with some brasso. Thus I haven't even bothered with the two blemishes on it now because I know they'll dissapear once I get around to removing them. I'm really not worried about them or any future scratches.
> 
> Meanwhile, my PO has no scratches and my AD reckoned at point of sale that it was practically impossible to scratch the sapphire crystal. However, if I do scratch it, the mark is there to stay as it won't come out. No matter how hard I try. A replacement will cost hundreds rather than next to nothing.
> 
> In my book that makes the heaslite a touch more versatile.


Isn't it cumbersome to have to buff out the scratches all the time?

I would disagree on your worries about the sapphire crystal. Until this happens, so far the sapphire has worked out better in your case?

Just wondering, as you are clearly putting a negative spin on something that hasn't happened yet.


----------



## agemrich (Jan 23, 2009)

I'll take sapphire. I've been continuously wearing a Rolex GMT II for 18 years (it only comes off about 5 min a day to avoid soap scum build up from the shower). I don't see any need to baby a watch with a sapphire crystal. I have three "micro chips" that I cannot see with my eye but can feel if I run a fingernail around the edge of the crystal. The bezel has taken most of the serious knocks and I think it looks as good as the day I bought it. I had a hard time with scratches in a Rolex Daytona Cosmograph I had for a while, though I don't know how that compares to helsalite.


----------



## cdmackay (Feb 8, 2008)

jmsrolls said:


> I again state that I am more fearful of chipping the sapphire crystal on my Explorer II than scratching the hesalite [...]


me too, definitely; yet I still much prefer the look of the sapphire on my 2254 

that said, if my wonderful wife would allow me another watch, then the hesalite moonwatch it is. or perhaps the GMT SMP. or, perhaps...


----------



## nathantw666 (Aug 6, 2007)

"Isn't it cumbersome to have to buff out the scratches all the time?"

Let's ask a different question on your multi-thousand dollar car. If you owned a really nice automobile, would you wash and wax it? If it got a scratch on it, would you use touch-up paint so it doesn't stand out? Isn't it cumbersome to have to wash, wax, and buff your car at least once a year, if not more often, to make it look good? I haven't heard half as many people complain (if anyone) about washing and waxing a car on car forums than I've read here in this one thread about people doing basically the same to a plastic watch crystal. The effort to do a car is a lot more intensive than a small piece of plastic. 

I'm just amazed. This thread is almost as bad as the hotly debated subject of smooth or crunchy.


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

TBH hesalite naysayers usually over exaggerate the polishing thing.

I buy all my watches second hand and when I get them I usually give the acrylic a good buffing, after that never again. 

Sapphire is a new thing and the newbie watch owners generally don't know anything else but many people prefer the warm look of acrylic against the hard stare of sapphire. After all it looked and worked fine on the watch todays Omega divers derive from, the SM300.;-)

Sapphire are fine unless you have to pay the hundreds of dollars for replacement and of course the hoovering out of the shards that will get into the movement in the case of breakage.

I have personally seen a sapphire gouged on contact with a brick wall and a member on here actually broke one on a cardboard box. LOL

So perhaps not the wonder material some believe?


----------



## ausrandoman (Feb 19, 2006)

*I have a regiment of straw men*

and lots'n'lotsa matches, enough to win any argument.


----------



## GavH (Mar 29, 2008)

r1lee said:


> Isn't it cumbersome to have to buff out the scratches all the time?
> 
> I would disagree on your worries about the sapphire crystal. Until this happens, so far the sapphire has worked out better in your case?
> 
> Just wondering, as you are clearly putting a negative spin on something that hasn't happened yet.


No, it isn't cumbersome, it take a few minutes.

Negative spin on something that hasn't happened yet? Like worrying about scratching Hesalite before you've even bought the watch? Seriously? And disagree away 'til your hearts content about my 'worries about the sapphire crystal.' They're _my_ worries, so why should you disagree with them?!!


----------



## r1lee (Jan 15, 2008)

GavH said:


> No, it isn't cumbersome, it take a few minutes.
> 
> Negative spin on something that hasn't happened yet? Like worrying about scratching Hesalite before you've even bought the watch? Seriously? And disagree away 'til your hearts content about my 'worries about the sapphire crystal.' They're _my_ worries, so why should you disagree with them?!!


Not trying to compare the two, as I'm sure people buy certain things for a reason. I'm sure if I were to buy a speedy, it would be difficult for me to pick one of the two. The point of my statements (not an argument for sapphire, cause I could careless of what others do) is that so far you haven't had any problems with the sapphire, but you've had to buff your hesalite once and soon to be twice.

So the point I was trying to make without being argumentative is that the sapphire so far has been more reliable for you, of course up until the time it does chip or crack. (hope it never does).


----------



## r1lee (Jan 15, 2008)

.


----------



## Presario (Jun 24, 2008)

There's no doubt in my mind that Hes is best when it comes to durability, but for me, it's about convenience. Hes definitely has an amazing look to it when viewed from an angle though. But since I've never had any problems with Saph, I gravitate towards it. 

The decision should be based on what's more important for you.


----------



## Justice (Jan 23, 2007)

What are the windshields of NASCAR race cars made out of?
I'll give you a hint: It's not glass or sapphire. ;-)
The window you look out of when you're in an airplane? It ain't sapphire either. :think:

- Jake


----------



## omegamonster (Feb 12, 2008)

Justice said:


> What are the windshields of NASCAR race cars made out of?
> I'll give you a hint: It's not glass or sapphire. ;-)
> The window you look out of when you're in an airplane? It ain't sapphire either. :think:
> 
> - Jake


But that doesn't mean much, does it? According to Wikipedia, sapphire is used in infrared optical components, high-durability windows, and wafers for the deposition of semiconductors. But we are talking about watches, and not airplane windows. Or NASCAR race cars windshields.

This is a silly debate to me because in the end, there's just no way to end the argument. The sapphire side generally doesn't like the idea of a scratched crystal, and the hesalite lovers prefer it for the warm look, ease of replacement, etc. Well, to each his own.

As a watch lover, I think what is more important is that every buyer, in making his choice between hesalite and sapphire, knows the pros and cons of each, and makes his decision accordingly. As long as it's an informed decision, and a considered one, that's all that matters.


----------



## zeppelin (Mar 1, 2008)

omegamonster said:


> But that doesn't mean much, does it? According to Wikipedia, sapphire is used in infrared optical components, high-durability windows, and wafers for the deposition of semiconductors. But we are talking about watches, and not airplane windows. Or NASCAR race cars windshields.
> 
> This is a silly debate to me because in the end, there's just no way to end the argument. The sapphire side generally doesn't like the idea of a scratched crystal, and the hesalite lovers prefer it for the warm look, ease of replacement, etc. Well, to each his own.
> 
> As a watch lover, I think what is more important is that every buyer, in making his choice between hesalite and sapphire, knows the pros and cons of each, and makes his decision accordingly. As long as it's an informed decision, and a considered one, that's all that matters.


Well put.

There's a good reason that NASCAR and plane windshields are not made out of sapphire -- cost. Also, the prospect of a "sapphire" windshield shattering and falling inward on the human occupants is rather dangerous, too, but I guarantee you the #1 reason is cost and impracticality.

Let's be real, though, we're talking about a piece of transparents crystal roughly the size of a Kennedy half-dollar on a several thousand dollar watch. For that reason, I don't think cost is the real issue -- even though some people seem to argue about the "replacement" cost. I'd be interested to know how many of these people have had to buy replacement crystals.

People's reasons for buying these watches are based on aesthetics and history -- but then they try to justify it scientifically or based on the properties of the materials. That would be like me trying to argue that my Titanium Seiko is superior to a stainless steel one because they use titanium in hip implants. Who cares? Don't fall for it. I bought titanium because it is light and because it looks cool. Period.

I don't care what other objects are made out of sapphire or hesalite. I care about what that substance is going to do for me on the watch that is on my wrist. I think we have established the pros and cons of both materials. The choice comes down to personality and preference.


----------



## nathantw666 (Aug 6, 2007)

Here's an interesting article about sapphire crystals I never knew about. http://www.watchtime.com/archive/wt_2003_04/WT_2003_04_sapphire_crystals.pdf


----------



## zeppelin (Mar 1, 2008)

nathantw666 said:


> Here's an interesting article about sapphire crystals I never knew about. http://www.watchtime.com/archive/wt_2003_04/WT_2003_04_sapphire_crystals.pdf


Interesting link.

Nice references to plexiglass, sapphire, Omega, and the Swatch group.


----------



## Alan M (May 27, 2006)

First an apology, I do not visit as much as I used to.

Then, In my opinion both have great points. Which is which? ;_)










Best

Al


----------



## FrankinCA (Aug 22, 2007)

*I still prefer Saphire>>>*

I understand your argument, but it's academic for me.

I've dropped my Submariner on a floor [thankfully carpet]. I've banged my other watches into desks and walls. It happens.

I know that mechanical watches are expensive and I know that if they break down or get damaged, watches are expensive to repair. I'm fine with that.

That said, I take pretty good care of my watches. So far, no catastrophic issues.

best,
Frank


----------



## GregB (Dec 6, 2008)

*Re: I still prefer Saphire>>>*

Unless one is prepared to swap out the crystal a watch comes with, or is Speedy shopping, the issue is academic. Almost all watches come one way or the other and do not offer different crystal material as an option. I bet 99.99% of those reading this have not bought a watch and then, prior to any damage, had the crystal changed from one material to the other.

- GregB


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

........And of course watch cases are made to take one type of crystal or another and although you could retrofit sapphire to mineral you couldn't fit a sapphire to a case designed for acrylic AFAIK.


----------



## Chris-John (Mar 24, 2011)

GavH said:


> However, if I do scratch it, the mark is there to stay as it won't come out. No matter how hard I try. A replacement will cost hundreds rather than next to nothing.


not really true. You can buff out a scratch from sapphire crystal with some diamond paste.


----------



## ude tokei (Oct 29, 2014)

jmsrolls said:


> Try this:
> 
> 
> Remove the crystals from a 3570.50 and a 3573.50.
> ...


I understand your being fearful, but it's non-founded in reality, and like your test, only tested in the imagination.

It's interesting to note that ALL of the naysayers to sapphire crystals base their arguments on hearsay and paranoia when posts from actual sapphire users are ignored as annoying facts.

Every Hardlex crystal I've ever had has been badly, badly scratched, and the few plastic crystals I've had have also suffered the same. No sapphire crystal in my possession has ever scratched, shattered or suffered any visible damage.

Facts vs. urban legend style paranoia = sapphire vs. sapphire. In one thread I saw mention of a damaged sapphire crystal when it hit a brick wall. No pictures, but still, he may have been telling the truth. Well, what would have happened to the plastic or mineral glass crystal in the same circumstance?

Another member stated that he has three micro-chips on the edge of his Rolex. Note that neither one of these two examples shows any evidence whatsoever of the oft heard of but never seen shattering of sapphire that the naysayers love to disseminate.

One additional point about anti-reflective coatings which some sapphire crystals come with is that my Seiko does show some evidence of wear on the coating, but still looks great, and my Omega shows absolutely no marks on the coating. Once again the paranoia is far more prevalent than evidence of inherent weakness when it comes to the coatings.

