# So much for the hard AR coating ....



## fast08 (Sep 3, 2016)

Was just cleaning the DC66 this morning and noticed a long hairline scratch on the crystal. I have the watch for barely a month and have been pretty careful about it. I sit like 10 hours a day in the office so I'm dumbfounded how the scratch got there...

Anyway, this is only visible at certain light so I think I just need to convince myself it's ok. But I gotta vent here a bit .. I should have special ordered one with 1 sided coating. The whole reason I got the Damasko is for the scratch resistance o|

the scratch is between 10 and 11....


----------



## TimePieceObsessed (Dec 30, 2014)

Same thing happened to me with a DK11. It ended up driving me crazy because the blue tint on the Damasko AR really highlighted the flaw in certain light. I ended up replacing the crystal at the same time it was in to have the bracelet added/sized. Couldn't be happier with that decision. Just know that if it bothers you too much that you have relatively inexpensive options to make it right...


----------



## CM HUNTER (May 16, 2011)

Yeah, Damasko really dropped the ball not making the AR coating ice-hardened lol.


----------



## fast08 (Sep 3, 2016)

TimePieceObsessed said:


> Same thing happened to me with a DK11. It ended up driving me crazy because the blue tint on the Damasko AR really highlighted the flaw in certain light. I ended up replacing the crystal at the same time it was in to have the bracelet added/sized. Couldn't be happier with that decision. Just know that if it bothers you too much that you have relatively inexpensive options to make it right...


Ar.. thanks for the reply. Your replacement is one without outside coating right? I figure I might as well get more mileage out of the current crystal and have it replaced when I eventually need to send it in for service or something.


----------



## Buellrider (Mar 31, 2014)

Sorry to hear that. When I buy another Damasko I will not get the outer AR coating. Here is picture of mine where I have tried to remove the remaining coating. It is quite difficult to remove though, so I am just living with it.


----------



## fast08 (Sep 3, 2016)

CM HUNTER said:


> Yeah, Damasko really dropped the ball not making the AR coating ice-hardened lol.


I wouldn't say Damasko dropped the ball (you are probably sarcastic lol ). I am curious why they went with a coating knowing that not having a coating will actually make the crystal last longer. A system is only as strong as its weakest link  I like the blue AR tint a lot but not enough to trade off scratch resistance with it


----------



## blowfish89 (Apr 15, 2014)

I agree with you OP. Sinn also has double AR on the U1 iirc and it can scratch easy.


----------



## Happy Acres (Sep 13, 2009)

Buellrider said:


> It is quite difficult to remove


 That tells you something. It makes no sense that something difficult to remove would scratch easily. The opposite is more plausible, something difficult to scratch is also difficult to remove. The scratch on the op watch is likely in the glass, and might be there ar or no ar.


----------



## icybluesmile (Mar 14, 2015)

Happy Acres said:


> The scratch on the op watch is likely in the glass, and might be there ar or no ar.


I agree. I'm certainly not an expert but that scratch looks more like it is into the sapphire. Shouldn't an AR scratch only show at an angle where you see the full blue tint? I don't think the AR is thick enough to reflect light at an angle like that.


----------



## fast08 (Sep 3, 2016)

Yes it may very well be a scratch into the sapphire. I inclined to believe it's the AR since I really can't think of any case where I bumped into something hard enough to scratch the crystal. I thought it takes quite a bit to scratch sapphire. My beater Seiko with Hardlex has no scratches and I wear it weekends bumping into a lot of things.

Anyway, I'm not trying to start an argument. As I stated in the original post, I was bummed out and needed to vent.



icybluesmile said:


> I agree. I'm certainly not an expert but that scratch looks more like it is into the sapphire. Shouldn't an AR scratch only show at an angle where you see the full blue tint? I don't think the AR is thick enough to reflect light at an angle like that.


----------



## Bender.Folder (Sep 16, 2014)

Isnt Damasko outer AR supposed to be more resistant ? Or I missread an old topic about this ?

I had an older DC56 and it was tough as nails, banged the crystal often on stuff and it never scratched. My actual DC66 has a tiny scratch almost invisible between 2 and 3 o clock and I dont recall banging it on anything. Or are we less cautious when wearing a Damasko because the case is almost unscratchable ?


----------



## fast08 (Sep 3, 2016)

My DC66 is my only "nice" watch so I baby it. Being tough and scratch resistance is a big part of Damasko's marketing. If they don't come with a top coat I don't think I would start a thread to complain about sapphire ...

I went outside with the watch during lunch today and under the direct sunlight it's not visible. When I can see the blue tint the scratch is also not visible if the angle is not right.. so I feel a bit better.



