- Posts
- 1,567
- Likes
- 859
PatrickJ
·The OP has no need to worry or be dissapointed. It is fixable at about £135 sterling or $200 plus USD not the end of the world considering the cost of the watch.
Please consider donating to help offset our high running costs.
I know what he meant. He said,"I haven't done a side by side comparison" (top surface coating vs under surface coating). All I was trying to say that Omega made the decision that light penetration was better with the TOP surface coated. Right or wrong! I don't know where you get your percentage comparison, but with the percentage of light being reflected off the un coated top surface, I'd have though the percentage difference would have been greater. But what do I know? I will say that an uncoated sapphire crystal is more effective at absorbing light than a tempered glass one. Maybe the coating (inside or outside) is a bit of overkill!
again a chip isn't the same as a scratch. blaming a chip on the scratch resistance of sapphire is like blaming a car dent on the paint
I found this interesting, and pertinent to the discussion. Both bits of text are from Rolex's official brochure for the Explorer I
When you're considering buying the watch, Rolex wants you to believe the crystal is scratch-proof. And if you come back to complain about the scratch in the crystal of your shiny new Explorer I, the crystal becomes merely scratch-resistant.
Sapphire is cheap to make, it's all man made and the cost is virtually nothing.
Just checked the price on a 2,4mm thick Sapphire crystal, not necessarily for this watch but simply a thick sapphire replacement crystal. Price? less than 10 Pounds...
Someone is making a good markup on factory parts.
Rob
No AR, but I know of a company that offers AR coatings for around 25 pounds.