# Invicta's Flame Fusion Crystal & the Water Drop Test



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

I just tried the water drop test on sapphire, mineral, and Invicta's Flame Fusion crystals. When a drop of water hits mineral glass it flattens out and is shallow; when it hits sapphire glass it has more height/depth and therefore a smaller footprint. Flame fusion behaves like mineral glass with the water drop, flattening out exactly the same. The difference between mineral glass and sapphire is quite noticeable with this water drop test.

Is this definitive that flame fusion is no different from regular mineral glass? No, only that it reacts the same way to a water drop. Important to note that Invicta never claims it's a sapphire coating. If it were actually a sapphire coating wouldn't Invicta call it that rather than flame fusion, which sounds like nuclear alchemy? What we need is a scratch test and I have a hunch Invicta is counting on that not being done, but if I have a choice between flame fusion and mineral glass I would take flame fusion because at best it's better than mineral and at worst it's just mineral, but I wouldn't pay more than $5 extra for it :-!.


----------



## mdhorner (Apr 15, 2010)

this has been done on air and seems the flame fusion leaves a tiny footprint. I have heard people actually trying the scratch test (intentionally and unintentional) and say it does scratch rather easily.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

mdhorner said:


> this has been done on air and seems the flame fusion leaves a tiny footprint.


That wasn't my experience. I used two Invicta samples which say "flame fusion" on their casebacks, an Orient Mako (mineral), and an Ocean 7 LM-6 (sapphire). Only sapphire had a "tiny" footprint.

You can actually feel the difference between mineral and sapphire by stubbing your thumb across them. Sapphire is "stickier", offering more resistance to your thumb gliding across it; mineral is more sllippery, offering less resistance to your sliding thumb, which makes sense in how a drop of water reacts when it hits their respective surfaces. Of course that has nothing to do with hardness, just in telling the two apart.


----------



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2009)

When I read the thread title I imagined Eyal and Jim on Shop NBC proving the toughness of Flame Fusion Crystal by splashing a drop of water onto it. 

"Look, not even a scratch!"

:-d


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

jason_recliner said:


> When I read the thread title I imagined Eyal and Jim on Shop NBC proving the toughness of Flame Fusion Crystal by splashing a drop of water onto it.
> 
> "Look, not even a scratch!"
> 
> :-d


at least they'd be telling the truth :-d


----------



## midshipman01 (Dec 29, 2008)

I may be mistaken on some small semantic technicality, but I feel like I have heard "sapphire coating" on numerous ShopNBC occasions from the Invicta reps themselves.

In this case, I suspect that a flashy name like "flame fusion" plays better with Invicta's target audience than something boring like "sapphire coating"...with my marketing cap on, it also makes more sense because mentioning sapphire in the name, but not actually having a full sapphire crystal, makes your product seem cheap by comparison. Instead, making up an all new, super duper cool sounding name and then listing it's combination of strengths makes it sound even better than sapphire.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

midshipman01 said:


> I may be mistaken on some small semantic technicality, but I feel like I have heard "sapphire coating" on numerous ShopNBC occasions from the Invicta reps themselves.
> 
> In this case, I suspect that a flashy name like "flame fusion" plays better with Invicta's target audience than something boring like "sapphire coating"...with my marketing cap on, it also makes more sense because mentioning sapphire in the name, but not actually having a full sapphire crystal, makes your product seem cheap by comparison. Instead, making up an all new, super duper cool sounding name and then listing it's combination of strengths makes it sound even better than sapphire.


Those are good points, and the flashy term "flame fusion," as you say, is in line with their over the top designs. Riedenschild (R.I.P.) had a coating perhaps similar to Invicta's that was called, I believe, DLC (diamond like coating). I don't know of any other companies beyond Invicta and Riedenschild that tout a similar coating on mineral glass. It's interesting to note that Riedenschild was also prone to exaggerating or misrepresenting their products. There was some controversy over the country of origin of their Gematic movement, and when the president made an appearance on these forums he made some Eyal-like claims about his watches and was called on them by forum members.

If these coatings on mineral glass were so good--and obviously cost-effective--hard to believe their application wouldn't be widespread throughout the industry.


----------



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2009)

AFAIK Seiko first applied the process of sapphire coating mineral glass to watches (I'm not sure if they actually invented the process). The called the product Sapphlex. As Invicta is not a watch manufacturer per se, I highly doubt they independently developed a process. They most likely licensed the process from Seiko now that Seiko don't use Sapplex or any of their watches. 