Bender.Folder said:


> Isnt Damasko outer AR supposed to be more resistant ? Or I missread an old topic about this ?
> 
> I had an older DC56 and it was tough as nails, banged the crystal often on stuff and it never scratched. My actual DC66 has a tiny scratch almost invisible between 2 and 3 o clock and I dont recall banging it on anything. Or are we less cautious when wearing a Damasko because the case is almost unscratchable ?


----------



## fast08 (Sep 3, 2016)

Hey thanks for the reply and the picture. Seeing this I'm not going to attempt the AR removal ...



Buellrider said:


> Sorry to hear that. When I buy another Damasko I will not get the outer AR coating. Here is picture of mine where I have tried to remove the remaining coating. It is quite difficult to remove though, so I am just living with it.


----------



## fishoop (Jun 23, 2012)

Hey guys,

I tried removing the outer AR as well and messed mine up. I emailed Watchman (the AD who sold it to me) and he replaced the crystal with only inner AR. Couldn't be happier and it only took about a week I think. Definitely do that.



fast08 said:


> Hey thanks for the reply and the picture. Seeing this I'm not going to attempt the AR removal ...


----------



## fast08 (Sep 3, 2016)

Good to know ! I suppose it's still under warranty after the replacement right? I'm going to do it after putting a few more scratches on mine or next time it's in for its first service. Getting it replaced with just 1 scratch seems to a bit excessive.



fishoop said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I tried removing the outer AR as well and messed mine up. I emailed Watchman (the AD who sold it to me) and he replaced the crystal with only inner AR. Couldn't be happier and it only took about a week I think. Definitely do that.


----------



## Buellrider (Mar 31, 2014)

fishoop said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I tried removing the outer AR as well and messed mine up. I emailed Watchman (the AD who sold it to me) and he replaced the crystal with only inner AR. Couldn't be happier and it only took about a week I think. Definitely do that.


Thanks for that info. I plan to buy a DA47 from Greg at Watchmann sometime, hopefully soon. I will ask about replacing my DA36 crystal at the same time.


----------



## Dre (Feb 29, 2008)

fast08 said:


> I went outside with the watch during lunch today and under the direct sunlight it's not visible. When I can see the blue tint the scratch is also not visible if the angle is not right.. so I feel a bit better.


I've noticed the same with my DA44. Hairline scratches in the AR, though they're only visible under artificial light. Outside in sunlight, I can't see them.

I'm going to live with it as it is, when I send it in for service down the road I'll have the crystal replaced with an inner AR crystal only.


----------



## Sylus Grey (Aug 12, 2016)

I also have a few hairline scratches on my Da36 only visible under certain light. At first I was a little annoyed and was thinking about getting it replaced with 1 side AR, but now I'm more of the opinion that it gives the watch some character. Maybe just my way of convincing myself it doesn't bother me hahaha. I suppose in a few years when I send it for servicing, if it's worse I can look into a replacement at that time. Until then, I'll just enjoy wearing it scratches or not.


----------



## boomguy57 (Mar 28, 2016)

Sadly mine scratched within the first two weeks of owning and wearing it, despite being careful. The first one really are at me, but then I got another and now I don't really care: now that it's scratched I don't worry as much. I might have the crystal replaced when it goes in for service but as I got mine new that's years away. I suspect I won't even really notice the scratches by then. 

I also find that the dial attracts dirt and fingerprints more. Maybe due to the external coating?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## whineboy (Aug 12, 2012)

+1 that the external AR is a fingerprint/dirt magnet. But when it's clean, it's like nothing is between my eyes and the dial.
I keep a little microfiber camera lens cloth handy to wipe the crystal every now and then.


----------



## Nokie (Jul 4, 2011)

Part of the life of a WIS. AR coating can be your friend or enemy........


----------



## Chris Stark (Sep 21, 2015)

I would definitely order mine with the AR only on the underside, which is an option, but takes longer to deliver to the customer.

I have an Aquis with AR only on the underside and I can read the time just fine.

I have heard so many negatives from fingerprints to a blueish hue to scratches regarding exterior AR coatings that I don't think I'd buy one with it.


----------



## Happy Acres (Sep 13, 2009)

Chris Stark said:


> I have heard so many negatives from fingerprints to a blueish hue to scratches regarding exterior AR coatings that I don't think I'd buy one with it.


 "Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see." Edgar Allan Poe. I am with him on this one, my ten yr old DA36 still looks like new! (including the crystal clear 2X AR glass)


----------



## deerworrier (Mar 30, 2012)

my ux had the outer coating on the crystal too and it was a PITA! between finger prints, water marks, random smudges and the odd wee scratch it was more bother than it was help so i asked my local watch maker if he could do anything. he removed the bezel and sat the watch under his polisher and using a diamond paste polished the coating off, came up like new and "crystal clear". no idea about the technicalities of the operation but may be a path to investigate.