The real final word on Hesalite vs. sapphire should have been that any crystal material is viable and it boils down largely to personal tastes. Sapphire is the undisputed king of watch crystals in the real world but plastic and mineral glass still have their place and it's up for each individual to determine which they prefer. Let's just allow the process of choice to be driven by facts rather than emotions or old wives tales.


----------



## Anthony Gordon (May 5, 2015)

Very interesting thread .. I believe it comes to preference myself..

https://www.minus4plus6.com/ouch.htm

Theres a few cool stories 
And the one about the watch lost in an engine and surving surely would not have been possible with sapphire

Even though i like the idea of not shattering as easy non saph or mineral

i still love the look and really cool way it looks in sunlight sometimes that neat spectrum of diamond like light...
(Saph)

But at the same time i dont like how at church the thing can shoot glares like lasers being both distracting and flashy in the truest sense with my sub..


----------



## DocJekl (May 19, 2014)

Hesalite and Sapphire beat mineral crystal any day - the other day my brother sent me the Citizen Eco-Drive that I bought him since it stopped running, as I'd promised to fix it for him. I tried lightly knocking on the watch crystal with my knuckle to get the second hand to move, and the crystal blew up. That should never happen with such a light tap.


----------



## speedmaster2915 (Jul 16, 2015)

Maybe you just don't know your own strength. 

Once this debate is settled, I think we should move on to "tastes great" vs "less filling."


----------



## DocJekl (May 19, 2014)

speedmaster2915 said:


> Maybe you just don't know your own strength.
> 
> Once this debate is settled, I think we should move on to "tastes great" vs "less filling."


Yes, that argument is much more fun - I do think the debate is settled, Hesalite is better because it's less likely to shatter and can be polished or inexpensively replaced, but sapphire still beats mineral crystal every time, even if you don't tend to bang into things all the time.


----------



## DocJekl (May 19, 2014)

When can we get artificial diamond watch crystals?


----------



## pronstar (Dec 28, 2013)

I've smashed the sapphire crystal on my Oris so hard, so many times, I'm continually amazed its still in pristine condition. Block walls, concrete, steel railings, hot engine parts - not a scratch. 

The bezel, on the other hand...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Anthony Gordon (May 5, 2015)

Wow cant believe that thing cracked must be the iron fist


----------



## omegawatchlvr (Jan 19, 2008)

Here is a plexie hesalite crystal wich was replaced by a new one. And broke while the replacement took place. Notice how thick it is(nearly 2mm, I've measured it), thicker actually than most crystals I've seen. Not only is it incredibly strong, as mentioned before it is also easy to polish if needed. If you don't have polywatch even some toothpastes will work.

Like other who posted on this thread I own watches with both hesalite and sapphire . Personally I prefer the plexie. I guess that what it also comes down to, personal preference and what you aim the watch be used for.

David

Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met behulp van Tapatalk


----------



## Ursus (Sep 10, 2010)

Thanks for posting that picture!!! So this means my fear that I may eventually 'polywatch' a hole in the hesalite is pretty much impossible in my lifetime 


Sent from my mobile


----------



## omegawatchlvr (Jan 19, 2008)

Polywatch in my experience is for fine scratches , with bigger scratches I usually nick an emeryboard with a 4 stage grit, from my gf. Use all for stages the first two till the scratches are gone 3 and 4 to polish up . And polywatch for that fine polish and finishing touch. And yes you will not polish through with the polywatch. After this the emeryboard is useless for her because it's covered in fine plastic powder material but still good for removing scratches!

David


----------



## Ipromise (Jan 14, 2013)

I personally like both, depending on the watch. I love hesalite on the speedy for that retro look and wonderful distortion. But on some divers, sapphire can just disappear and let you enjoy the dial and hands. Basically I am contributing absolutely nothing to this thread, haha.


----------



## DaveInLA (May 9, 2008)

Ipromise said:


> I personally like both, depending on the watch. I love hesalite on the speedy for that retro look and wonderful distortion. But on some divers, sapphire can just disappear and let you enjoy the dial and hands. Basically I am contributing absolutely nothing to this thread, haha.


I also like hesalite for Speedy and sapphire for everything else. Not only do I like distortion, i like that it's raised.


----------



## edhchoe (Mar 2, 2010)

I would not have bought a speedy if omega didn't make sapphire sandwich. 
I like the view from the back and the high domed sapphire crystal. 
I have never broken any watch crystals and I am not least bit worried that I would break this one.


----------



## JahIthBer (May 9, 2014)

I got a week until my pre-moon 145.022-69ST arrives. Before I bought it, I came across a 3572.50 and 3573.50 both offered at the same price. Ultimately I decided to buy the 3572.50 but by that time it was gone. Then I found this good condition 145.022-69ST offered at the same price, so I grabbed a true vintage one instead.

Ultimately my heart compels me to choose hesalite, even when my brain favours sapphire. I just can't stand the milky ring, I had a watch with similar milky ring around the mineral crystal it bothered me so much I gave it to my brother. Interestingly, the speedy moonphase 3576.50 also has sapphire, but it doesn't have that annoying milky ring.








3576.50 next to a 3570.50


----------



## Ursus (Sep 10, 2010)

JahIthBer said:


> I just can't stand the milky ring, I had a watch with similar milky ring around the mineral crystal it bothered me so much I gave it to my brother. Interestingly, the speedy moonphase 3576.50 also has sapphire, but it doesn't have that annoying milky ring.


My feelings exactly, in case the hesalite on the Speedy would look the same as the hesalite looks, then I'd have picked saphire no doubt. But that milky ring is not doing it any good... then again, I can totally appreciate that people in fact like that ring, just a personal preference.


----------



## LivingTheDream (May 28, 2015)

My first Rolex was equipped with acrylic instead of sapphire, and I never could get used to it. It always looked cheap for a luxury watch, and every time something came in contact with it, like the button from my dress shirt, it made a cheap sounding noise. Just never sat well with me, so I later sold it for a sapphire Rolex and never looked back. Love it. Never once did I ever worry about breaking it. Then again I don't play hockey or football while wearing it.


----------



## velocityboy (Feb 20, 2011)

Alan M said:


> First an apology, I do not visit as much as I used to.
> 
> Then, In my opinion both have great points. Which is which? ;_)
> 
> ...


Milky ring on the right, so I'm guessing that's the sapphire watch.

Hesalite looks and feels warmer, literally when you touch it. Love the added distortion of the dial too. 
Basically, hesalite adds character to a watch.

People can argue about the potential cracking/scratching/chipping/smashing of hesalite vs sapphire till the cows come home.
Personally, little scratches don't bother me at all. 
Hesalite. It just looks cool.


----------



## teeritz (May 27, 2006)

Not only that, VB, but hesalite crystals are a nice visual link to the way watches _used_ to be made, before wristwatches became referred to as 'luxury' items, before the ridiculous flood of celebrity brand ambassadors, and before the advent of 'boutique stores'.
Call me old fashioned.


----------



## velocityboy (Feb 20, 2011)

teeritz said:


> Not only that, VB, but hesalite crystals are a nice visual link to the way watches _used_ to be made, before wristwatches became referred to as 'luxury' items, before the ridiculous flood of celebrity brand ambassadors, and before the advent of 'boutique stores'.
> Call me old fashioned.


Hey, nothing wrong with old fashioned. It's why we're into mechanical watches in the first place.
If you want an indestructible watch, buy a g-shock.
But if you're willing to put up with the impracticalities of a mechanical watch, plus a manual windup one no less, why not go the whole hog and get the full hesalite experience as well?

Btw, I meant to post this in the other thread where the OP was dissatisfied with his 4 month Speedy pro experience. Somehow I wound up here instead.


----------



## fskywalker (Jul 14, 2014)

My 20 year old Rolex Sub sapphire crystal (own since new) haven't scratched or chipped yet, so not concerned about damaging a sapphire watch crystal. AR coating another story; can be scratched, but removing it simple enough from what have read. I have owned both hesalite and sapphire SMP's and my vote goes to sapphire. Many LE's lately (50th anniversary seahorse, 50th anniversary manual coaxial, meterorite, FOIS, etc) had come out with came with sapphire and think the trend will continue. Omega is just keeping hesalite as an option in a few models to please the vintage looking loving crew.


----------



## abechung (Jul 27, 2015)

I know this is a sub Omega thread, regarding hesalite vs sapphire crystals. It seems many of you are knowledgeable in this subject.

I do like the dome shape and warm feel of the hesalite crystal; however, just today, I bumped my watch hand on a door handle while walking out, and noticed a two crack marks. I've just had this watch for about 2 months now, and the scratch isn't surface level, but has the trajectory of a nail going into an object from the point of impact. I'm not even sure if the crack even touches the surface.

Now regarding maintenance, will Polywatch get that crack filled up? Also, the crack is pretty close to the side of the crystal (where the crystal meets to watch bezel). It actually seems like this one might not be polish-able. I can attach pictures for reference. Any help would be GREATLY appreciated!


----------



## Ursus (Sep 10, 2010)

I would tape the case. And polywatch away. Doesnt seem impossible at all to me. I've seen mich worse pictures on the internet


Sent from my mobile


----------



## samanderson (Aug 16, 2011)

If they are actual cracks in the crystal then I don't see how polywatch would help - it only cuts and polishes surface scratches. From the first pic, and the posters description, it looks like a crack, not a scratch.


----------



## samanderson (Aug 16, 2011)

abechung said:


> I bumped my watch hand on a door handle while walking out, and noticed a two crack marks


Bummer - since owning nice watches I've learned a whole new way of walking when I am constantly "aware" of my wrist and watch: going through doors, reaching behind the TV cabinet, making the bed, reaching under/behind the car seat...it becomes a new sort of 6th sense.


----------



## abechung (Jul 27, 2015)

Ursus said:


> I would tape the case. And polywatch away. Doesnt seem impossible at all to me. I've seen mich worse pictures on the internet
> 
> Sent from my mobile


Any masking tape is fine, right?



samanderson said:


> If they are actual cracks in the crystal then I don't see how polywatch would help - it only cuts and polishes surface scratches. From the first pic, and the posters description, it looks like a crack, not a scratch.


I figure I'm probably going to have to live with the crack, until I end up replacing the crystal. Do you know how much a crystal replacement would cost on a Junkers Bauhaus Automatic 6060-5?



samanderson said:


> Bummer - since owning nice watches I've learned a whole new way of walking when I am constantly "aware" of my wrist and watch: going through doors, reaching behind the TV cabinet, making the bed, reaching under/behind the car seat...it becomes a new sort of 6th sense.


Yeah, I'm still not used to the elevated domed height on the watch. I don't usually bang my watch on things...it was such an avoidable situation if I propped the door wider.

I'm going to try it anyways, because who knows, maybe the crack does touch the surface and will seep into the crack hahaha. I'll keep you guys posted. Thanks!


----------



## samanderson (Aug 16, 2011)

abechung said:


> I figure I'm probably going to have to live with the crack, until I end up replacing the crystal. Do you know how much a crystal replacement would cost on a Junkers Bauhaus Automatic 6060-5?


I wouldn't actually mind a crack in mine cause it's not permanent damage. I would kick myself about permanent damage, I could live with the crack.