The fact that Seiko tried Sapphlex, and then reverted to either Hardlex (borosilicate glass) or sapphire, suggests that the benefits of sapphlex are not worth the associated extra cost.


----------



## Goalie (Jan 14, 2007)

Another example of the difference is the way the "flame-fusion" looks in sun light. I don't have the technical knowledge to explain it other than to say that the one I had produced reflections and what appeared to be concentric circle shadows on the dial. The exact same way a mineral crystal would. I was a bit of an Invicta defender on THAT OTHER thread but this is a ripoff by them. It is worth noting that one of their somewhat well made watches and what they were known for is the 9937(yes I know a Rolex ripoff) did have a sapphire crystal now has this glorified mineral crystal.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

Goalie said:


> I was a bit of an Invicta defender on THAT OTHER thread but this is a ripoff by them. It is worth noting that one of their somewhat well made watches and what they were known for is the 9937(yes I know a Rolex ripoff) did have a sapphire crystal now has this glorified mineral crystal.


I tend to agree.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

jason_recliner said:


> AFAIK Seiko first applied the process of sapphire coating mineral glass to watches (I'm not sure if they actually invented the process). The called the product Sapphlex. As Invicta is not a watch manufacturer per se, I highly doubt they independently developed a process. They most likely licensed the process from Seiko now that Seiko don't use Sapplex or any of their watches.
> 
> The fact that Seiko tried Sapphlex, and then reverted to either Hardlex (borosilicate glass) or sapphire, suggests that the benefits of sapphlex are not worth the associated extra cost.


Somehow I didn't know about Sapphlex. What you say makes sense.


----------



## oBMTo (Jul 19, 2008)

Find someone with a mohs meter and test the crystal front and back.


----------



## scm64 (May 12, 2007)

Why would anyone think they would tell the truth about anything?


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

scm64 said:


> Why would anyone think they would tell the truth about anything?


Law of Averages or more specifically Law of Large Numbers.


----------



## scm64 (May 12, 2007)

Sean779 said:


> Law of Averages or more specifically Law of Large Numbers.


Is that similar to the Blind Squirrel theory? :-d;-)


----------



## HelloNasty1 (Jul 8, 2007)

I never get tired of an Invicta thread! Flame on, I mean Flame Fusion! What a joke and it never gets old, ShopNBC rules comedy hour.


----------



## TakesALickin (Mar 12, 2009)

midshipman01 said:


> Instead, making up an all new, super duper cool sounding name and then listing it's combination of strengths makes it sound even better than sapphire.


This reminds me of an old Bob Newhart episode where he bought a ring with... well, it wasn't a diamond. And it wasn't a Cubic Zirconia. No, it was even better than either of those.

It was the all new "Cylindric Diamachron"!

You wouldn't think anyone would have the stones to try this shtick in real life. :-d


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

TakesALickin said:


> This reminds me of an old Bob Newhart episode where he bought a ring with... well, it wasn't a diamond. And it wasn't a Cubic Zirconia. No, it was even better than either of those.
> 
> It was the all new "Cylindric Diamachron"!
> 
> You wouldn't think anyone would have the stones to try this shtick in real life. :-d


Invicta's transparency is actually pretty funny, not that you have to be a genius to see through it...so no accolades to us smartyasses here, but it does give you an idea of the level of humans their sales pitch is aimed at, and I say this as a proud owner of 3 Invicta watches.

do I contradict myself? Well then I contradict myself :-d


----------



## omegaor (Feb 12, 2010)

Nothing quite like running some real internet scientific tests to draw your solid conclusions.


----------



## OnTimeGabe (Aug 6, 2006)

omegaor said:


> Nothing quite like running some real internet scientific tests to draw your solid conclusions.


He never said it was scientific, and he specifically said it wasn't definitive proof of anything. What we know for a fact is that it's not a sapphire crystal, otherwise Invicta would call it that. If you have some "scientific" information to add, please do so. I'm curious as to what these crystals actually are.


----------



## omegaor (Feb 12, 2010)

Ok, in that same vein, at least with flame fusion I have some hope that it might be better than mineral, unlike any Seiko diver under two grand. Oh right, they do have sapphlex or did.


