Why does Seiko use Hardlex crystals?

andrema · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

Based on what I have read, cost isthe only reason that Seiko selected Hardlex.This is based on comments made by Ikuo Tokunaga, Seiko's chief dive watch designer -- the guy who made the decision to use Hardlex crystals in Seiko dive watches. He stated that AT NO POINT has Seiko ever denied that at the same thickness, sapphire crystals are superior to Hardlex, even for dive watches. Tokunaga clearly stated that the decision to go with Hardlex is purely based on whether the company thought the added cost (which would be passed onto customers) justified the incremental improvement in performance. While Seiko decided that the answer to this question was "NO," because the company likes to focus on value-for-money, the company clearly did believe there IS a performance increase. In other words, if costs HAD been equal, Seiko would have gone with sapphire, too.

http://www.thewatchsite.com/index.php?topic=273.0

As a side note, Seiko makes their own sapphire crystals.

The company found that when sapphire and Hardlex are of equal thickness, sapphire is superior in BOTH impact resistance and scratch resistance.

However, to make sapphire crystals of sufficient thickness for their dive watches (e.g., the same thickness as the Hardlex crystals currently being used), the failure rate (some crystals apparently come out with hidden/microscopic cracks that affect impact resistance and thus need to be discarded) makes them too expensive (in Seiko's opinion) to justify the incremental improvement in performance. Which is why Hardlex is used for all but the most expensive of Seiko's dive watch line (and the MM300 is NOT one of these models, which is why it still has Hardlex.)

http://www.thewatchsite.com/index.php?topic=273.0

This explains why Seiko does routinely use sapphire crystals in many of its mid-priced non-dive (dress, chronograph, etc.) watches. For a non-dive watch, a thinner (and thus cheaper) sapphire crystal can be used since impact resistance is less critical.

andrema · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

This is a direct response from Tokunaga regarding the use of Hardlex verses Saphire in Seiko's professional divers:

First of all, if you have misunderstood because of my shortage of explanation at the last glass explanation on the S&C Forum, I must apologize to you for it. What I meant at the explanation is the reason why Seiko has adopted high-quality Hardlex on 1000m professional diver’s watch is that “cost performance is excellent.” I never said that high-quality Hardlex surpasses Sapphire on the performance of the material itself. And I meant that the loss-rate rises high in case of making a larger and thicker Sapphire glass, as a reason the cost of Sapphire is high.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=78440&messageid=1037842045

OK, I would explain the meaning more concretely.

The resistance to pressure which SEIKO1000m is virtually asked is at least 2000m or more. High-quality Hardlex of 4mm thickness adopted on 1000m clears this standard. On the other hand, in order to secure the resistance to pressure as same level as that of high-quality Hardlex (4mm) by using Sapphire, the thickness of about 3mm is required. Although both performances are same grade, Sapphire (3mm) is higher about the cost, therefore high-quality Hardlex (4mm) is superior to Sapphire (3mm). -- Incidentally, the thickest Sapphire that SEIKO uses now is less than 3mm. The resistance to pressure of Sapphire (less than 3mm) is inferior to that of high-quality Hardlex (4mm) --

Then, how about the Sapphire of 4mm thickness? Compared with the cost of high-quality Hardlex (4mm), that of Sapphire (4mm) rises very high. However, about the resistance to pressure and the durability of Sapphire (4mm), it exceeds that of high-quality Hardlex (4mm). In order for Sapphire (4mm) to exceed high-quality Hardlex (4mm) also at the point of cost performance, we have needed to reduce the manufacture cost of Sapphire (4mm) further.

In recent years, with producing various kinds of PROSPEX watches, the adoption of Sapphire glass has been promoted, and so many Sapphire glasses of 2mm or more thickness can be manufactured stably. By the improvement of manufacture technology which is related to it, SEIKO has succeeded in reducing the manufacture cost of Sapphire (4mm) to a half of that of 1986. And this time, this Sapphire (4mm) has been carried on new 1000m professional diver’s watch.

