Flame Fusion vs. Sapphire Crystal
- Status
1 - 20 of 85 Posts
Joined
·
37 Posts
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.
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.
Joined
·
927 Posts
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!
Not!
Joined
·
37 Posts
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?
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?
Joined
·
112 Posts
Why dont you test yours since you already have one,,come-on be a hero,,,sacrifice yourself as a good samaritan for everybodys benifit of the doubt,,:thumbup1:
ChaunceyJack, I didn't mean to insult you and hope I didn't. I didn't mean a science test, LOL. I meant just give it a beatting, you can figure out for yourself how and what to do to it. Test it anyway you wish and see if YOUR satisfied with the FF or not. Try to forget comparing it to mineral or sapphire, just concentrate on your opinion of how the FF withstands itself and then you'll have you own informed opinion.:thumbup:
Joined
·
3,448 Posts
It's nothing more than a mineral crystal fused with a sapphire coating with heat. The mineral core is for shatter resistance, and the sapphire coating for scratch resistance. Other companies have done it, and they all call it something different. Invicta coined theirs Flame Fusion. It's actually a pretty neat concept. Invicta says, all of their watches will have it at some point.
Heres a post I made previously about FF,
jb diver buyer, Not at all, no eye roll. I do however understand your meaning, lol. Seriously I destroyed a 6018, this started by trying to remove the cyclops, which I've done many times and always with sucess. Mineral is easy, sapphire is a bit tougher to get it off, but the flame fusion is actually incrediable and in the end the cyclops never did come off but infact chipped away in pieces at a time from heat and a extrelmy hardened sharp blade and still I was unable to remove it from the crystal, also the crystal showed no signs of burning or damage from the flame. I gave up and decided to see just how much abuse this crystal could take and by that I mean force before it broke or shattered or whatever, because that was the idea now to see how the flame fusion crystal would react to impact. Well it withstood several stabbing blows from a thick hardened blade (think Michael Meyers knife from Halloween movies) and it still sustained itself with only the very smallest of scratches which were only visable when really looking, anyway the crystal did finally break and more into pieces like you would see a mineral crystal break, it did not shatter like sapphire, but rather broke away in chunks. Like I said very durable, I wouldn't resitate to buy a watch with flame fusion its gotta be as good and I think better the mineral and more shatter resisitant then sapphire. Its a good thing.
jb diver buyer, Not at all, no eye roll. I do however understand your meaning, lol. Seriously I destroyed a 6018, this started by trying to remove the cyclops, which I've done many times and always with sucess. Mineral is easy, sapphire is a bit tougher to get it off, but the flame fusion is actually incrediable and in the end the cyclops never did come off but infact chipped away in pieces at a time from heat and a extrelmy hardened sharp blade and still I was unable to remove it from the crystal, also the crystal showed no signs of burning or damage from the flame. I gave up and decided to see just how much abuse this crystal could take and by that I mean force before it broke or shattered or whatever, because that was the idea now to see how the flame fusion crystal would react to impact. Well it withstood several stabbing blows from a thick hardened blade (think Michael Meyers knife from Halloween movies) and it still sustained itself with only the very smallest of scratches which were only visable when really looking, anyway the crystal did finally break and more into pieces like you would see a mineral crystal break, it did not shatter like sapphire, but rather broke away in chunks. Like I said very durable, I wouldn't resitate to buy a watch with flame fusion its gotta be as good and I think better the mineral and more shatter resisitant then sapphire. Its a good thing.
Joined
·
37 Posts
Ok, guys, mychronos and 2156 --- first of all I like I said in my above post, I have no reasonable way to test a FF correctly. I think both of you got that point, and surely you understood what I meant by Invicta not providing any concrete and scientific proof of a claim that FF is better than either sapphire or mineral and that FF has the properties of both. Somehow I just find that Invicta claim to be absolutely ludicrous, and just another bit of careless Invicta jawing in an attempt to convince those who are unsure or uneducated as to what sapphire or mineral crystals really are or to make their Invicta lovers think that they are getting something better. Anybody with an 8th grade level science intelligence surely can see the folly in a claim such as this, no?
Yet another reason to doubt and not trust Invicta.
Now, 2156, I was not insulted, not at all. And I thank you for your reply, it was most appreciated.
I just did not understand what you, 2156, were asking me to do, but you have made that all clear now.
Since I seldom wear this Excursion GMT (purchased last August) any wear that I would be giving it certainly would not be any test at all. And I do not really care, as said in my first post, it matters not.