----------



## romeo-1 (May 31, 2006)

omegaor said:


> Ok, in that same vein, at least with flame fusion I have some hope that it might be better than mineral, unlike any Seiko diver under two grand. Oh right, they do have sapphlex or did.


That's making a rather large assumption that "flame fusion :-d" is better than mineral...which I highly doubt. Personally I would rather wear the lowest end Seiko over the highest end Invicta...but that's just me!


----------



## Nehoc (Dec 31, 2008)

TakesALickin said:


> This reminds me of an old Bob Newhart episode where he bought a ring with... well, it wasn't a diamond. And it wasn't a Cubic Zirconia. No, it was even better than either of those.
> 
> It was the all new "Cylindric Diamachron"!
> 
> You wouldn't think anyone would have the stones to try this shtick in real life. :-d


This made my morning :-!

Seriously, though, this Invicta shtick may be a bit silly for your average WIS, but you'll see people spending 100 times more on a Rolex that says "Oyster Perpetual" on it. As if a true perpetual movement was inside. Oh, and the Deep Sea has an "Original Gas Escape Valve" and a "Ring Lock System" as it proudly displays on the oh-so-busy dial. Because, you know, other escape valves are not original, they are merely copies :-s

I mean, the bottomline is that marketing is what makes these watches sell. Sure Rolex's shtick is a little bit less "trailer trash" than Invicta's, but it's B.S. all the same, only we're paying (and I don't speak for myself, here, obviously) 100 times more for that B.S. OK, quality's a tidbit better, I'll give you that ;-)

Cheers,
Dan


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

OnTimeGabe said:


> He never said it was scientific, and he specifically said it wasn't definitive proof of anything. What we know for a fact is that it's not a sapphire crystal, otherwise Invicta would call it that. If you have some "scientific" information to add, please do so. I'm curious as to what these crystals actually are.


I'm curious as well, especially when people are making decisions (and they are--I've read them here) on which Invicta to buy based on whether or not the crystal is flame fusion.


----------



## scm64 (May 12, 2007)

romeo-1 said:


> <snip> Personally I would rather wear the lowest end Seiko over the highest end Invicta...but that's just me!


Me too, so you're not the only one. And I'm not even a big Seiko fan.


----------



## JERSTERCA (Apr 4, 2008)

I have an Ocean Ghost I got a couple of weeks ago on a deal of the day site $ 55 bucks. I love the look and wanted a glass back, Its my first glass back.

Anyway I did notice that the flame fusion hype. I think it does have some type of coating or at least I can feel more drag on the crystal when cleaning if off. I run a little hand soap on my fingers and then over my watches after wearing them. Well the flame did feel different in fact I though for a moment that I did not remove a clear plastic coating. :-s

The thing that's really disappointing me is that they market there lume like it will glow though the night and into the next day. Just a fancy name for sub par lume :----(

I know there are a lot here that done care for Invicta but at the right price which means low they are OK to me. I would never pay more than $ 250 and that is only because I like some of the sub aqua's but still cant bring myself to pay that much for an Invicta, Too many Seiko's at the top of my list ;-)


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

JERSTERCA said:


> Anyway I did notice that the flame fusion hype. I think it does have some type of coating or at least I can feel more drag on the crystal when cleaning if off. I run a little hand soap on my fingers and then over my watches after wearing them. Well the flame did feel different in fact I though for a moment that I did not remove a clear plastic coating. :-s


I didn't notice that drag on my flame fusion. I could certainly feel it on the sapphire, but mineral and flame fusion felt the same to me. Could be the crystal wasn't flame fused even though it said it was. :think:

You should try the water drop test on it, takes a second to do.


----------



## jb_diver_buyer (Jul 16, 2009)

+1 on the below. How is "hardlex" for mineral better than "flame-fusion"?

As has been established, the water-droplet test has nothing to do with hardness (I've conducted hardness tests in labs before and I never heard of "beading" as an alternative, nor have I heard of "finger-stickiness" either). Nonetheless, I think you should all at least clarify whether or not the sticky, beady sapphire had an external A/R coating, as this would obviously affect the results.

As a counterpoint to the assumptions about flame-fusion hardness, I have read accounts (albeit online, anecdotal) of difficulty or inability to remove the cyclops from these crystals. This is the most telling comparison to mineral (in which the cyclops comes off easily with heat) and indication that some difference exists and that the difference is increased resilience.