----------



## Igorek (Jul 10, 2009)

Happy Acres said:


> "Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see." Edgar Allan Poe. I am with him on this one, my ten yr old DA36 still looks like new! (including the crystal clear 2X AR glass)


Damasko have been here that long I only found out about them about 1 or 2 years ago and from this site.


----------



## Happy Acres (Sep 13, 2009)

"Damasko have been here that long I only found out about them about 1 or 2 years ago and from this site"

See here: https://web.archive.org/web/20070208013650/http://www.damasko.de/eng/index.html


----------



## sulpher (Nov 3, 2013)

Happy Acres said:


> See here: https://web.archive.org/web/20070208013650/http://www.damasko.de/eng/index.html


Haha, I almost forgot about their old website! Thanks for bringing back memories. Pure nostalgia!


----------



## sulpher (Nov 3, 2013)

> *Model DA36
> 
> *Price: 749,- €


And damn they were "cheap" back then.


----------



## zunka (Jul 25, 2016)

What's the point with crystals and outside AR coating? hahaha I wish watches didn't come with that.


----------



## Happy Acres (Sep 13, 2009)

If and when you ever own one you would understand.


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

Happy Acres said:


> If and when you ever own one you would understand.


Had 6 Damasko watches since 2003 and an ar problem never ever occured (not babying my watches).


----------



## Happy Acres (Sep 13, 2009)

Agreed! Double AR is the best, zero issues here year after year. There are innumerous more satisfied owners out there than not, only the majority you do not hear from on Internet forums.


----------



## CastorTroy3 (Dec 24, 2015)

I have the 353 and it's one sided (standard) and it's still a smudge and finger print magnet. I always prefer double sided AR and the invisible crystal. At least they are one of the brands that give you an option to get what you want.


----------



## l3r3v3r (Oct 17, 2016)

Why AR coating on Crystal? It scratches very easy.. so what's the point with Crystal then? And what do you do if you have scratches in the Coating? Does it come off easily?


----------



## timefleas (Oct 10, 2008)

I honestly don't understand the need to AR coat the external elements of any lens surface, be it a watch crystal, cameral lens or glasses--the coating should be internal. Numerous tests have been done to demonstrated unequivocally that an AR coating is less resistant to scratches and abrasions than the underlying Sapphire crystal--it is a simple and documented fact. Further, any coating is actually a film, and in certain light, will actually cause less transmission than more transmission (opacity), than without--thus, in certain lights, you will notice a hazy, foggy, blue or gray tint on the crystal-- this is your AR coating. 

The advantages to AR are mainly if you spend a lot of time indoors, and your main source of lighting is fluorescent--the typical office environment. Those of us who are lucky enough not to spend a lot of time under the fluorescents, either in tungsten or natural light, then really, AR is rarely necessary. 

Finally, some will claim that their AR is perfect, never a mark--which it might appear to be in most conditions--however, in the right angle, with the right glare, and the use of a magnifying lens, you will usually see some evidence of use on these surfaces--if not, you are walking in rarefied air. 

For the most part, most people don't "need" external AR, and that is probably why so few manufacturers use it. As for removing it--with the right tools, such as a jeweller's polisher, and appropriate solutions, it can be taken off in minutes. At home, with a treated jeweller's cloth and/or a Cape Cod cloth, it can be done in hours--Sinn's external AR is much easier to remove than Damasko's, but Damasko's can be done with a whole lot of elbow grease.


----------



## Happy Acres (Sep 13, 2009)

l3r3v3r said:


> Why AR coating on Crystal? It scratches very easy


 Not really in my experience, quite resistant in fact ( but only measured over ten years)


----------



## Happy Acres (Sep 13, 2009)

timefleas said:


> The advantages to AR are mainly if you spend a lot of time indoors


Just the opposite in my experience, it is most needed outdoors to reduce glare from the sun, and this is where it really performs!



timefleas said:


> in the right angle, with the right glare, and the use of a magnifying lens


Really? Is that how you read the time on your watch? Absurd.



timefleas said:


> Sinn's external AR is much easier to remove than Damasko's, but Damasko's can be done with a whole lot of elbow grease.


This is not the case according to some posts on this forum, where the owner gave up after making a mess of it, and sent it off for new glass.


----------



## timefleas (Oct 10, 2008)

Happy Acres said:


> Just the opposite in my experience, it is most needed outdoors to reduce glare from the sun, and this is where it really performs!
> Really? Is that how you read the time on your watch? Absurd.
> This is not the case according to some posts on this forum, where the owner gave up after making a mess of it, and sent it off for new glass.


I wasn't speaking from a single experience as you are--but from one based on a very large sampling (both from my own personal experience and from others who have owned similar models)--the anecdotal evidence you refer to will rarely prove the rule, but will offer single exceptions.