One of the key concepts of the SEIKO’s watch making is "The highest cost performance watch in the world." As I mentioned before, SEIKO 1000m professional diver’s watch is one of a few saturation diving specifications watches in the world, and has the highest water-tightness and the air-tightness at a price of about 130,000 yen.

By this time’s model change, user’s cost goes up about 30,000 yen, but I judged that the cost performance of the new model exceeded that of the present model, by considering synthetically the merits, such as the further improvement of resistance to pressure and durability, the materials of the world highest performance, user’s attachment to Sapphire glass, and the other various elements.

At the meaning above, yes, I am confident that Sapphire is better than Hardlex.

Sorry for the long message, but I hope this is helpful for you and other S&C Forumers.
Sincerely yours,

Ikuo Tokunaga

andrema · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

This is his reponse regarding the material selection process and the rationale for Seiko's decisions of which option to use:

The materials currently used as watch glass and its main characteristics are shown in the following table.

Since the acrylic resin (1) has soft hardness and a heat-resistant temperature is very low, concerning the glass of PROSPEX watches which have high durability performance, such as a MARINEMASTER of this question, we couldn't use acrylic glass in which a lot of scratches and deformation are occurred on the surface.

Although (2) and (3) glass are used by SEIKO with the trademark of "HARDLEX" (glass which raised mechanical intensity by special chemical strengthening processing), they are used for standard watches.

On the other hand, sapphire glass (4) is used abundantly for the dress watches and high-class water-resistant watches and also diver's watches, such as CREDOR and Grand SEIKO and also some PROSPEX watches, such as LANDMASTER watches, SCUBAMASTER diver's watches of SEIKO brand, and hardness and theoretical intensity are excellent, there is also a problem of being unable to make as theoretical strength by the mechanism in destruction of the glass with which a cut angle control is important and a micro crack being detected in microscopic examination in case of large and thick glass.

In SEIKO watches, in addition to the above-mentioned general materials, "High- quality HARDLEX" (the high intensity and highly efficient glass strengthened on (3) Borosilicate glass) and original "SAPPHLEX"(the high cost performance combined glass which adhered thin plate of (4) on (2) or (3) glass) are put in practical use, and those are used according to the aim and specification of the watches.

"High- quality HARDLEX" which is the high intensity and the highly efficient article of the glass are used for the PROSPEX watches and ordinary sports watches. Also "SAPPHLEX" glass is used for the sports watches or the sporty watches,

In case of diver's watch which are required so many characteristics totally, such as resistance to pressure, water resistance, shock resistance, wear resistance, heat resistance, and durability etc., we usually use "High- quality HARDLEX" glass having the most excellent cost performance and sometimes use sapphire glass as a glass of some PROSPEX diver's watches.

Ikuo Tokunaga

Ikuo Tokunaga
Picture credit: Seiko

Original source: http://www.thewatchsite.com/index.php?topic=273.0

Spaceview · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

I've never had an issue with my Seiko crystals. I understand why some prefer Sapphire, but Hardlex crystals on a Seiko would never stop me from buying a Seiko. I know that Citizen offers Sapphire crystals for many models that are not shipped with them. If I ever damaged my SkyHawk crystal I would most likely replace it with Sapphire for a few extra bucks. I wonder if Seiko offers that same type of upgrade?

ky70 · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

Good read. But about the fail rate of producing thick sapphire (and subsequent higher cost), how are all these microbrands able to produce thick sapphire crystals left and right? If there was a fail/cost issue for them it would be reflected in the price of the watch and I just don't see this high cost being passed on to the consumer in many microbrand examples.

So my ultimate question is how can these microbrands seemingly easily churn out thick sapphire crystals and Seiko can't?

scotty · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

good stuff for the crystal geek in me

Tattoo Chef · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

ky70 wrote:

Good read. But about the fail rate of producing thick sapphire (and subsequent higher cost), how are all these microbrands able to produce thick sapphire crystals left and right? If there was a fail/cost issue for them it would be reflected in the price of the watch and I just don't see this high cost being passed on to the consumer in many microbrand examples.

