Flame Fusion vs. Sapphire Crystal

[oBMTo]

If Flame Fusion is a cheaper alternative, why are current prices still so high? They are even high than when they had sapphire crystal. Unless, Invicta thinks Flame Fusion is better than Sapphire Crystal.

[GoDuke1]

They think it's better, and some tests I have read seem to indicate it's pretty decent. Best of both worlds. I haven't seen one in person to really say for myself one way or another.

[2156]

Do a bit of reading on it. I think you'll be pleasently surprised just how durable it is.

[ChaunceyJack]

I have only one Invicta watch with the FF crystal in it (the Excursion GMT that I foolishly bought --- by the way the very last Invicta watch that I have bought, will never buy another) and have worn this watch so little due to its huge size and that biting crown that draws blood (yes Invicta offered a fix for this crown, but I was mighty afraid to send mine to them in fear that I would get it back worse than before, not get my watch back and get someone else's dirty watch back, or something else) -- so the original crown and its large size keeps me from wearing it much. This watch has the FF crystal, another way Invicta has cheapened its Reserve line of watches.

While the above post says to read about FF, I know noplace other than literature published by Invicta, and its TV sales pitches with the scratching knife that leaves no marks, that proclaims FF greatness.

I have read of no independent tests to compare FF to either mineral or sapphire -- if there are tests such as this I would love to read them just for the true information. However, it matters little to me, since I will not be buying any more Invicta anyway, so that means no more FF for me.

[2156]

Do it yourself, you don't like or wear it so give it a test and see how durable you think it is and let us know.

[WWIIBuff]

If they offer to fix it, I would send it to them. What do you have to loose at this point.

[2156]

The guy would probably rather have his funds back, in my opinion.

[Datsun240Z71]

Many who got that watch filed the crown down themselves. Just what I would want to do to a new watch so I could wear it without injury.

Not!

[2156]

No offense, but I don't think anyone should have work on a new watch for it to be proper, thats crazy to me.

[ChaunceyJack]

I am a bit unsure as to what you mean, 2156, since I think your reply was directed to me . . .

I do not have access to any scientific hardness tester that measures hardness strength and durability, and secondly would not want to take the hammer to the Excursion GMT watch with the FF, and then hammer a good sapphire crystal to try to compare the two. Seems to me that your reply to me surely did not take much thought (could be very wrong here, and apologize if I am wrong about your reply and just what you intended to say), but typical of those who love, live, yearn Invicta's glory. I ain't one 'o those no more.

However, jest aside, I still would love to read of some reputable scientific house that tested FF, sapphire, and mineral crystals, side by side, exposed to exactly the same test at the same pressures, etc., (crystals removed from the watches, of course, as they should be) tests for hardless, durability, scratch resistance, chipping resistance, shatter, and any other test deemed appropriate. If you know of any, please provide the info for the read.

To my knowledge, Invicta has never provided any scientific proof of FF superiority, as compared to either sapphire or mineral, other than its biggest seller taking his buck knife to a FF crystal on TV in attempt to create a scratch by dragging the tip of the knife across the crystal. If Invicta is going to make such a claim, is it not reasonable to expect some scientific substantiation of the claim, or is Invicta above this?