I have personally removed AR coating from at least 4 Sinns, and 2 Damaskos, and know for a fact that the Damasko coating is significantly more difficult to remove than the Sinn coating--but it can be done, as I described (here and elsewhere on this forum).

You missed most of my points, I suppose, just to engage in a pissing match, but I won't bite, rather, I will just attempt to clarify. Many people claim that their AR is undamaged, even after years of use--and, in most situations, it does appear pristine. However, if you were thinking of perhaps selling your piece, you will likely want to take a very close look at all aspects of the watch, including the AR coating--and in most cases, what usually looks pristine at arm's distance might actually turn up some imperfections in different lights, and at different angles and at greater magnifications--most buyers would appreciate such a careful inspection of the watch they may be buying from you, and most would not consider that an absurd exercise at all. I said nothing about how I or anyone else typically views their watches in ordinary situations. I fail to see what constructive contribution you offered by your three comments--or was it just argument for argument sake?


----------



## smittya (Feb 4, 2015)

fast08 said:


> Yes it may very well be a scratch into the sapphire. I inclined to believe it's the AR since I really can't think of any case where I bumped into something hard enough to scratch the crystal. I thought it takes quite a bit to scratch sapphire. My beater Seiko with Hardlex has no scratches and I wear it weekends bumping into a lot of things.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not trying to start an argument. As I stated in the original post, I was bummed out and needed to vent.


You were smooching with a lass wearing diamonds weren't you?? Eh... fess up. Your Damasko lead her on. Admit.


----------



## born_sinner (Sep 17, 2013)

Hi Guys,

I noticed the OP asking for a way to convince himself the hairline scratch in the AR coating does not matter–I want to expand on that.

This is a tool watch. It's purpose is to be tough as nails and work right. Part of working right is having the highest legibility possible. The outer AR definitely adds to legibility, as anyone who has had it can attest. Damasko and Sinn (and Nikon, and Zeiss, and Canon, and Leica) all coat both sides of the glass beacuse it adds to optical quality. When you get a tiny scratch in the coating, it is barely visible most of the time, and it will definitely not get in the way of you reading the dial on your watch. Removing the outer coating, however, *will* make your watch harder to read in high-glare conditions.

So, you can embrace the tool watch philosophy and understand that you suffer a few tiny scratches in the AR coating of your watch *in order to get the benefit of super high contrast on your dial*, or you can obsess about the coating, or have it removed, or whatever.

My vote? Embrace the tool watch philosophy. Use your watch and enjoy it. When it gets a scratch, view it more like the abrasions and fading of a good pair of jeans-let it be a sign of a tool that has been well used.

Just my two cents.

Jason


----------



## shapz (Nov 6, 2016)

I have a lot of very fine scratches on the AR coating of my Sinn.....its something you can't avoid unfortunately. I'd rather not forego the AR for the blue tint which in my opinion just adds character to the watch. I think the beauty of the watch is multiplied by the way the light reflects off the crystal with AR coating especially on top and adds depth to it. This distinguishes a watch from plain looking crystals with no AR at all.

Just my opinion


----------



## shapz (Nov 6, 2016)

Happy Acres said:


> Just the opposite in my experience, it is most needed outdoors to reduce glare from the sun, and this is where it really performs!
> 
> Fully agree!


----------



## timefleas (Oct 10, 2008)

shapz said:


> Happy Acres said:
> 
> 
> > Just the opposite in my experience, it is most needed outdoors to reduce glare from the sun, and this is where it really performs!
> ...


----------



## Palettj (Mar 29, 2014)

Same thing happened to me my friend.


----------



## purplehero (Feb 13, 2010)

Is beach sand hard enough to scratch sapphire?


----------



## fast08 (Sep 3, 2016)

Thanks ! For some reason I never went back to this thread. If anyone wonders, I embraced it and just wear the watch normally. No new scratches after 2 years and the original one really doesn't bother me any more



born_sinner said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I noticed the OP asking for a way to convince himself the hairline scratch in the AR coating does not matter-I want to expand on that.
> 
> ...


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## myke (Jan 19, 2012)

i can see the scratch. I agree as many have said before me they should only coat the inside of the watch. Be careful with the bezel as well. It can scratch to.


----------



## samiam2600 (Jun 4, 2018)

On vacation I scraped my DA46 against a cave wall pretty hard. I was convinced that at a minimum the AR coating would be scratched. Actually took a minute to work up the courage to look, but when I did, not a scratch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 5277 (Aug 8, 2018)

My new DC80 has on the outside a coating that watherdrops pearls away and a so clean looking.
My Sinn EZM 1.1 from last year has not this technology.White clouds in the Damasko coating looks little bit grey.
In the Sinn EZM it`s looking blue.


----------