Nehoc said:


> This made my morning :-!
> 
> Seriously, though, this Invicta shtick may be a bit silly for your average WIS, but you'll see people spending 100 times more on a Rolex that says "Oyster Perpetual" on it. As if a true perpetual movement was inside. Oh, and the Deep Sea has an "Original Gas Escape Valve" and a "Ring Lock System" as it proudly displays on the oh-so-busy dial. Because, you know, other escape valves are not original, they are merely copies :-s
> 
> ...


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

jb_diver_buyer said:


> +1 on the below. How is "hardlex" for mineral better than "flame-fusion"?
> 
> As has been established, the water-droplet test has nothing to do with hardness (I've conducted hardness tests in labs before and I never heard of "beading" as an alternative, nor have I heard of "finger-stickiness" either). Nonetheless, I think you should all at least clarify whether or not the sticky, beady sapphire had an external A/R coating, as this would obviously affect the results.
> 
> As a counterpoint to the assumptions about flame-fusion hardness, I have read accounts (albeit online, anecdotal) of difficulty or inability to remove the cyclops from these crystals. This is the most telling comparison to mineral (in which the cyclops comes off easily with heat) and indication that some difference exists and that the difference is increased resilience.


You're reiterating what I've iterated. The water droplet test was done to indicate whether flame fusion behaved like mineral or sapphire glass using the water drop test. That was all, and it was done because it was being suggested that flame fusion was a sapphire coating.

The sapphire crystal I used for the test was from an Ocean7 LM-6. No AR coating on the outer (tested) crystal. And you're right, I should have mentioned that.

If the anecdotal accounts are valid and cyclops are removed with greater difficulty on the flame fusion, then I agree that some difference exists between mineral and flame fusion, but I don't know how you make the leap to specifying the difference as resiliency. In addition, maybe the glue was/is different...


----------



## jb_diver_buyer (Jul 16, 2009)

Interesting.

I just conducted the experiment on my 6686 and my 4605 and got the opposite results you reported (pics to come).

I repeated it twice with the same result.

I cleaned both crystals with alcohol-free lens cleaner, then deposited a single drop of water from ~1cm using a drinking straw.

The flame-fusion crystal yielded a strong bead, while the mineral crystal of the 4605 did not. The droplet instantly "flattened-out" on the latter.

As far as I know, the 6686 does not have an external AR coating.

Can you think of any other sources of error for your test? Not pointing the finger, just sayin'...


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

jb_diver_buyer said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I just conducted the experiment on my 6686 and my 4605 and got the opposite results you reported (pics to come).
> 
> ...


Interesting back at ya. I used two Invictas that trumpet flame fusion on the caseback. I don't believe there's any source for error in my test outside of the possibility that my Invictas might be labeled flame fusion but they're not. As I said initially, the difference between the water droplet on sapphire and mineral/flame fusion behaved very differently, and I repeated the test at least 4 times :-s.

Also, "flame fusion" tells you nothing about the actual coating, and who's to say there's only one coating. The term "flame fusion" might be a catch-all for whatever flavor of coating they're using this week :-d.


----------



## midshipman01 (Dec 29, 2008)

jb_diver_buyer said:


> As a counterpoint to the assumptions about flame-fusion hardness, I have read accounts (albeit online, anecdotal) of difficulty or inability to remove the cyclops from these crystals. This is the most telling comparison to mineral (in which the cyclops comes off easily with heat) and indication that some difference exists and that the difference is increased resilience.


What? Cyclops' are held on with adhesive, and that's what reacts to the heat and allows them to be removed. I don't understand what this is telling you besides that maybe Invicta uses a type of adhesive that is not as easily softened as that of other brands. It has basically nothing to do with the crystal's properties.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

midshipman01 said:


> What? Cyclops' are held on with adhesive, and that's what reacts to the heat and allows them to be removed. I don't understand what this is telling you besides that maybe Invicta uses a type of adhesive that is not as easily softened as that of other brands. It has basically nothing to do with the crystal's properties.


and, again, who says they use only one type of adhesive? Maybe one of the adhesives is more resistant to heat? Or the person trying to remove the cyclops understandably had no idea how hot the crystal/cyclops was actually getting.


----------



## jb_diver_buyer (Jul 16, 2009)

Valid. Valid.