The nice thing about acrylic is that they are cheap and easy to replace. You can do it yourself if you have the right tools. The crystal itself should only cost about $10 from Ofrei or Cousins. I've never paid to have it done so don't know what it would cost, but it couldn't be expensive. Someone here must have an estimate.


----------



## abechung (Jul 27, 2015)

I could live with the crack too, since it gives it a wear and tear look, but I didn't expect to get one so early. Also, j don't trust myself to do the repair by myself. Hahaha


----------



## teeritz (May 27, 2006)

Abechung, Polywatch will not get these scratches out. Polywatch is for surface marks and scratches only. The crystal has crazed, the crack runs through the middle of the glass. Best thing would be to either live with it until you get the watch serviced, or any competent watchmaker can source and fit a replacement crystal for it.


----------



## abechung (Jul 27, 2015)

teeritz said:


> Abechung, Polywatch will not get these scratches out. Polywatch is for surface marks and scratches only. The crystal has crazed, the crack runs through the middle of the glass. Best thing would be to either live with it until you get the watch serviced, or any competent watchmaker can source and fit a replacement crystal for it.


Thanks for your input and advice. I agree with you, but my unavoidable desperation will force me to give it a try, since my polywatch will be coming in tomorrow.

But I'm still okay if it doesn't do anything. hahaha. And thanks for the words of relief regarding the crystal replacement.

One more question, are all Hesalite Crystals made equal? Mine come out taller than one, lets say an Omega Speedmaster might have...how does one procure the correct one? Because I own a Junkers Bauhaus Automatic 6060-5, I don't know if I can order an OEM crystal direct. Any advice regarding how to replace one and any specific dealers I should look for, would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## ude tokei (Oct 29, 2014)

Ursus said:


> So this means my fear that I may eventually 'polywatch' a hole in the hesalite is pretty much impossible in my lifetime


Well with the level of stated concern over sapphire breakage your fears of wearing a hole in your crystal could be rationalized much the same way, if you're predisposed towards unwarranted paranoia that is. Really though, probably never going to happen.



GregB said:


> I bet 99.99% of those reading this have not bought a watch and then, prior to any damage, had the crystal changed from one material to the other.


I almost fit into that tiny margin since I planned from the start to swap to sapphire on my titanium Seiko. Unfortunately, but predictably, it scratched before the changeover happened.

One thing is for sure and that is that I detest mineral crystals on any but the cheapest of watches and while I do prefer sapphire I love the look of watches that have various grades of plastic crystals, whether because it was the only material available at the time or reasons having to do with appearance.

Still the only reasons to go with hesalite are either emotional or aesthetics and the only reasons not to choose sapphire are either emotional (paranoia being the strongest) or aesthetics.

For pure practicality sapphire is the best material available and the one I had put on my Seiko to replace the Hardlex cost me about $50 installed.

Whichever you choose make sure you leave out the old wives tales and choose what you like and not what others tell you boogieman stories about.


----------



## Glacier (Oct 28, 2015)

zeppelin said:


> I turned my buddy on to Omega a few years back, and he ended up buying the Bond SMP that you see on here so often. Every time we hang out and I ask him about how he is liking his watch (mostly out of jealousy, because I still don't have an Omega) -- the first thing he ALWAYS mentions is how much he loves the sapphire crystal. He's always like "look how perfect this thing still looks!"
> 
> I'm still debating on PO vs. Moonwatch, but if/when I get a Speedy Pro, it will be the sapphire sandwich. I want the sapphire on top, and I want to be able to see the movement through the back...and no, I do not think the 3572 is the best of both worlds.
> 
> ...


To me, this response puts a "final end" to the argument lol~


----------



## fskywalker (Jul 14, 2014)

Glacier said:


> To me, this response puts a "final end" to the argument lol~


Agree! ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jfo2010 (May 25, 2015)

The milky ring is a total turnoff for me so I got the hesalite version. If there wasn't a hesalite version, I would not own a Speedy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

When it comes to a Speedy I'll take the hesalite. As a one and only watch though, sapphire without hesitation. Had sapphire crystals for 25 years of collecting not a single problem with any sapphire I ever owned. Except my Lum Tec with that silly outer AR coating on it that was coming off and took me hours to buff it away.


----------



## Thwizzit (Feb 3, 2009)

I can't believe this thread has gone on for nine pages when there really is nothing to discuss... The Mona Lisa does not have blonde hair, a '69 Mustang Convertible with a hard top is not a convertible, a donut with no hole is a danish.... and the Speedmaster Professional has a hesalite crystal... that's all there is to it.


----------



## mdaclarke (Jan 31, 2015)

Thwizzit said:


> I can't believe this thread has gone on for nine pages when there really is nothing to discuss... The Mona Lisa does not have blonde hair, a '69 Mustang Convertible with a hard top is not a convertible, a donut with no hole is a danish.... and the Speedmaster Professional has a hesalite crystal... that's all there is to it.


Agree 100%


----------



## mdaclarke (Jan 31, 2015)

Thwizzit said:


> I can't believe this thread has gone on for nine pages when there really is nothing to discuss... The Mona Lisa does not have blonde hair, a '69 Mustang Convertible with a hard top is not a convertible, a donut with no hole is a danish.... and the Speedmaster Professional has a hesalite crystal... that's all there is to it.


Agree 100%


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

Thwizzit said:


> I can't believe this thread has gone on for nine pages when there really is nothing to discuss...


And *Seven* years!


----------



## LivingTheDream (May 28, 2015)

Exactly. That is why Omega makes both. Simply buy the one that appeals to you personally. That's what I did.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## ude tokei (Oct 29, 2014)

Thwizzit said:


> I can't believe this thread has gone on for nine pages when there really is nothing to discuss... The Mona Lisa does not have blonde hair, a '69 Mustang Convertible with a hard top is not a convertible, a donut with no hole is a danish.... and the Speedmaster Professional has a hesalite crystal... that's all there is to it.


Having started out on a faulty premise and posts like this one that pretend that the comparison between sapphire and hesalite is akin to hair color or proper terminologies for patries is the reason it ever went anywhere.

You pretend that the OP's point is the truth written in stone and no opposing view should be heard but truth is always better served with truth and not stories of caution of things hiding in the closet.

The best choice for a crystal material for you is not the best choice for everyone else, and that should be the final word on the subject of which one to buy. Personal choice unencumbered by mythical imaginations.


----------



## Thwizzit (Feb 3, 2009)

ude tokei said:


> *The best choice for a crystal material for you is not the best choice for everyone else, and that should be the final word on the subject of which one to buy. Personal choice unencumbered by mythical imaginations*.


Unfortunately, that's not true at all... It may hold true to choose a sapphire crystal for any other watch in the universe but not for the Speedmaster.... the Speedmaster has a hesalite crystal... you could look it up... if you want a sapphire crystal you should choose a different watch... you can't just go changing history because "you like it better"... that's like buying a vintage Model T Ford and putting brand new racing tires on it because you think it looks better and it more practical.. you can do that if you prefer, but then you no longer have the real thing...


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

Thwizzit said:


> Unfortunately, that's not true at all... It may hold true to choose a sapphire crystal for any other watch in the universe but not for the Speedmaster.... the Speedmaster has a hesalite crystal... you could look it up... if you want a sapphire crystal you should choose a different watch... you can't just go changing history because "you like it better"... that's like buying a vintage Model T Ford and putting brand new racing tires on it because you think it looks better and it more practical.. you can do that if you prefer, but then you no longer have the real thing...


Actually, Omega determines what is a Speedmaster. Even the limited edition snoopy has the sapphire crystal. Now you may prefer your luxury watch have a cheap piece of 60's plastic protecting it and that is certainly your prerogative. But the new Speedmasters come with a far better option. NASA after all is about new technology.

Kind of comical imo pretending a watch made today needs a cheap piece of plastic to make it authentic. Now if you have one that was made from the period, that I understand.


----------



## fskywalker (Jul 14, 2014)

Thwizzit said:


> if you want a sapphire crystal you should choose a different watch...


Respectfully disagree; you imply a Speedmaster Pro without a hesalite is not a Speedmaster Pro. Many limited editions (Apollo Soyuz, 50th anniversary, new Snoopy, etc.) and numbered editions (First Omega in Space series) are sapphire crystal and not less Speedmaster Pro's because of that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## altm (Oct 15, 2015)

Personally, I was against the introduction of paper money. I mean, what happens if I have a house fire?


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

TellingTime said:


> Actually, Omega determines what is a Speedmaster. Even the limited edition snoopy has the sapphire crystal. Now you may prefer your luxury watch have a cheap piece of 60's plastic protecting it and that is certainly your prerogative. But the new Speedmasters come with a far better option. NASA after all is about new technology.
> 
> Kind of comical imo pretending a watch made today needs a cheap piece of plastic to make it authentic. Now if you have one that was made from the period, that I understand.


You keep mentioning "cheap plastic" as if it were a bad thing.

The Speedy Pro with "the cheap plastic" is the one that is certified for NASA missions.

Sapphire is an incredibly hard material but like very hard stuff, brittle. If you were in a space station and you bashed your sapphire watch I doubt they would want tiny pieces of sapphire floating about.

In real life for most of us a shattered crystal can mean tiny bits of the stuff getting into the movement needing a complete strip down and expensive new crystal.

If you bash a "cheap plastic" crystal the worse that will happen is a crack and because it is cheap plastic it can be replaced cheaply without any movement strip down.

One of the pleasures of so called cheapness.

Although I have many sapphire watches I think ultimately it is just a reason to justify charging more for modern watches and personally prefer the look and utility of "cheap plastic".


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

Neil(UK) said:


> You keep mentioning "cheap plastic" as if it were a bad thing.
> 
> The Speedy Pro with "the cheap plastic" is the one that is certified for NASA missions.
> 
> ...


I think it's a bad idea for today's luxury watches. I know mine isn't going into space without an alien abduction. So what's the point of putting cheap plastic on it? I get it if you just like the looks of it better. But that certainly doesn't give you some kind of high horse to ride.

If you want to get technical, new speedies with plastic are nothing but a _replica_ still being produced. Ford could continue producing Model Ts, but who would really want one without it being an original to the period.

Any product produced over decades would be expected to include new and better technology if available.


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

TellingTime said:


> I think it's a bad idea for today's luxury watches. I know mine isn't going into space without an alien abduction. So what's the point of putting cheap plastic on it? I get it if you just like the looks of it better. But that certainly doesn't give you some kind of high horse to ride.
> 
> If you want to get technical, new speedies with plastic are nothing but a _replica_ still being produced. Ford could continue producing Model Ts, but who would really want one without it being an original to the period.
> 
> Any product produced over decades would be expected to include new and better technology if available.


Did you read what I wrote?

You keep on about sapphire being new and better technology and I am simply disputing what you are saying.

It might be newer but it's not _better_.

I've already mentioned the drawbacks.

1. The very hard brittle sapphire if broken can shatter into myriad pieces that will get into your watch movement.

2. Costs a *lot* to replace.

3. Very poor for reflections. The reason they need to be coated on both surfaces. The top surface usually starts scratching after a while which requires polishing off.

4. Watch manufacturers like to use the terms sapphire etc to justify their quite frankly ridiculous prices.

Now you tell me what are the drawbacks to hesalite because so far all you have said is, "I think it's a bad idea"?