My concern in chiming in on this thread is simply the fact that Invicta makes a totally unsubstantiated claim (proven by what?) that FF is better than either sapphire or mineral and they have said it publicly on TV a number of times, and that I would love to see some REAL proof of such an outrageous claim. That is only a fair conclusion, that if they are going to make such a claim, they need to prove it, and not by the buck knife little crystal scratch, which to me proved nothing other than to make Invicta look really silly and that they were trying to convince us all that something that obviously is not true is really true. Seeing is believing, no?
As to my watch wearing, I am always very careful with the watch that I have on for the day, including my couple beaters. Of all the crystal materials that I have in all my wearing watches, I am yet to scratch one, chip one, shatter one, break one, or damage one in any manner. Therefore, I surely would not be the right one to conduct such a test.
But, many thanks for your confidence in me . . .
Yet another reason to doubt and not trust Invicta.
Now, 2156, I was not insulted, not at all. And I thank you for your reply, it was most appreciated.
I just did not understand what you, 2156, were asking me to do, but you have made that all clear now.
Since I seldom wear this Excursion GMT (purchased last August) any wear that I would be giving it certainly would not be any test at all. And I do not really care, as said in my first post, it matters not.
My concern in chiming in on this thread is simply the fact that Invicta makes a totally unsubstantiated claim (proven by what?) that FF is better than either sapphire or mineral and they have said it publicly on TV a number of times, and that I would love to see some REAL proof of such an outrageous claim. That is only a fair conclusion, that if they are going to make such a claim, they need to prove it, and not by the buck knife little crystal scratch, which to me proved nothing other than to make Invicta look really silly and that they were trying to convince us all that something that obviously is not true is really true. Seeing is believing, no?
As to my watch wearing, I am always very careful with the watch that I have on for the day, including my couple beaters. Of all the crystal materials that I have in all my wearing watches, I am yet to scratch one, chip one, shatter one, break one, or damage one in any manner. Therefore, I surely would not be the right one to conduct such a test.
But, many thanks for your confidence in me . . .
Joined
·
6,086 Posts
ok, that does sound like it could be good. I may try one, although I've really never had an issue with mineral or sapphire...well, I've scratched a mineral for sure:lol:
thanks Duke:thumbup1:
diver88
Joined
·
3,448 Posts
The 8926 in the 2010 catalog is listed as having a FF Crystal, which IMO is an upgrade for that model. Time is the ultimate tester, so I think we'll have to wait and see, but everything I have read has been great about it. My only observation is the cyclops magnification looked a little less compared to a sapphire in 1 picture I saw posted here (the New 9937 thread), but 2156 said he has several with the FF and the date magnification was ok on his. It could have just been the angle of the pic.
Joined
·
1,309 Posts
The Cyclops on my Grand Diver GMT is great, and it has FF Crystal... If I wrestle myself out of the laziness that currently prevents me from opening up photobucket and and sharing a picture I will post one. :T
As far as Flame Fusion vs Saphhire... it has been addressed before, and most agree that it is definitely and upgrade to mineral, but until there are some actual scientific tests done on the actual hardness and durability of the Crystal it will remain a hair below Sapphire in they eyes of most consumers. Myself included.
As far as Flame Fusion vs Saphhire... it has been addressed before, and most agree that it is definitely and upgrade to mineral, but until there are some actual scientific tests done on the actual hardness and durability of the Crystal it will remain a hair below Sapphire in they eyes of most consumers. Myself included.
To be clear the FF crystal on the 9937C does have less magnification then the sapphire on the 9937, however its is stronger then the mineral used on the 8926 and such models, now the quartz Pro Diver Models which use mineral have better mag then the auto, weird right? Yes but true, and the FF crystal is also stronger the then quartz mineral crystal.
Bottom line the FF has far better mag then the mineral, but not as good as the sapphire. But remember some people complained that the date mag on the sapphire was to powerful and didn't like giant date.
The below photos are borrowed from the internet and are for educational purposes only.
9937C with lug holes and Sapphire
![]()
9937C with springbar and FF
![]()
Bottom line the FF has far better mag then the mineral, but not as good as the sapphire. But remember some people complained that the date mag on the sapphire was to powerful and didn't like giant date.
The below photos are borrowed from the internet and are for educational purposes only.
9937C with lug holes and Sapphire
9937C with springbar and FF
1 - 20 of 85 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!