Invicta could use different glue on flame-fusion crystals than they do on the mineral or sapphire ones (midshipman, I wasn't just comparing cyclops removal to other brands. I was comparing it to other Invictas). I considered this, but I discounted it and didn't mention it because it seems unlikely to me.

And, yes, it's completely possible that the people didn't know what they were doing - human error. They did claim to be following instructions previously posted, which seem pretty straightforward. One claimed to have performed it several times prior on mineral and sapphire crystals. Again, just anecdotes, nothing conclusive or statistically significant.



Sean779 said:


> and, again, who says they use only one type of adhesive? Maybe one of the adhesives is more resistant to heat? Or the person trying to remove the cyclops understandably had no idea how hot the crystal/cyclops was actually getting.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

jb_diver_buyer said:


> Valid. Valid.
> 
> Invicta could use different glue on flame-fusion crystals than they do on the mineral or sapphire ones (midshipman, I wasn't just comparing cyclops removal to other brands. I was comparing it to other Invictas). I considered this, but I discounted it and didn't mention it because it seems unlikely to me.
> 
> And, yes, it's completely possible that the people didn't know what they were doing - human error. They did claim to be following instructions previously posted, which seem pretty straightforward. One claimed to have performed it several times prior on mineral and sapphire crystals. Again, just anecdotes, nothing conclusive or statistically significant.


it really just leaves open the question what flame fusion is. I dont think I'd go much out of my way for it.:think:


----------



## jb_diver_buyer (Jul 16, 2009)

Agreed. But I'd say the same about sapphire. $10-$15. More than that is gouging.

Take Getat for example - $15 to upgrade to sapphire, 44mm case-size.



Sean779 said:


> it really just leaves open the question what flame fusion is. I dont think I'd go much out of my way for it.:think:


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

jb_diver_buyer said:


> Agreed. But I'd say the same about sapphire. $10-$15. More than that is gouging.
> 
> Take Getat for example - $15 to upgrade to sapphire, 44mm case-size.


I don't know how much more I'd be willing to pay for sapphire, but yes more than $15. The reason I'd pay more is that it's worlds apart from mineral in terms of scratch resistance. Of course it would depend on the cost of the watch.


----------



## midshipman01 (Dec 29, 2008)

Flame fushion is a mineral crystal with sapphire coating. While I don't know what exactly comprises "sapphire coating", the crystal itself is just mineral. And I still don't see what cyclops removal has to do with anything.



jb_diver_buyer said:


> Agreed. But I'd say the same about sapphire. $10-$15. More than that is gouging.
> 
> Take Getat for example - $15 to upgrade to sapphire, 44mm case-size.


I don't like the logic that says since Getat charges $15 to upgrade to sapphire, that this means sapphire crystals are worth no more than $15. For one, if you do this upgrade, you're still paying for the mineral crystal that he didn't install because the upgrade price is added to the original price. So, that's another $10 or whatever right there attributed to the sapphire upgrade. We could infer that this sapphire likely costs at least $20-25 per because of that, and he's buying bulk compared to what you or I might order for ourselves.

He probably also has less profit margin on the sapphire upgrade than he does on the standard mineral...which makes sense, because if he's making anything at all on the upgrade, then it's worth doing. Pricing it lower only gets more upgrade orders, and he uses this same tactic with his good straps which cost $7 as an upgrade, but $30 seperately. With that in mind, we might be able to infer that his sapphire actually costs closer to $30.

And finally, his sapphires are generally not domed, they certainly aren't double domed, nor do they have cyclops', nor are they very thick, nor do they have AR or double AR, nor do they likely come from a high quality source. All of these things add to the price of the "higher quality" crystals that cost more, and make the $40-$60 you see regularly seem perfectly reasonable.


----------



## jb_diver_buyer (Jul 16, 2009)

midshipman01 said:


> Flame fushion is a mineral crystal with sapphire coating. While I don't know what exactly comprises "sapphire coating", the crystal itself is just mineral. And I still don't see what cyclops removal has to do with anything.