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

Neil(UK) said:


> Did you read what I wrote?
> 
> You keep on about sapphire being new and better technology and I am simply disputing what you are saying.
> 
> ...


Excuse me if I think your claims are a bit off. 2 years running and I haven't shattered my crystals, scratched them or knocked off any coating. And I consider myself rough on watches. Before purchasing my watches, I made sure that I would have the income to maintenance them should something happen. Else I wouldn't have bought them. So everything you claim negative about sapphire hasn't/doesn't apply to me... Or at least yet.

First and foremost it's PLASTIC. That cheapens the luxury watch concept quite a bit imo. And count me as one who doesn't want to do regular maintenance just for my watch to look good.

So really the only reason I can see to get the plastic is of course the provenance. I'm OK with it if that is what you're into. But to claim superiority or it's the only true speedy is nonsense. All the new speedies have sapphire unless you buy the replicas.


----------



## mustogt00 (Dec 23, 2014)

I just don't like the milky ring you get with a domed sapphire on the speedmaster.


----------



## Thwizzit (Feb 3, 2009)

Facts is facts and the fact remains that the original Speedmaster was designed with a hesalite crystal. Period
Any version other than hesalite is just an imitation/variation/commemorative/fill in the blank and try as you might, trying to call it "cheap plastic" and saying it doesn't belong on a luxury watch doesn't change the fact that the Speedmaster was designed with a hesalite crystal and has a solid case back...nothing else to say.

If you want a Speedmaster just remember, it has a hesalite crystal, if you want a watch that just looks like the Speedmaster then get the sapphire crystal and/or display back


----------



## fskywalker (Jul 14, 2014)

Thwizzit said:


> If you want a Speedmaster just remember, it has a hesalite crystal, if you want a watch that just looks like the Speedmaster then get the sapphire crystal and/or display back


The real fact is the original Speedmaster was designed with hesalite crystal, but later Omega expanded its offering to include both hesalite and sapphire versions. Don't know why you are so animated against this fact, Omega and no one else decides how to call a watch and both versions are Speedmaster Professional. If you want to complaint about the existance of sapphire SMP's suggest you write a letter to Omega to express your view rather than trying to call non hesalite SMP's imitations.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

Thwizzit said:


> Facts is facts and the fact remains that the original Speedmaster was designed with a hesalite crystal. Period
> Any version other than hesalite is just an imitation/variation/commemorative/fill in the blank and try as you might, trying to call it "cheap plastic" and saying it doesn't belong on a luxury watch doesn't change the fact that the Speedmaster was designed with a hesalite crystal and has a solid case back...nothing else to say.
> 
> If you want a Speedmaster just remember, it has a hesalite crystal, if you want a watch that just looks like the Speedmaster then get the sapphire crystal and/or display back


As long as your cheap piece of plastic allows you to imagine your watch is special...so be it. But it is a modern day replica of an old watch. Sorry to be the one to inform you. Omega has seemed to move forward in life and I suggest you do the same.


----------



## Thwizzit (Feb 3, 2009)

I'm just trying to help you understand... Knowledge is good...Let it happen...


----------



## Thwizzit (Feb 3, 2009)

I'm getting the sense that you're getting your panties in a bunch because you bought the wrong watch...If the Flight Qualified version with the hesalite crystal is just a 'replica' then the sapphire variation isn't even that... It's just some frankenwatch that sort of looks like the most iconic watch of all time without the authenticity... I guess I'm starting to see why you regret your purchase


----------



## ude tokei (Oct 29, 2014)

Thwizzit said:


> Unfortunately, that's not true at all... It may hold true to choose a sapphire crystal for any other watch in the universe but not for the Speedmaster.... the Speedmaster has a hesalite crystal... you could look it up... if you want a sapphire crystal you should choose a different watch... you can't just go changing history because "you like it better"... that's like buying a vintage Model T Ford and putting brand new racing tires on it because you think it looks better and it more practical.. you can do that if you prefer, but then you no longer have the real thing...


Your line of reasoning is what is at fault with your inability to understand the conversation and it seems to be driven by either your emotional feelings towards the watch you bought which is as closely as possible, the watch you wish you had. However, since you can't have one of the watches actually worn into space, you tell people that you do have that same watch.

Okay, now get this, which hopefully will make some sense to you since you're the one who brought it up. A Model T with different tires is still a Model T! Incredible to you but not to the rest of us. In fact a Corvette with wind up windows and a Corvette with electric windows are still both, Corvettes.

Now Omega makes the watch, so they are not making fakes since they invented the watch and put the same movement inside whether it has a plastic crystal which makes some people feel warm inside, or a sapphire crystal which makes other people feel warm inside.

So the potential buyer can choose whichever way they want and you can insult as many sapphire buyers as having bought fakes as you want, but it doesn't change the reality that the watch is what it is, regardless of crystal choice, and sapphire is broken far more often in the imaginations of its naysayers than in reality.


----------



## ude tokei (Oct 29, 2014)

Thwizzit said:


> I'm getting the sense that you're getting your panties in a bunch because you bought the wrong watch...If the Flight Qualified version with the hesalite crystal is just a 'replica' then the sapphire variation isn't even that... It's just some frankenwatch that sort of looks like the most iconic watch of all time without the authenticity... I guess I'm starting to see why you regret your purchase


No one regrets their purchase and your suggestion shows how willing you are to go to ad hominem attacks to insult your fellow watch aficionados and Omega as well to try and prove a point that has no proof.

If Omega makes a newer version of their own watch then it's what it is, not what you say it is. Or isn't.

Every bit of your posting seems to be focused solely on insults and delusional thinking. I mean, frankenwatch?? Get a grip and put your panties back in the drawer because they don't belong in this conversation.


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

Thwizzit said:


> I'm getting the sense that you're getting your panties in a bunch because you bought the wrong watch...If the Flight Qualified version with the hesalite crystal is just a 'replica' then the sapphire variation isn't even that... It's just some frankenwatch that sort of looks like the most iconic watch of all time without the authenticity... I guess I'm starting to see why you regret your purchase


I don't think you know what 'replica' means.


----------



## ude tokei (Oct 29, 2014)

Thwizzit said:


> Knowledge is good...Let it happen...


Yes, so true. Now please listen carefully to the message quoted for your sake below.



TellingTime said:


> I don't think you know what 'replica' means.


Hopefully he can do a search and come back with the correct results next time.


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

Neil(UK) said:


> Did you read what I wrote?
> 
> You keep on about sapphire being new and better technology and I am simply disputing what you are saying.
> 
> ...





TellingTime said:


> Excuse me if I think your claims are a bit off. 2 years running and I haven't shattered my crystals, scratched them or knocked off any coating. And I consider myself rough on watches. Before purchasing my watches, I made sure that I would have the income to maintenance them should something happen. Else I wouldn't have bought them. So everything you claim negative about sapphire hasn't/doesn't apply to me... Or at least yet.




Not to worry you but two years? Is that all?

I've been collecting watches for thirty years, (you can see my Speedmaster collection if you click on my sig).

When you have been a long time collector your tastes will probably change. Without meaning to sound rude it is often newbies who get taken in by all this sapphire stuff. I agree it definitely _sounds_ better. ;-)



TellingTime said:


> First and foremost it's PLASTIC. That cheapens the luxury watch concept quite a bit imo. And count me as one who doesn't want to do regular maintenance just for my watch to look good.


You do realise there are plastic parts inside the movement of your watch?

I hope that hasn't dulled the thrill of the luxury watch concept for you?



TellingTime said:


> So really the only reason I can see to get the plastic is of course the provenance. I'm OK with it if that is what you're into. But to claim superiority or it's the only true speedy is nonsense. All the new speedies have sapphire unless you buy the replicas.


Of course, modern buyers demand sapphire, it sounds richer. Never mind that it is not as good.

Also re your use incorrect use of the word replica.

The modern hesalite Speedies are simply an unbroken evolution over the years of the original models.

As above I have listed the drawbacks of sapphire

In the interests of fairness now please list the drawbacks of hesalite.


----------



## Titan II (Dec 11, 2010)

I've posted this in another thread, but it also belongs here:

I've been following this thread from the beginning and, at the risk of having someone crush it, I'm going
to throw my hat into the ring.

For me it's always going to be the "original" with solid case back and hesalite crystal. There are many reasons:
authenticity, history, beauty, warmth, ease of care, character, emotion, and I could go on and on.

However, what I really chimed in to say is this...Throughout this thread I've read the comment, "Well I won't
be going into space anytime soon so I don't need a watch designed or created for space travel (or other words
to that effect). Me on-the-other-hand, I'm preparing for the possibility that I/we just might end up in space
during my lifetime. And if, or when, that day comes, I want to be ready with my Speedmaster that has been
"FLIGHT QUALIFIED BY NASA FOR ALL MANNED SPACE MISSIONS". You never know...it could happen.

Rene


----------



## ude tokei (Oct 29, 2014)

Neil(UK) said:


> When you have been a long time collector your tastes will probably change. Without meaning to sound rude it is often newbies who get taken in by all this sapphire stuff. I agree it definitely _sounds_ better.
> 
> Of course, modern buyers demand sapphire, it sounds richer. Never mind that it is not as good.
> 
> ...


Your whole tone is at once condescending and attempts to elevate your opinions to the status of unassailable facts. Some of the newbies you're referring to I suppose would include Rolex and Omega then. It seems they disagree with you and no, it's not simply catering to an ignorant public that has made sapphire the choice for many of us.

Your claims that we buy sapphire only to polish our egos, all the while you look down your nose at it while polishing your own is laughable. You may buy watches to show off but I buy watches for myself and the only watch I've seen that looks better, to me, with a plastic crystal is the Speedmaster. There may be others but looks do not higher quality determine.

For practicality sake sapphire is the best there is, but since peoples choices on watches is not all about practicality so much as personal satisfaction, the nicer appearance of the hesalite on this one particular watch can not be ignored. It does not however infer that hesalite is superior. You've listed what you purport to be the drawbacks of sapphire without any facts to back you up. I replaced a mineral glass crystal on one of my watches with sapphire for $50 and have never broken scratched one of them in over 20 years of working outdoors.

It remains a choice of personal preference and the dialogue does not benefit with your airs suggesting that we who like sapphire are shallow and only buy them because we're inexperienced or want to be trendy.


----------



## Thwizzit (Feb 3, 2009)

And just for the record, calling it "cheap plastic" is not an insult, its a point of pride. It was the "cheap plastic" crystal that was aboard every Apollo Mission while the sapphire crystal was home on the couch watching...


Oh wait... There was no such thing as a sapphire Speedmaster back then while the Hesalite was making history orbiting the earth...it was a few years before they started making those sapphire knock-offs of the iconic watch... My bad...


----------



## chronotimer (Nov 8, 2014)

Simple analogy. They made the first watch in 14k gold now they make it in 18k gold. Which do you want. Any way you slice it the newer one is nicer. Nothing wrong with the older one.

Samsung Note 4


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

ude tokei said:


> Your whole tone is at once condescending and attempts to elevate your opinions to the status of unassailable facts. Some of the newbies you're referring to I suppose would include Rolex and Omega then. It seems they disagree with you and no, it's not simply catering to an ignorant public that has made sapphire the choice for many of us.