So my ultimate question is how can these microbrands seemingly easily churn out thick sapphire crystals and Seiko can't?

Your talking a big difference in price for MOST models.

Most of the Private Label/Micro brands, start somewhere in the range of $450-$500, and go up.

Most Seiko divers can be found in the $200-$300 range, Monster, Frankenmonster, Stargate, Samurai, Knight series, and many others....

TVDinner · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

Very good information and really interesting. Funny how detailed and important this stuff is for some, while for most of the 5 billion people on the planet they just think it is a clear piece of glass or crystal on their watch and have no clue at all.

Caddymon · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

You would think they would just pass on whatever small extra expense it is to their best divers.I have owned 4 Seiko's in my life and 3/4 had Sapphire. I can see not using it on their lower cost divers but the MM is their high end diver.

kevco · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

I love this stuff.

k

lovles2274 · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

ky70 wrote:

Good read. But about the fail rate of producing thick sapphire (and subsequent higher cost), how are all these microbrands able to produce thick sapphire crystals left and right? If there was a fail/cost issue for them it would be reflected in the price of the watch and I just don't see this high cost being passed on to the consumer in many microbrand examples.

So my ultimate question is how can these microbrands seemingly easily churn out thick sapphire crystals and Seiko can't?

I think what you're missing is that Seiko produces it's own sapphire crystals. So, they must eat the cost of "bad" pieces. Microbrands purchase the crystal as made by someone else. They aren't concerned with what percentage fail and must be remade because they are only worried about the bottom line of cost. Boschett, Steinhart, Stolas, etc... incorporate the cost of the crystal into the price of the watch. As Don stated most of these watches start >$500 and go up.

BigTime738 · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

I'm waiting for our new Seiko moderator to chime in!

four20 · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

BigTime738 wrote:

I'm waiting for our new Seiko moderator to chime in!

sorry, been kinda busy at work, Fernando :t

i saw something about this the other day on SCWF, so thanks for reposting it, Mark :c

i have nothing to add, except that Hardlex does scratch easier than sapphire. my experience has been that the domed Hardlex scratches easier than the flat. the crystal on my 6 y/o Monster is pretty beat up. hell, i even scratched my new Tuna one month into ownership (alcohol may or may not have been a factor

). Spork and other flat Hardlex are scratch-free and i'm no more careful with those than the curved ones.

unlike Citizen, Seiko does not offer a sapphire upgrade. if you order a crystal from Seiko, as my daughter's pre-K teacher was fond of sayin' "you get what you get, and you don't get upset."

when there is a niche to be filled, someone will fill it. Harold "Yobokies" Ng has a number of AR coated sapphire replacement crystals available for the most popular models of Seiko divers like the Monster, Sumo, Tuna, and most recently the Spork. a quick search on WUS or SCWF and you can find them in the FS section.

ky70 · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

lovles2274 wrote:

ky70 wrote:

Good read. But about the fail rate of producing thick sapphire (and subsequent higher cost), how are all these microbrands able to produce thick sapphire crystals left and right? If there was a fail/cost issue for them it would be reflected in the price of the watch and I just don't see this high cost being passed on to the consumer in many microbrand examples.

So my ultimate question is how can these microbrands seemingly easily churn out thick sapphire crystals and Seiko can't?

Click to expand...

I think what you're missing is that Seiko produces it's own sapphire crystals. So, they must eat the cost of "bad" pieces. Microbrands purchase the crystal as made by someone else. They aren't concerned with what percentage fail and must be remade because they are only worried about the bottom line of cost. Boschett, Steinhart, Stolas, etc... incorporate the cost of the crystal into the price of the watch. As Don stated most of these watches start >$500 and go up.