It just means something is different. It could mean that the "sapphire coating" is applied after the cyclops, like some AR coatings. The difference is significant because the implication of the OP is that flame-fusion is no different than mineral, as indicated by their shared hydrophilicity.



midshipman01 said:


> I don't like the logic that says since Getat charges $15 to upgrade to sapphire, that this means sapphire crystals are worth no more than $15. For one, if you do this upgrade, you're still paying for the mineral crystal that he didn't install because the upgrade price is added to the original price. So, that's another $10 or whatever right there attributed to the sapphire upgrade. We could infer that this sapphire likely costs at least $20-25 per because of that, and he's buying bulk compared to what you or I might order for ourselves.
> 
> He probably also has less profit margin on the sapphire upgrade than he does on the standard mineral...which makes sense, because if he's making anything at all on the upgrade, then it's worth doing. Pricing it lower only gets more upgrade orders, and he uses this same tactic with his good straps which cost $7 as an upgrade, but $30 seperately. With that in mind, we might be able to infer that his sapphire actually costs closer to $30.
> 
> And finally, his sapphires are generally not domed, they certainly aren't double domed, nor do they have cyclops', nor are they very thick, nor do they have AR or double AR, nor do they likely come from a high quality source. All of these things add to the price of the "higher quality" crystals that cost more, and make the $40-$60 you see regularly seem perfectly reasonable.


Since I gave the example of an upgrade, you could have inferred that I meant $10-$15 incremental value, not absolute material cost.

And yes, when you add attributes, the value increases, as do the costs.

Your tone seems to indicate disagreement, but you basically confirmed what I said: upgrade to sapphire from mineral is worth $10-$15. Any more than that and you better be getting AR, dome/cyclops, thickness/WR or it's gouging.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

midshipman01 said:


> All of these things add to the price of the "higher quality" crystals that cost more, and make the $40-$60 you see regularly seem perfectly reasonable.


That's the amount I figure sapphire is worth to me. Funny how that's the amount it is :-d


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

jb_diver_buyer said:


> It just means something is different. It could mean that the "sapphire coating" is applied after the cyclops, like some AR coatings. The difference is significant because the implication of the OP is that flame-fusion is no different than mineral, as indicated by their shared hydrophilicity.


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

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

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


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

jb_diver_buyer said:


> It just means something is different. It could mean that the "sapphire coating" is applied after the cyclops, like some AR coatings. The difference is significant because the implication of the OP is that flame-fusion is no different than mineral, as indicated by their shared hydrophilicity.


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


----------



## jb_diver_buyer (Jul 16, 2009)

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

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



Sean779 said:


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


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

jb_diver_buyer said:


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


yes i suppose :-d


----------



## scm64 (May 12, 2007)

Wow this thread is still going? :-d

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


----------



## jb_diver_buyer (Jul 16, 2009)

scm64 said:


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


:-! Well-said. :-d


----------



## omegaor (Feb 12, 2010)

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


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

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


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

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


----------



## omegaor (Feb 12, 2010)

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


----------



## OnTimeGabe (Aug 6, 2006)

omegaor said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## jb_diver_buyer (Jul 16, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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



OnTimeGabe said:


> What's "veiled" about it? It's Seiko's brand name for chemically strengthened borosilicate glass. Ikuo Tokanaga discussed the subject on the SCWF years ago:
> 
> SCWF Mirror : Explanation about the materials of watch glass (Tokunaga, 2002-11-20, message 1037842045)
> 
> Other watch companies have similar products, and it can be found in all sorts of lenses and other optics. Hardened mineral glass is not some sort of revolutionary product, nor does Seiko hype it as such.


----------



## OnTimeGabe (Aug 6, 2006)

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

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

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

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

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

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



jb_diver_buyer said:


> It's "veiled" because they are using a nonintuitive trade name to disguise the fact that it is just mineral crystal.
> 
> "Unveiled" would be saying "mineral crystal" like everyone else.
> 
> ...


----------



## omegaor (Feb 12, 2010)

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


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

OnTimeGabe said:


> Yes, Hardlex is a made up name used for marketing purposes, much like Lumibrite or Super Luminova. I guess it's a matter of opinion whether that is meant to fool the customer. All you can really gather from the name is that it's 'hard', which makes sense as it's mineral glass that has undergone chemical hardening. I don't know of Seiko ever comparing it to anything but untreated mineral crystals, and Tokunaga openly stated long ago that "Sapphire is better than Hardlex":
> 
> Seiko & Citizen Forum: I think we'll see it eventually....(also info about sapphire in the 1000M)
> 
> ...


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

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

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


----------



## adswuk (Dec 1, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## mystic nerd (Aug 10, 2013)

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

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

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


----------