I wasn't referring to newbies as watch manufacturers but as newbie "luxury watch" owners.

Rolex collectors pay a premium for "cheap plastic" crystals because in most knowledgeable people's eyes Rolex went from a simple tool watch used in many recorded exploits to an overblown fancy watch with a fancy price to go with it with the addition of sapphire

You can make a comparison with the Omega Speedmaster. Reasonably priced toolwatch - overpriced luxury watch.



ude tokei said:


> Your claims that we buy sapphire only to polish our egos, all the while you look down your nose at it while polishing your own is laughable. You may buy watches to show off but I buy watches for myself and the only watch I've seen that looks better, to me, with a plastic crystal is the Speedmaster. There may be others but looks do not higher quality determine.


So you agree with me about the Speedy and the hesalite crystal, good.



ude tokei said:


> For practicality sake sapphire is the best there is, but since peoples choices on watches is not all about practicality so much as personal satisfaction, the nicer appearance of the hesalite on this one particular watch can not be ignored. It does not however infer that hesalite is superior. You've listed what you purport to be the drawbacks of sapphire without any facts to back you up. I replaced a mineral glass crystal on one of my watches with sapphire for $50 and have never broken scratched one of them in over 20 years of working outdoors.
> 
> It remains a choice of personal preference and the dialogue does not benefit with your airs suggesting that we who like sapphire are shallow and only buy them because we're inexperienced or want to be trendy.


Couldn't agree more. ;-)

Joking aside, it's an argument that is seemingly unresolvable.

People don't want a plastic crystal on a Speedmaster because it cheapens it but don't mind plastic parts in the movement.


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

Neil(UK) said:


> Not to worry you but two years? Is that all?
> 
> I've been collecting watches for thirty years, (you can see my Speedmaster collection if you click on my sig).
> 
> ...


Worry me? Over the possibility of having to replace my sapphire crystal? I don't think so. What I don't understand is how one can "afford" a luxury watch and be worried about repairs. It comes with the territory imo.

I'm OK with plastic on the INSIDE. However I don't won't to look down at it all day long.

Once again, you have a modern day "replica" of a watch that was approved by NASA in the 60s. I own a modern day speedy which is a technological advancement of the same watch. And mine has a sapphire crystal with a self-winding movement. You have to hand wind and polish yours. When we are in space together and there's no polywatch around, we'll see who gets the last laugh 

Enjoy your very nice watch.


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

Thwizzit said:


> And just for the record, calling it "cheap plastic" is not an insult, its a point of pride. It was the "cheap plastic" crystal that was aboard every Apollo Mission while the sapphire crystal was home on the couch watching...
> 
> Oh wait... There was no such thing as a sapphire Speedmaster back then while the Hesalite was making history orbiting the earth...it was a few years before they started making those sapphire knock-offs of the iconic watch... My bad...


You are very insecure. Enjoy that Replica.


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

TellingTime said:


> Worry me? Over the possibility of having to replace my sapphire crystal? I don't think so. What I don't understand is how one can "afford" a luxury watch and be worried about repairs. It comes with the territory imo.


Owning probably 200 good quality watches I agree re repairs.

Just don't like sapphire though.



TellingTime said:


> I'm OK with plastic on the INSIDE. However I don't won't to look down at it all day long.


Just the look for you then? Not interested in the movement? Although for the record I think hesalite looks best.



TellingTime said:


> Once again, you have a modern day "replica" of a watch that was approved by NASA in the 60s. I own a modern day speedy which is a technological advancement of the same watch. And mine has a sapphire crystal with a self-winding movement. You have to hand wind and polish yours. When we are in space together and there's no polywatch around, we'll see who gets the last laugh


The Speedy Pro is not a modern day "replica" it is part of an unbroken evolution of the first models.

I didn't realise you had an auto. Pointless comparing them then really.



TellingTime said:


> Enjoy your very nice watch.


Thanks, I will.


----------



## yinzerniner (May 28, 2014)

TellingTime said:


> Once again, you have a modern day "replica" of a watch that was approved by NASA in the 60s. I own a modern day speedy which is a technological advancement of the same watch. And mine has a sapphire crystal with a self-winding movement. You have to hand wind and polish yours. When we are in space together and there's no polywatch around, we'll see who gets the last laugh


Ummmm, you know that the later 861 and 1861 movement Speedy Pros are still approved by NASA for flight duty, while the automatic and sapphire Speedys aren't, right?

But on another note I'll never understand why people have to validate their own purchasing decisions by invalidating others'. 
Every material, method, watch, case, strap, etc. has its pros and cons, and each person's decision is based on their own biased internal priority of those strengths and weaknesses. 
Using facts to create an informed decision is noble, while using them to make blanket decisions is lazy and ignorant.
Everyone enjoy what they have and stop trying to tear down what they don't. 
Happy New Year!


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

When confronted with the choice, I opted for the hesalite crystal simply because I preferred the looks of it. I don't care about space travel. In the two years of ownership, I've never had to break out the polywatch, but, admittedly, I wear it as part of a rotation. I also haven't cracked any sapphire crystals on my other watches, chipped one though. The newer iterations of the Speedy, i.e., XSOTM and 9300, don't appeal to me due to size and design and have nothing to do with sapphire vs. hesalite. Both are fine. My other watches have sapphire crystals, are automatics, more expensive and are generally more technologically advanced, but when selecting a Speedy I prefer the plain Jane original. Amazing that folks are fighting over variations of the same model from the same manufacturer with such venom and nastiness. Replicas, snake oil, cheap plastic???


----------



## Seaswirl (Mar 29, 2014)

When confronted with the choice, I opted for the hesalite crystal simply because I preferred the looks of it. I don't care about space travel. In the two years of ownership, I've never had to break out the polywatch, but, admittedly, I wear it as part of a rotation. I also haven't cracked any sapphire crystals on my other watches, chipped one though. The newer iterations of the Speedy, i.e., XSOTM and 9300, don't appeal to me due to size and design and have nothing to do with sapphire vs. hesalite. Both are fine. My other watches have sapphire crystals, are automatics, more expensive and are generally more technologically advanced, but when selecting a Speedy I prefer the plain Jane original. Amazing that folks are fighting over variations of the same model from the same manufacturer with such venom and nastiness. Replicas, snake oil, cheap plastic???


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

Neil(UK) said:


> The Speedy Pro is not a modern day "replica" it is part of an unbroken evolution of the first models.
> 
> I didn't realise you had an auto. Pointless comparing them then really.


It is whatever you want it to be. But I doubt any aspect of manufacturing the modern version is similar to the original. Even the original company is gone. Now if you had one from the period that was made from the same part batches...you got something. But you have a reproduction of an old watch that was and I guess still approved by NASA.

Lastly, if you are worried about how the manufacturers gouge today's sapphire customers, you don't even want to imagine what they are doing to the replica fans. 

Enjoy your old version and I'll enjoy my new version.


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

Seaswirl said:


> When confronted with the choice, I opted for the hesalite crystal simply because I preferred the looks of it. I don't care about space travel. In the two years of ownership, I've never had to break out the polywatch, but, admittedly, I wear it as part of a rotation. I also haven't cracked any sapphire crystals on my other watches, chipped one though. The newer iterations of the Speedy, i.e., XSOTM and 9300, don't appeal to me due to size and design and have nothing to do with sapphire vs. hesalite. Both are fine. My other watches have sapphire crystals, are automatics, more expensive and are generally more technologically advanced, but when selecting a Speedy I prefer the plain Jane original. Amazing that folks are fighting over variations of the same model from the same manufacturer with such venom and nastiness. Replicas, snake oil, cheap plastic???


I was amazed to see the hesalite vrs sapphire was so similar to the ceramic arguments. And then you kind of wonder why there would be so much angst against new technology in watches? It's like you believe enough in a certain manufacturer to over pay thousands for their product... But then when the same manufacturer introduces new technology the logic completely changes. --Getting ripped off, over charging, it's going to break. And the best part sometimes is they don't even own one, yet have such a strong option. Those are the actions of an insecure person. Those are also the actions of someone trying to make money. And people will say anything to make money. 

Don't gorget calling watches fake and not the real deal...


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

TellingTime said:


> When we are in space together and there's no polywatch around, we'll see who gets the last laugh


Actually, the reason why they chose the hesalite crystal specifically over sapphire because hesalite does not scatter when it breaks, and imagine what happens when pieces of sharp sapphire crystal flying around in space surrounding you. Not that I plan on going to space anytime, but I would take the hesalite if I do.


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

Don't forget that the same marketing team that told me mine was a Speedy is the same marketing team that told you yours was an original. And we both overpaid for them to do so. :think:

Happy New Years!


----------



## Neil(UK) (Jan 19, 2008)

TellingTime said:


> It is whatever you want it to be. But I doubt any aspect of manufacturing the modern version is similar to the original. Even the original company is gone. Now if you had one from the period that was made from the same part batches...you got something. But you have a reproduction of an old watch that was and I guess still approved by NASA.
> 
> Lastly, if you are worried about how the manufacturers gouge today's sapphire customers, you don't even want to imagine what they are doing to the replica fans.
> 
> Enjoy your old version and I'll enjoy my new version.


I don't know why you keep thinking I have "replicas". :roll:

I own a variety of vintage Speedmasters.

This one of My Speedy Pro's was made in 1967, well before the Moon landings (no NASA caseback) and has the original 321 movement that was used on all Moon missions.

Not a "replica", the real thing.

Do you see?


----------



## yinzerniner (May 28, 2014)

TellingTime said:


> I was amazed to see the hesalite vrs sapphire was so similar to the ceramic arguments. And then you kind of wonder why there would be so much angst against new technology in watches? It's like you believe enough in a certain manufacturer to over pay thousands for their product... But then when the same manufacturer introduces new technology the logic completely changes. --Getting ripped off, over charging, it's going to break. And the best part they don't even own one, yet have such a strong option. Those are the actions of an insecure person. Those are also the actions of someone trying to make money. And people will say anything to make money.


I think the reason why the arguments are so similar is that they boil down to the dual core values of every watch owner; whether modern timepieces are seen as tools or as luxury items.
After the great Quartz revolution many of the Swiss brands had to reorient their business model into Luxury territory just to survive. However, with luxury pricing there also needs to be perceived value attached.
In a purely practical sense sapphire is lacking vs hesalite/plexiglass simply because it's more expensive to produce and replace, it's heavier, more shatter-prone and it's more reflective. However, in a "perceived value" sense sapphire has a lot of positives - it resists scratches so it looks newer and shinier for longer, and people assume it's more luxurious since when they hear "sapphire" they think of jewels, whereas if they hear "plexiglass" they think plastic. But on the opposite end sapphire has it's own practical positives - by its chemical nature sapphire will start out clearer and STAY clearer for longer than hesalite/plexiglass since it doesn't scratch as easily, discolor or appear as cloudy.
In the same vein ceramic is lacking vs stainless steel for many of the same reasons - it's positives are more for appearance vs utility, but not ALL of it's positive attributes are aesthetic.

New technology is not always better technology.