I'm just surprised tohear that this decision (not to use Sapphire)is based oncost as I would expect a company the size of Seiko to be able to source most materials at a much lower per watch rate than any small micro brand could (inhouse or not)

Tattoo Chef wrote:

ky70 wrote:

Good read. But about the fail rate of producing thick sapphire (and subsequent higher cost), how are all these microbrands able to produce thick sapphire crystals left and right? If there was a fail/cost issue for them it would be reflected in the price of the watch and I just don't see this high cost being passed on to the consumer in many microbrand examples.

So my ultimate question is how can these microbrands seemingly easily churn out thick sapphire crystals and Seiko can't?

Click to expand...

Your talking a big difference in price for MOST models.

Most of the Private Label/Micro brands, start somewhere in the range of $450-$500, and go up.

Most Seiko divers can be found in the $200-$300 range, Monster, Frankenmonster, Stargate, Samurai, Knight series, and many others....

True, but those are Seiko's "lower end" dive watches with their base non handwinding/hacking automatic movement compared to more expensive (in theory) handwinding/hacking movements used by the Micros. All things being equal, I would expect a micro to cost more for similar parts as I would think Seiko's per part price would generally be cheaper (though Seikodoes have employee compensation, facilities, advertising and other cost in their equation).

But I would be very interested to know the increase if Seikothrewa Sapphire Crystal on their dive watches from theSumo on up. If the response from Seiko was "hey, we just want to use our propierty crystal", I can understand thatbut I struggle to believe that Seiko can't get Sapphire crystals churned out for a reasonable price.

Seiko is by far my favorite brand so my comments are coming from a place of love.

andrema · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

FYI- Jack at IWW does the Hardlex to Saphire conversions. Once my MM300 crystal gets dinged up enough, off to Jack it will go!

ky70 · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

BigTime738 wrote:

I'm waiting for our new Seiko moderator to chime in!

LOL. Clear the room then. Erik is not a fan of the hardlex v. sapphire debate. I generally ignore these discussions myself as hardlex has been good to me on my Seiko's...BUT, I do have a clear preference for Sapphire over hardlex and am willing to pay a little more to get it.

four20 · Sep 7, 2011

imported post

ky70 wrote:

BigTime738 wrote:

I'm waiting for our new Seiko moderator to chime in!

Click to expand...

LOL. Clear the room then. Erik is not a fan of the hardlex v. sapphire debate. I generally ignore these discussions myself as hardlex has been good to me on my Seiko's...BUT, I do have a clear preference for Sapphire over hardlex and am willing to pay a little more to get it.

:c i know this is a new discussion here, but frankly it's

i have argued in the past for the "Hardlex is softer and therefore less prone to shatter than sapphire and Seiko chooses performance over aesthetics" group, but with this information i have changed my tune a bit. they are balancing costs vs. performance.

because Seiko produces their own crystals, they are looking at costs from a different perspective than a boutique brand that sources them. they must pay for the raw materials, the equipment to produce them and the humans to run the equipment. they are looking for maximum efficiency from top to bottom. if they are dumping sapphire crystals that don't hold up to their high performance standards, they are throwing money away. Seiko makes how many dive watches per yr? 100's of thousands if not more than a million?

let's not forget- boutiques are sourcing parts from different manufacturers that may or may not have the same issues as Seiko with their sapphire but because they are producing lower volume, they can have better controls..? there's so many variables we don't know in this.

i just don't see how this is a fair comparison. Seiko is not in the business of winning over the tiny fraction of knucklehead WIS like ourselves, whereas the boutiques depend on us knuckleheads. if we the knuckleheads demand sapphire, the boutiques better bring it or be outsold by a competitor.

ky70 · Sep 8, 2011

imported post

four20 wrote:

ky70 wrote:

BigTime738 wrote:

I'm waiting for our new Seiko moderator to chime in!

Click to expand...

LOL. Clear the room then. Erik is not a fan of the hardlex v. sapphire debate. I generally ignore these discussions myself as hardlex has been good to me on my Seiko's...BUT, I do have a clear preference for Sapphire over hardlex and am willing to pay a little more to get it.