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

yinzerniner said:


> I think the reason why the arguments are so similar is that they boil down to the dual core values of every watch owner; whether modern timepieces are seen as tools or as luxury items.
> After the great Quartz revolution many of the Swiss brands had to reorient their business model into Luxury territory just to survive. However, with luxury pricing there also needs to be perceived value attached.
> In a purely practical sense sapphire is lacking vs hesalite/plexiglass simply because it's more expensive to produce and replace, it's heavier, more shatter-prone and it's more reflective. However, in a "perceived value" sense sapphire has a lot of positives - it resists scratches so it looks newer and shinier for longer, and people assume it's more luxurious since when they hear "sapphire" they think of jewels, whereas if they hear "plexiglass" they think plastic. But on the opposite end sapphire has it's own practical positives - by its chemical nature sapphire will start out clearer and STAY clearer for longer than hesalite/plexiglass since it doesn't scratch as easily, discolor or appear as cloudy.
> In the same vein ceramic is lacking vs stainless steel for many of the same reasons - it's positives are more for appearance vs utility, but not ALL of it's positive attributes are aesthetic.
> ...


But you see, if you buy into the luxury concept to begin with it makes sense. You've fallen harder than you realize if for one second you think any luxury watch can compete with the cheap plastic/resign quartz watch. Even you admitted the manufactures had to differentiate from practicality to luxury to survive. So why put cheap plastic on a brand new luxury watch? Other than nostalgia or preference it doesn't make sense. You can't argue yours is better in any way. You just can't. If taken care of my Sapphire/ceramic will last forever in pristine condition. The plastic needs polywatch to survive. Steel needs to be polished. You're only argument against sapphire is it COULD damage. Well everything about your watch COULD damage. ..All that risk is fine until you get to the crystal? (rolleyes)

If you trusted Omega enough to overpay and believe in the original, then you should also trust enough when they say sapphire/ceramic are perfectly fine (better when it comes to maintenance) under normal conditions. That's why they charge more for it..less maintenance.


----------



## jfo2010 (May 25, 2015)

For me, it wasn't about which would last longer. My first priority when buying a watch is looks. (My own opinion is what I'm considering. I realize others opinions may differ from mine.) So in the case of the Speedy, I looked at the sapphire and hesalite side by side. I chose the hesalite. 

The Speedy needs service about every 5 years anyway and the hesalite is relatively inexpensive. 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ipromise (Jan 14, 2013)

Who cares, when everyone knows Hardlex is superior to both, hehe.


----------



## GTS Dean (Oct 12, 2015)

I have owned a Zenith Daytona for 17 years and wore it almost daily for 11 as a hands-on heavy construction company owner. This has been a great watch and I use the chronograph at least weekly. The flat sapphire crystal is particular about viewing angles and compounds the blinginess of the polished dial elements and make for difficult time-telling at a glance. The flat crystal lends to a lower profile, but it did shatter once and shards of the crystal marred the dial face.

I bought my first Speedmaster 6 years ago and it is my new, regular wear watch in the same environment. It does lend itself to more bumps and scuffs due to a taller profile. However, they all buff out and it has never cracked or broken. The convex profile makes it easily readable from far shallower angles without reflective glare than sapphire. I now have another Speedy that I plan to mod. I will put a display back on it, but definitely have the hesalite crystal on the front. This has to be the MOST legible chronograph a person can buy and I would not compromise it with a flat crystal.


----------



## WISDean (Jan 15, 2012)

Mildly entertaining arguments on both sides buy ultimately a bit childish. I don't see what's so difficult about one seeing the merits of technological progress and staying faithful to the original for nostalgia's sake. Why are people dealing in absolutes? I have the Hesalite Speedy and get a kick out of how (relatively) faithful the 3570 or 311 is to the original. Is the sapphire crystal better? Of course! Scratch resistant, stronger, cleaner. But so what? Why are you buying a Speedmaster in the first place? Are you telling me it keeps better time than a G shock? Why do we buy manual transmissions instead of PDKs or automatics? Why do we wear button up jeans and laceup shoes instead of Velcro? Why do we like neoclassical Greek architecture and analog 80s supercars? Because we do, for whatever deep rooted psychological reasons. I know damn well a 2025 Mustang GT can outrun a Ferrari F40 and is probably better built in every conceivable way. No question there. That's how stupid this argument sounds.


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

WISDean said:


> Mildly entertaining arguments on both sides buy ultimately a bit childish. I don't see what's so difficult about one seeing the merits of technological progress and staying faithful to the original for nostalgia's sake. Why are people dealing in absolutes? I have the Hesalite Speedy and get a kick out of how (relatively) faithful the 3570 or 311 is to the original. Is the sapphire crystal better? Of course! Scratch resistant, stronger, cleaner. But so what? Why are you buying a Speedmaster in the first place? Are you telling me it keeps better time than a G shock? Why do we buy manual transmissions instead of PDKs or automatics? Why do we wear button up jeans and laceup shoes instead of Velcro? Why do we like neoclassical Greek architecture and analog 80s supercars? Because we do, for whatever deep rooted psychological reasons. I know damn well a 2025 Mustang GT can outrun a Ferrari F40 and is probably better built in every conceivable way. No question there. That's how stupid this argument sounds.


I bought mine because I love the looks of it. I could have bought Rolex Daytona, but love my DSOTM. I don't pick what is popular just to have friends on a message board...I buy what I like. When I joined the conversation things had turned into the one true speedy comments. Complete an utter BS. If that is your approach, well mine is you got taken for a marketing ride. If you don't like replica...how about 60's souvenir for top dollar pricing. Get the drift.

Every sapphire owner has said they understand the nostalgia, yet the plastic fans still have bad things to say. Very obnoxious group.


----------



## Syed117 (Aug 13, 2012)

I've gone back and forth on this, but always land on the side of the hesalite. Not because I think I'm an astronaut in the 60's, or because I think the current moonwatch is the same one used all those years ago, but because there are certain things you don't mess with. Also because the particular sapphire used on the moonwatch looks bad. That white ring isn't helping the situation.

If it were a domed sapphire crystal and with nice curved edges made to look like the hesalite, it would be a lot easier to choose it.

I don't care about shattering sapphire because it's never happened to me. Going into all these hypothetical situations about what might happen isn't how I want to enjoy my watches. Hesalite scratches are also a non issue. You'll spend a lot more time winding the damn watch than you would ever polishing out scratches.

Going back to not messing with certain things. Despite their over use of limited editions, Omega deserves a lot of credit for keeping the moonwatch as close to the originals as possible. They could have gone the Rolex route and bling out every possible model until they look nothing like their predecessors.

Every other watch on the planet uses sapphire. It's nothing special. What is special, is the most iconic chronograph of all time and that it is kept as close to the original as possible. Just because someone allows you to do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea. I agree with the people that suggest getting a different watch if sapphire is so important to you. The hesalite is part of the identity of this watch. You don't change that. If you want to, maybe this isn't the watch for you.

We live in a world where everything is acceptable and everyone thinks they are entitled to an opinion. That doesn't mean they are right. Plenty of people have terrible opinions. Some people like their steak well done. That's their choice. Doesn't mean it's a good one.


----------



## ude tokei (Oct 29, 2014)

Neil(UK) said:


> So you agree with me about the Speedy and the hesalite crystal, good.
> 
> Couldn't agree more. ;-)
> 
> Joking aside, it's an argument that is seemingly unresolvable.


Absolutely, the hesalite looks great to me! If I was in the market for a big watch that's probably the one I'd go for!
However, always able to understand that other people like things I don't, if the sapphire crystal makes another Omega customer happy, how can they be wrong. 
I'm with you in not liking the milky ring on the Speedmaster, but that's not the sapphire causing it, but rather the poorly executed design of the crystal. Maybe there was no way around it without changes but none of my watches exhibit that ring.
I'll go with sapphire for all my watches unless they look better with plastic, in which case I'd also become nostalgic for my old Seiko automatic and looking forward to taking it in for polishing while I was on my newspaper route!

By the way, and I don't know if I'm alone on this, but I actually love the look of my watches with all their scratches and gouges in the steel, contrasted by the perfection of the glass over the dial. I love my sapphire crystals!


yinzerniner said:


> But on another note I'll never understand why people have to validate their own purchasing decisions by invalidating others'.
> Every material, method, watch, case, strap, etc. has its pros and cons, and each person's decision is based on their own biased internal priority of those strengths and weaknesses.
> Using facts to create an informed decision is noble, while using them to make blanket decisions is lazy and ignorant.
> Everyone enjoy what they have and stop trying to tear down what they don't.
> Happy New Year!


Exactly!! :-!


----------



## mdaclarke (Jan 31, 2015)

ude tokei said:


> By the way, and I don't know if I'm alone on this, but I actually love the look of my watches with all their scratches and gouges in the steel, contrasted by the perfection of the glass over the dial. I love my sapphire crystals!
> Exactly!! :-!


Agree 100% A watch without scratches is a watch that hasn't lived!!


----------



## mdaclarke (Jan 31, 2015)

ude tokei said:


> By the way, and I don't know if I'm alone on this, but I actually love the look of my watches with all their scratches and gouges in the steel, contrasted by the perfection of the glass over the dial. I love my sapphire crystals!
> Exactly!! :-!


Agree 100% A watch without scratches is a watch that hasn't lived!!


----------



## nicked (Oct 21, 2013)

Syed117 said:


> I've gone back and forth on this, but always land on the side of the hesalite. Not because I think I'm an astronaut in the 60's, or because I think the current moonwatch is the same one used all those years ago, but because there are certain things you don't mess with. Also because the particular sapphire used on the moonwatch looks bad. That white ring isn't helping the situation.
> 
> If it were a domed sapphire crystal and with nice curved edges made to look like the hesalite, it would be a lot easier to choose it.
> 
> ...


Great. +1.


----------



## Wlover (Dec 12, 2011)

If money is not an issue, which one will you choose?

If solely based on look I'll still take the original with hesalite. Becos it just looks super gorgeous and no grey ring...


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

I don't own a diver because I don't boat or live near an ocean. So the whole NASA thing is kind of like the guy who brags about the capabilities of his PO/Sea Dweller yet doesn't know how to swim. I justify my new speedy because I have a fast lifestyle along with my 2 twin-turbo vehicles. And I'm all about the latest and greatest...not remembering the past.


----------



## yinzerniner (May 28, 2014)

TellingTime said:


> I don't own a diver because I don't boat or live near an ocean. So the whole NASA thing is kind of like the guy who brags about the capabilities of his PO/Sea Dweller yet doesn't know how to swim. I justify my new speedy because I have a fast lifestyle along with my 2 twin-turbo vehicles. And I'm all about the latest and greatest...not remembering the past.


Wait, why not have a digital chronograph if you're into the latest and greatest?
But for real you don't have to "justify" anything, just don't denigrate other peoples reasons because they don't mirror your own. You know what they say about opinions and (blank)holes - everyone has one and they're often dark and smelly.


----------



## Maximus84 (Jan 11, 2015)

...still waiting for this 'final end' I was promised in this thread!


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

yinzerniner said:


> Wait, why not have a digital chronograph if you're into the latest and greatest?
> But for real you don't have to "justify" anything, just don't denigrate other peoples reasons because they don't mirror your own. You know what they say about opinions and (blank)holes - everyone has one and they're often dark and smelly.


They also say don't start what you can't finish. And people who live in glass houses shouldn't go throwing stones.

I do think justifying your luxury watch is important. If you care enough what it looks like with an outfit, you should care enough what it looks like with your lifestyle.


----------



## usfpaul82 (May 7, 2013)

How does one feel about the sapphire on the First Omega on Space speedmaster? I think that is one of Omegas best Speedmaster releases to date (apart from the regular Speedy Pro).


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

dak_la said:


> Actually, the reason why they chose the hesalite crystal specifically over sapphire because hesalite does not scatter when it breaks


Actually no.
It's plastic because that was the standard material then.


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

drunken monkey said:


> Actually no.
> It's plastic because that was the standard material then.


This is taken straight from the FAQ section of the Omega's website:

Why is the Speedmaster Professional "Moon Watch" fitted with a hesalite crystal?
The Speedmaster Professional is worn by astronauts in outer space. When NASA chose this watch, they requested a hesalite crystal, which "unlike a sapphire crystal" does not break into tiny fragments on impact.This feature is very important for astronauts, as the tiny fragments of a broken sapphire crystal would pose a danger in a zero-gravity environment.


----------



## yinzerniner (May 28, 2014)

dak_la said:


> This is taken straight from the FAQ section of the Omega's website:
> 
> Why is the Speedmaster Professional "Moon Watch" fitted with a hesalite crystal?
> The Speedmaster Professional is worn by astronauts in outer space. When NASA chose this watch, they requested a hesalite crystal, which "unlike a sapphire crystal" does not break into tiny fragments on impact.This feature is very important for astronauts, as the tiny fragments of a broken sapphire crystal would pose a danger in a zero-gravity environment.


To be fair Omega's been known to flub a few facts to trump up their NASA and space reputations (*cough* First and ONLY Watch Worn On The Moon).

That being said there are other watches with sapphire crystals approved for NASA flight, but the Speedy Pro is still the only watch approved for EVA. Maybe the risk of a crystal shattering is higher when it's exposed to the harsher elements of space I have no idea, but the facts are that when tested (along with other pieces like the Daytona and a Longines-Wittnauer) the Speedy had a hesalite crystal and it passed the tests. Whether it would pass again with the sapphire is not known but why even try?


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

yinzerniner said:


> To be fair Omega's been known to flub a few facts to trump up their NASA and space reputations (*cough* First and ONLY Watch Worn On The Moon).
> 
> That being said there are other watches with sapphire crystals approved for NASA flight, but the Speedy Pro is still the only watch approved for EVA. Maybe the risk of a crystal shattering is higher when it's exposed to the harsher elements of space I have no idea, but the facts are that when tested (along with other pieces like the Daytona and a Longines-Wittnauer) the Speedy had a hesalite crystal and it passed the tests. Whether it would pass again with the sapphire is not known but why even try?


Omega might fluff some of the stuff to bolster their credibility, but I doubt that they completely made up the fact that NASA chose Hesalite crystal for its shatter-proof characteristic. It's not just the fact that it is more likely for the crystal to shatter upon impact during EVAs, but I think it's the fact that once it is shattered, it is very dangerous with many pieces of small and sharp crystal flying around potentially damaging other equipment. I'm no astronaut so I'm just making my best guess, would be nice to have an astronaut to chime in here


----------



## EPmac (May 2, 2008)

dak_la said:


> Omega might fluff some of the stuff to bolster their credibility, but I doubt that they completely made up the fact that NASA chose Hesalite crystal for its shatter-proof characteristic. It's not just the fact that it is more likely for the crystal to shatter upon impact during EVAs, but I think it's the fact that once it is shattered, it is very dangerous with many pieces of small and sharp crystal flying around potentially damaging other equipment. I'm no astronaut so I'm just making my best guess, would be nice to have an astronaut to chime in here


I'm no astronaut, but I used to design satellite payloads. It is absolutely imperative that nothing is allowed to break loose and float around a spacecraft. And I mean absolutely nothing - no hardware that could loosen up during liftoff, no paint chip that might crack off from a torqued bolt, no unrestrained wires, no dust or debris. Nothing. Anything could happen as a result. The potential of damaging multi-million dollar equipment is very real, and there is no possibility of repairing it. And I'm only talking from the perspective of designing unmanned spacecraft. Put some people in there and you have another level of danger. NASA comes from that mindset.

I do find it amusing that the final end of this argument has been going for 7 years now. :-d


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

dak_la said:


> . When NASA chose this watch, they requested a hesalite crystal, which "unlike a sapphire crystal" does not break into tiny fragments on impact.


The Speedmaster had a plastic crystal because that is what it came with in 1965-6.

It's use on the watch had nothing to do with NASA.
NASA didn't request anything from Omega.

They didn't choose plastic over sapphire because sapphire crystals weren't in use until the 1970s.
They didn't request it for the Speedmaster because it was already there.
I mean, they famously tested off the shelf watches with *no modifications* made.

That sentence should read:

"When NASA were choosing watches to test, they opted for watches with plastic rather than glass".

It might look like they mean the same thing but they don't.


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

drunken monkey said:


> The Speedmaster had a plastic crystal because that is what it came with in 1965-6.
> 
> It's use on the watch had nothing to do with NASA.
> NASA didn't request anything from Omega.
> ...


I think we mis-understood each other. In my original quote, all I was trying to say was that hesalite crystal was chosen for space mission for a good reason.

You are probably right that Speedy Pro at the time comes with hesalite crystal as a standard, and the Omega website words it to make it sound like they selected hesalite


----------



## fskywalker (Jul 14, 2014)

Guess the only way the arguments on this thread will end is by having a moderator to close it. Hesalite lovers will never be convinced by Sapphire lovers and vice versa! Thumbs up to Omega marketing for keeping options for everyone in their current lineup ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

dak_la said:


> I think we mis-understood each other. In my original quote, all I was trying to say was that hesalite crystal was chosen for space mission for a good reason.


It's more that you repeated the internet myth that they choose plastic over sapphire because sapphire shatters.
That is simply a logical fallacy and not historically accurate.

For reference, pretty much all of the major chronograph models of the period came with a plastic crystal.


----------



## Syed117 (Aug 13, 2012)

Always nice to check in here. 

One thing remains constant. 

The hesalite guys usually seem to be coming from a place of passion. 

Sapphire guys usually seem to be coming from a place of insecurity.

Sapphire on this specific watch will never be as popular as the hesalite. And it makes sense that the guys who chose the less popular version feel insecure. 

Both are fine, but no matter what anyone says, hesalite is part of the legacy of the Speedmaster professional. The hesalite makes it special. Sapphire does not. 

It doesn't matter how hard anyone tries to discredit the hesalite. Or how the nasa connection isn't important. Or how none of those things matter in the world today. No matter how hard they try to knock these things down to justify sapphire, it will never change the fact that the original material used then is still available today. 

I honestly wouldn't want a plastic crystal on any modern watch. 

Except this one.


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

drunken monkey said:


> It's more that you repeated the internet myth that they choose plastic over sapphire because sapphire shatters.
> That is simply a logical fallacy and not historically accurate.
> 
> For reference, pretty much all of the major chronograph models of the period came with a plastic crystal.


I still think you mis-understood my original post. If I made it sound like Omega chose to use Hesalite crystal because it plans it use it in space, my apology is extended. People should know that NASA, without notifying any of the watch manufacturers, purchased a bunch of watches to test, and eventually selected the Speedy Pro. What I meant was that when they did the selection, they probably chose a watch with Hesalite cyrstal for a good reason (because sapphire shatters).


----------



## yinzerniner (May 28, 2014)

dak_la said:


> I still think you mis-understood my original post. If I made it sound like Omega chose to use Hesalite crystal because it plans it use it in space, my apology is extended. People should know that NASA, without notifying any of the watch manufacturers, purchased a bunch of watches to test, and eventually selected the Speedy Pro. What I meant was that when they did the selection, they probably chose a watch with Hesalite cyrstal for a good reason (because sapphire shatters).


See, that's where you assumption is wrong. The "shattering" part had NOTHING to do with the selection process. Read here for a breakdown of the tests:
https://monochrome-watches.com/omega-speedmaster-history-part-1-early-pre-moons/

As stated before NASA has since approved watches with sapphire crystals for manned space missions, but none for EVA. Maybe since the original NASA tests there has been a criteria for the possibility of shattering, and maybe those crystals are better designed to resist shattering and thus passed the new requirements, but in no official documentation has it ever been proven that NASA specifically chose the Speedmaster hesalite crystals over other sapphire ones because of shattering.

And just in case you need further verification that a hesalite crystal was preferred by NASA because it doesn't shatter, here is a link to the original procurement letter. At no point did they say that the chronograph needed a shatter-proof crystal.
Found: NASA procurement document for Omega Chronographs - Timepiece Chronicle


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

yinzerniner said:


> See, that's where you assumption is wrong. The "shattering" part had NOTHING to do with the selection process. Read here for a breakdown of the tests:
> https://monochrome-watches.com/omega-speedmaster-history-part-1-early-pre-moons/
> 
> As stated before NASA has since approved watches with sapphire crystals for manned space missions, but none for EVA. Maybe since the original NASA tests there has been a criteria for the possibility of shattering, and maybe those crystals are better designed to resist shattering and thus passed the new requirements, but in no official documentation has it ever been proven that NASA specifically chose the Speedmaster hesalite crystals over other sapphire ones because of shattering.
> ...


Ok, it looks like I have bought into the Internet myth indeed. Thanks for sharing the information. I guess it just sounds so logical that you want something shatter-proof while in space. Oh while, won't deter me from enjoying my speedy pro though.


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

Double post.


----------



## yinzerniner (May 28, 2014)

dak_la said:


> Ok, it looks like I have bought into the Internet myth indeed. Thanks for sharing the information. I guess it just sounds so logical that you want something shatter-proof while in space. Oh while, won't deter me from enjoying my speedy pro though.


As well you should! Just don't believe all the hype and mythology when it comes directly from someone with a vested interest in making their product look as good as possible.


----------



## Magura (Jun 7, 2014)

Sapphire is surprisingly shatter proof if designed right.
The last watch I made, I put a nice thick sapphire crystal on, with rounded edges.
I deliberately made the crystal stand out of the face of the watch, to take the beating it will see.
Now after wearing the watch for every day use, including workshop and so forth, for a year, the case has a few small dings and scratches (silver), but the crystal is as when it was installed.
Thin sapphire crystals with sharp edges on the other hand, sure they will not make it.

Magura


----------



## yinzerniner (May 28, 2014)

Magura said:


> Sapphire is surprisingly shatter proof if designed right.
> The last watch I made, I put a nice thick sapphire crystal on, with rounded edges.
> I deliberately made the crystal stand out of the face of the watch, to take the beating it will see.
> Now after wearing the watch for every day use, including workshop and so forth, for a year, the case has a few small dings and scratches (silver), but the crystal is as when it was installed.
> ...


That's the thing that I don't get about the sapphire sandwich - the boxy design that the Speedy Pro sapphire has provides sharper edges which are more prone to chips and in most cases creates the dreaded "milky ring." 
The proud sapphire crystals on other watches create a similar look to plexi/hesalite with the correct domed look and don't warp nearly as much. Why can't Omega get this right?


----------



## GTS Dean (Oct 12, 2015)

NASA was particularly concerned about little fragments of glass (or anything, for that matter) floating around the cabin in microgravity and being inhaled, ingested, getting lodged in astronauts' eyes, into equipment, or precision mechanisms. Lunar dust was a problem in the LMs after the EVAs drifting into the CM. They used vacuums and wet towels to get all they could before leaving the moon's gravity.


----------



## Travelller (Apr 24, 2012)

Thwizzit said:


> ...the Speedmaster has a hesalite crystal... you could look it up... if you want a sapphire crystal you should choose a different watch... you can't just go changing history because "you like it better"...





Thwizzit said:


> ...the fact remains that the original Speedmaster was designed with a hesalite crystal. Period Any version other than hesalite is just an imitation/variation/commemorative/fill in the blank... If you want a Speedmaster just remember, it has a hesalite crystal, if you want a watch that just looks like the Speedmaster then get the sapphire crystal and/or display back


You know, I might have overlooked your comments had you used the term _"Moonwatch"_. The Speedmaster (Professional), however, is a model in Omega's product line that has endured over the years, much like _Rolex's Submariner_, _IWC's Pilot_, etc. All of these companies have the goal to provide consumers with a watch that _takes advantage of modern improvements while ensuring that they don't stray too far from the original design_ that makes those watches so special and loved. It makes little sense to denounce sapphire yet accept Super-LumiNova in the name of "history". If you really want a piece of history then you should consider hunting down a Speedmaster Pro from the late '60s - '70s. |> b-)



TellingTime said:


> Actually, Omega determines what is a Speedmaster. Even the limited edition snoopy has the sapphire crystal. Now you may prefer your luxury watch have a cheap piece of 60's plastic protecting it and that is certainly your prerogative. But the new Speedmasters come with a far better option. NASA after all is about new technology...


You were doing really good here - except for the use of "cheap" and "plastic". There is no need to *spit on* those that appreciate plexi-based crystals. _Plexi-is-Sexy_ really applies to the Speedmaster Pro, considering the alternative _(read: their questionable sapphire-crystal design...)_. I'm sure there are <2mm sapphire crystals out there from less reputable watch brands that may be less dependable than >2mm plexi. The Paneri 372, for example, uses a 3mm-thick plexi |>



Syed117 said:


> ... The hesalite guys usually seem to be coming from a place of passion ... Sapphire guys usually seem to be coming from a place of insecurity...


"Insecurity"...? :roll: The *entire* industry moved from plexi to mineral / sapphire for various reasons, including the (more) scratch-resistant properties that the new materials provided. In terms of the Speedmaster Pro, I'd love a sapphire crystal that had the optical properties of their hesalite crystal. I'm not sure how the majority of WIS define "warmth", but to me, it's the soft curve of the crystal that leads to the slight deformation of the dial (as well as reflections of the environment) that gives it "warmth". My "1950" Panerais do just this, _using sapphire_ ... and so does my €400 Steinhart ;-)



















yinzerniner said:


> That's the thing that I don't get about the sapphire sandwich - the boxy design that the Speedy Pro sapphire has provides sharper edges which are more prone to chips and in most cases creates the dreaded "milky ring." The proud sapphire crystals on other watches create a similar look to plexi/hesalite with the correct domed look and don't warp nearly as much. Why can't Omega get this right?


GREAT question |> I have already voiced my opinion in the Omega sub-forum that IF the SMP's sapphire had the same charactersitics as their hesalite, I would go with Sapphire. Seeing as that's not the case, I am going to try to find a 3572.50 _('cause I want to see that awesome mvmt b-) )_
On a side-note, their sapphire is indeed "boxy" but at least the edge is (relatively) smooth _(reminiscent of Panerai's 372 plexi crystal)_. In contrast, I am just waiting for my Sea Dweller to get chipped... now that's what I would call a sharp edge... :-d









_p.s. At least Omega didn't do away with the "raised" crystal altogether, much like most modern watches... _


----------



## yinzerniner (May 28, 2014)

Some awesome points brought up by Travelller here.



Travelller said:


> You know, I might have overlooked your comments had you used the term _"Moonwatch"_. The Speedmaster (Professional), however, is a model in Omega's product line that has endured over the years, much like _Rolex's Submariner_, _IWC's Pilot_, etc. All of these companies have the goal to provide consumers with a watch that _takes advantage of modern improvements while ensuring that they don't stray too far from the original design_ that makes those watches so special and loved. It makes little sense to denounce sapphire yet accept Super-LumiNova in the name of "history". If you really want a piece of history then you should consider hunting down a Speedmaster Pro from the late '60s - '70s. |> b-)


True, true. I'm not sure if it's currently the case but maybe Omega would be better served to call the Plexi/Steel model the Speedmaster Professional "Moonwatch," and the Sapphire/Sapphire model the Speedmaster Professional? And good point about the lume - I don't remember seeing lume as part of the NASA certification process but Superluminova definitely wasn't on the watches that were used in all those missions.



Travelller said:


> "Insecurity"...? :roll: The *entire* industry moved from plexi to mineral / sapphire for various reasons, including the (more) scratch-resistant properties that the new materials provided. In terms of the Speedmaster Pro, I'd love a sapphire crystal that had the optical properties of their hesalite crystal. I'm not sure how the majority of WIS define "warmth", but to me, it's the soft curve of the crystal that leads to the slight deformation of the dial (as well as reflections of the environment) that gives it "warmth". My "1950" Panerais do just this, _using sapphire_ ... and so does my €400 Steinhart ;-)


In a way "insecurity" is an apt term as those who prefer sapphire often cite their aversion to scratches on the crystal. Their nervous about picking them up, so they go with the much more scratch-resistant material. The get extra security with the harder material, so they feel less secure with the plexi.
And the optical distortion due to the curve of the crystal is cool feature that's been all but lost due to the wide adoption of flatter sapphire crystals but for me that's not the "warmth" associated with the Hesalite. For me it's due to Plexi not quite being as perfectly transparent as sapphire. The ever so slight cloudiness and haze is the warmth in my opinion. Therefore, unless someone makes a sapphire which adds elements which make it LESS clear it will never have the warmth of plexi.



Travelller said:


> GREAT question |> I have already voiced my opinion in the Omega sub-forum that IF the SMP's sapphire had the same charactersitics as their hesalite, I would go with Sapphire. Seeing as that's not the case, I am going to try to find a 3572.50 _('cause I want to see that awesome mvmt b-) )_
> On a side-note, their sapphire is indeed "boxy" but at least the edge is (relatively) smooth _(reminiscent of Panerai's 372 plexi crystal)_. In contrast, I am just waiting for my Sea Dweller to get chipped... now that's what I would call a sharp edge... :-d


Just a note - "SMP" is the accepted designation of the Seamaster Pro. Just wanted to avoid confusion.
That was my thinking exactly when I decided on the 3572 - I love the movement, but much prefer the look of the dial when covered by Hesalite. 
As for curved crystals the nicest one I've seen so far is the BR123 Sport. No edges whatsoever, extends well proud of the bezel edges, adds some great vintage appeal:







The one on the Black Bay isn't bad either, even though it doesn't extend quite as much:


----------



## yinzerniner (May 28, 2014)

Sorry, double post.


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

Travelller said:


> You were doing really good here - except for the use of "cheap" and "plastic". There is no need to *spit on* those that appreciate plexi-based crystals. _Plexi-is-Sexy_ really applies to the Speedmaster Pro, considering the alternative _(read: their questionable sapphire-crystal design...)_. I'm sure there are <2mm sapphire crystals out there from less reputable watch brands that may be less dependable than >2mm plexi. The Paneri 372, for example, uses a 3mm-thick plexi |>


Inexpensive replacement cost for a hesalite crystal was being thrown around as a positive of the material. I just pointed out what was being bragged about.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

yinzerniner said:


> As for curved crystals the nicest one I've seen so far is the BR123 Sport. No edges whatsoever, extends well proud of the bezel edges, adds some great vintage appeal:


You should take a look at the OOP Oris Coltrane and current Sixty Five.
The domed sapphire on those are fantastic.

The ones on the current Calibre 18 and 7 Carrera (they call it glass-box in the media) are also great examples of domed sapphires.


----------



## usfpaul82 (May 7, 2013)

Check out the huge sapphire dome on my Oris 65. One if the best I have seen


----------



## ude tokei (Oct 29, 2014)

Syed117 said:


> The hesalite guys usually seem to be coming from a place of passion.
> 
> Sapphire guys usually seem to be coming from a place of insecurity.


Not sure where you got that from but insecurity has nothing to do with calling a spade a spade. If the whole focus of this thread had been "Doesn't the hesalite crystal on a Speedmaster look great" there would have been no complaint from most of us. Instead unknown was stated that a dropped sapphire crystal would shatter. Well we don't know what would happen because he never tried it. I've beat the crap out of my sapphire crystals for a couple decades now and they have no damage.

No insecurity, but definitely a strong preference for truth over fearmongering and if anything it's a small portion of the hesalite fans with the insecurity issue. Having read the rest of your post you're obviously not one of them and as such probably represent the greater percentage.



> Sapphire on this specific watch will never be as popular as the hesalite. And it makes sense that the guys who chose the less popular version feel insecure.


I like the look of the Hesalite better on the Speedmaster but if I chose to buy one of the few that I've seen pictured where the sapphire didn't have the milky ring I'd feel no concern whatsoever for what anyone else though of my watch since I'm the one I'd be buying it for. 


> I honestly wouldn't want a plastic crystal on any modern watch.
> 
> Except this one.


I agree 100%!


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

Somebody please shoot this thread.


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

ude tokei said:


> Not sure where you got that from but insecurity has nothing to do with calling a spade a spade. If the whole focus of this thread had been "Doesn't the hesalite crystal on a Speedmaster look great" there would have been no complaint from most of us. Instead unknown was stated that a dropped sapphire crystal would shatter. Well we don't know what would happen because he never tried it. I've beat the crap out of my sapphire crystals for a couple decades now and they have no damage.
> 
> No insecurity, but definitely a strong preference for truth over fearmongering and if anything it's a small portion of the hesalite fans with the insecurity issue. Having read the rest of your post you're obviously not one of them and as such probably represent the greater percentage.
> 
> ...


Some people want to be in the herd, some want to start their own. I now realized this subject is like rolling a rock up a hill here. I didn't realize what I was getting sucked into when I started posting.

One thing for sure, these originals are a dime a dozen on the secondary market. You would think such a special watch would be a hard acquisition.


----------



## newbienoob (Apr 15, 2014)

Is it possible to add an AR coat to the hesalite crystal? I love the dome, but the reflections are killing me


----------



## yinzerniner (May 28, 2014)

newbienoob said:


> Is it possible to add an AR coat to the hesalite crystal? I love the dome, but the reflections are killing me


It's possible but I can't think of anyone who would be able to do it.
AR coating is applied on glasses lenses all the time, but it involves a pretty labor-intensive process and the mounting of lenses is much easier than the mounting of a watch crystal.
Also, the reflections off a sapphire crystal are much worse than those off a Hesalite one.


----------



## CRAWD (Nov 24, 2015)

Goodness. Is this the most inappropriately named thread on the forum?! The beauty of watches is that there is almost endless variety and something for (almost) anyone.


----------