Click to expand...

i just don't see how this is a fair comparison. Seiko is not in the business of winning over the tiny fraction of knucklehead WIS like ourselves, whereas the boutiques depend on us knuckleheads. if we the knuckleheads demand sapphire, the boutiques better bring it or be outsold by a competitor.

Really good points here. Lack of a sapphire crystal has not been a deal breaker for me on any Seiko, but that is a feature I find desirable (just as I desire non tapering thick link bracelets on their dive watches). But even without those features, I keep buying Seiko Dive watches. They had me at hello.

BigTime738 · Sep 9, 2011

imported post

The only "nice" watches that I have with any scratches at allfitted withnon-sapphire crystals... One, my Seiko Monster I scratched the very first day I had it. Hardlex does not like granite counter tops! Anyway, it's hardly noticable... The other is my Torgoen which has a "K-1" crystal, which I believe is basically the same thing isas a Hardlex... Sapphires rule! Good mineral chrystals a close second.... IMHO!

four20 · Sep 9, 2011

imported post

ky70 wrote:

four20 wrote:

ky70 wrote:

BigTime738 wrote:

I'm waiting for our new Seiko moderator to chime in!

Click to expand...

LOL. Clear the room then. Erik is not a fan of the hardlex v. sapphire debate. I generally ignore these discussions myself as hardlex has been good to me on my Seiko's...BUT, I do have a clear preference for Sapphire over hardlex and am willing to pay a little more to get it.

Click to expand...

i just don't see how this is a fair comparison. Seiko is not in the business of winning over the tiny fraction of knucklehead WIS like ourselves, whereas the boutiques depend on us knuckleheads. if we the knuckleheads demand sapphire, the boutiques better bring it or be outsold by a competitor.

Click to expand...

Really good points here. Lack of a sapphire crystal has not been a deal breaker for me on any Seiko, but that is a feature I find desirable (just as I desire non tapering thick link bracelets on their dive watches). But even without those features, I keep buying Seiko Dive watches. They had me at hello.

free your mind, brother :c you know you want that Sumo

k open yourself to the notion that you can learn to love the bracelet :wf

BigTime738 wrote:

The only "nice" watches that I have with any scratches at all fitted with non-sapphire crystals... One, my Seiko Monster I scratched the very first day I had it. Hardlex does not like granite counter tops! Anyway, it's hardly noticable... The other is my Torgoen which has a "K-1" crystal, which I believe is basically the same thing is as a Hardlex... Sapphires rule! Good mineral chrystals a close second.... IMHO!

there's no doubt i love sapphire, but like ky and yourself, it's not a deal breaker for me- no matter the brand.

ky70 · Sep 9, 2011

imported post

four20 wrote:

ky70 wrote:

four20 wrote:

ky70 wrote:

BigTime738 wrote:

I'm waiting for our new Seiko moderator to chime in!

Click to expand...

LOL. Clear the room then. Erik is not a fan of the hardlex v. sapphire debate. I generally ignore these discussions myself as hardlex has been good to me on my Seiko's...BUT, I do have a clear preference for Sapphire over hardlex and am willing to pay a little more to get it.

Click to expand...

i just don't see how this is a fair comparison. Seiko is not in the business of winning over the tiny fraction of knucklehead WIS like ourselves, whereas the boutiques depend on us knuckleheads. if we the knuckleheads demand sapphire, the boutiques better bring it or be outsold by a competitor.

Click to expand...

Really good points here. Lack of a sapphire crystal has not been a deal breaker for me on any Seiko, but that is a feature I find desirable (just as I desire non tapering thick link bracelets on their dive watches). But even without those features, I keep buying Seiko Dive watches. They had me at hello.

Click to expand...

free your mind, brother :c you know you want that Sumo k open yourself to the notion that you can learn to love the bracelet :wf

LOL. The Sumo is still on the radar and high on my list but that Tsunami by Jake has thrown me off a bit. I love that thing but haven't pulled the trigger because he ran out of the classic dials and I'm deciding if the UDT froggy dial would keep me happy.

Why does Seiko use Hardlex crystals?

Attachments

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities