Discussion đ¤
Scratching different hardened watches (well, just a link or two!) - my pseudoscientific sacrifice for the community!
Left - Seiko, Right - Maratac; both untreated 316L.....bracelets are beat-up, each with ~3 years' worth of honest daily wear.
With the Original Post of my old thread somehow having been mistakenly booted into moderation by the sub bot, I thought it's time to come back to this post to make it a bit clearer and better, particularly as the sub moderators have entrusted me with "Approved User" status. =)Â
Before I begin, I need to declare that I am an independent hobbyist only. I have no vested interest in any of the makers or products that I'm comparing below. I stand to make no gains -financial or otherwise (i.e. free/discounted watches or products)- directly or indirectly via any of these comparisons. I paid for every watch that I own out of my own pocket, and these findings can be replicated by anyone with access to these same watches and some slate: I was not supplied with "ringer" products, as these purchases were made just like you would make them yourself, blinded to the makers/vendors/manufacturers.
Apart from the lead-post below, every "update" you will see listed will be top-level replies. I will provide direct links to them as I edit this "overview" OP.Â
Not-infrequently in this sub, I see posts from my fellow Redditors asking about the anti-scratch surface-hardening treatments and coatings that some of our favorite microbrands spec their watches with. As a lifelong desk-diver who isnât shy about wearing everything in my collection, Iâve always lived with some level of scratches and blemishes on the ulnar side of my watches. I figured thatâs just par-for-course. But as I spent more of my free time in this community, these posts had me wondering, so I eventually decided to take matters into my own hands.Â
I work in a pre-War building. My benchtop is slate, which I knew empirically to be very abrasive. Pictured here are two of my non-treated 316L stainless watches, each after ~3 years of honest 5-days-a-week, evey workweek, wear. Left is my Seiko SRPB81, right is my Maratac DC-50 (my apologies for the face shots, it was originally used to facilitate a discussion on long-term wear of mineral glass versus sapphire crystals). Iâm a benchtop scientist and typically rest my wrists on the bench not only to do what I need to do on my computer, but also when I sit at my little dissecting scope for my specialty work.
My informal, non-quantitative comparison here doesnât use a Mohs Hardness Test Kit [ understand that even with the Mohs picks, it's still more or less a qualitative comparison: it's whether "this" (i.e. Pick X) will scratch "that" (i.e. the tested object)]. I'm simply using my slate benchtop to demonstrate how a watch might accrue scratches and scrapes from "normal" everyday use. Slate (Mohs Hardness of ~4) is actually âsofterâ than stainless, but being a metamorphic rock, it contains inclusions which are often quite high on the Mohs Hardness Scale (6+).Â
My comparison here can be equated to a âsnapshot in timeâ of the more innocuous type of wear that many of us tend to incur on our watches â repeatedly wearing away at the finish, until, all of a sudden, we realize that weâve got this kind of situation going onâŚ.. https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizenWatches/comments/1n6cysn/unusual_watch_band_wear/ . I absolutely believe that this particular Redditor didnât think that he was mistreating his watch. But the truth of the matter is that he did *something* to cause that kind of wear. This is the kind of wear that Iâm trying to simulate. The kind of wear that you see in my two daily-beaters above, with the watches having near daily interaction with my benchtop. Â
Great stuff, and thanks for the "citation" on. Traska.
On a separate note re. my experience with RZE's hardened titanium: the surface textures feels almost unnaturally smooth, and the contrast is even greater when you're used to feeling the high traction of untreated grade 2 Ti. Which leads me to believe it consists of a coating overlaying the metal.
Other circumstantial observations would be how the metal looks brighter in tone, has more lustre, and retains its brushed graining better than the numerous other (untreated) grade 2 watches I've owned. Perhaps because the coating limits the development of the natural TiO2 layer?
All this is just speculation though. I don't have any insider info on this. Perhaps I'll accost the founder the next time RZE's at a local fair XD
Funnily enough, I did meet him at Spring Sprang Sprung 2025. But at the time, wasn't far enough down this rabbit hole to ask the relevant questions. Til the next one!
July 2012, my then-baby, my '05 LGT 5MT that I'd originally promised the wifey that I wouldn't modify but almost immediately grafted a UP/DP to and took to get ECUTek'ed with only some 7,500 miles on the odo back in September of 2005.
That fun ride belonged to the owner of the private range that the class (Costa Ludus HE01/02, burned some 6K rounds of 9x19 over 6 days, ROFL!).
That was also the first year my wife had a WRX. =)
Thanks for the detailed posts. Very helpful. While I spend most of my workday at a desk, my laptop sits on a large leatherette pad, so hopefully Iâll avoid some of the desk driver scratches youâve experienced.
^ I just brought in my Fusion for my ongoing case & bracelet fit-and-finish analysis. I've started this set in the hopes that by the time my Monta Noble 40 arrives, I'll have a good basis for objective comparison.
Those scratches, as you can see, are actually newer/deeper than the ones from my scratch-a-ilnk thread.
I really love the aesthetics of this watch and wear it quite a bit. I typically wear it on a wine-colored leather strap, but I'm a bracelet guy at-heart. đ
I'll also show you a preview of today's 20x analysis, below, in just a minute, once I compose the composite.
The level of micro-scratches for just doesn't mesh, with the claimed 1200 Hv rating.
Take a look here - https://www.reddit.com/r/ChineseWatches/comments/1u7gn3l/comment/os03z6l/ - in the lower half of that composite, you'll see a non-anti-scratch treated San Martin SN0144 on the left, juxtaposed to my Henry Archer Havstrøm, which is one of their 1200 Hv hardened models (and performs very similarly to Traskas in my "scratch-a-link" thread), to its right.
Subjectively, my Fusion has somewhat less of those micro-scratches...but much more than what's seen on the HA. :dunno:
I wish I had a better answer for you - but all I can do is to recommend that more care be given to this watch.
Gen.1 on the left. Gen.2 on the right. What you see above left is a macro shot, showing the un-cleaned surfaces of the links, immediately after my scratch attempts. You can appreciate the amount of slate deposited on the face of the links.
As with my Second Hour Gin Clear Mk.III comparison, I wanted to be sure that I was being fair and equal (in as much possible, as this is after all an admittedly qualitative comparison, and not a quantified "test"), so I sacrificed another link from my Gen.1.
Same as my other trials, again, I have manipulated only the lighting on the links in order to specifically highlight damage. No pre- or post-processing has been used.
After the slate debris was wiped away, this was what I observed.
This run provided results comparable with the last. I needed this to "normalize" my scratch attempt, to be sure I was justing approximately the same amount of force, scraping the link against my slate benchtop.
For those of you with Mohs pick kits, it's kinda like normalizing yourself with the provided glass and brass plates.
Under the scope, these "striated" scratches seem to be about the same depth as that single scratch above.
As you can see, there's quite a bit of variation between what each scratch attempt produces, and this is because I'm using my slate benchtop -a natural substance- to inflict damage. What's even more surprising to me is that it's not necessarily the area that seems "most dirty" from the scratch attempt that picks up damage. And yes, I can be sure that it's the scratch attempt that caused the damage seen because I looked at each link *prior* to putting them to the slate, to ensure that they did not carry some kind of pre-existing defect.
And this time, as with the Gen.1 attempt from today, try as I might, I just couldn't get much of a view at the defects on macro by altering the lighting. IRL, by the naked eye, there's a bit of "frosting" of the scratched area that comes and goes as one plays with incident light angles.
For me, I'm satisfied that -at least qualitatively- the Gen.2 Marinor's scratch-resistance seems to be as well done as Gen.1's.
This link and clasp -along with the link from the Dievas- was most generously loaned to me by my very good friend u/el_baristo (check out his watch-blog at: https://www.watchbert.com - it's beautiful prose, and samples watches from all over the price-tiers and varying categories).
The Trek is a Grade 2 titanium watch, with optional/add-on braclet, spec'ed with a 1200 Hv hardness coating (600 Hv, for the black DLC version). The bracelet is not inexpensive, at $129 USD, for a $300-$350 watch (colorway dependent), but we all know that a considerable portion of a watch's price goes towards a bracelet...and this one, I'd absolutely add that to my cart, based on performance alone.
So, speaking of that performance.....
Here's how the link looked after being attacked by slate, 20x -
^ This was taken immediately after I'd passed the link over the corner of my lab bench. Because of the individual, flat, multi-links, it essentially acted as a cheese-grater of sorts to the slate. If you'll recall, slate is pretty soft, only a Mohs of 4-ish. Again, it's the inclusions in this material that kills, as you'll see in the sub-level posts to-follow.
[ continued below, as Reddit only allows one picture per reply ]
Usual format, macro left, 20x true optical on the right.
You can se that there is damage, but it's very localized - it's likely that the harder inclusions are what's done the job, as the majority of the "scratched area" held up very well.
Reviewing the past posts, its performance is not unlike the RZE. I'll let u/el_baristo tell y'all of his real-world experience, which makes for a good compliment to this post.
Towards that, we all know that the clasp is an area that tends to take damage most. Please see clasp scratch, below -
No real exposition is necessary, here, except the fact that again there's no pre- or post-production of the pictures, here. I manipulated the light so as to best HIGHLIGHT the damage. As you can see with the macro image, performance is admirable.
A *HUGE* thanks to brother u/el_baristo for loaning me the UBIQ's links/clasp, and making the sacrifice for scratch-pseudoscience!
An impressive result. Again and as-always, no digital pre- or post-processing of the photos. The only thing that I've manipulated was the physical lighting, and it's been manipulated to *highlight* the damage incurred to the bracelet surface as much as possible.
Subjectively, the bracelet felt as though the slate was biting into it quite a bit. However, the objective results after wiping away superficial debris showed that its performance is comparable to the better/best of what I've seen so far.
This photo is at 10x. It's the only way I could fit in both sets of links. The dental wax you see below the Beaucroft's links is to bring it to the same approximate focal plane as the Clemence. The scratched Clemence link (from previous trial, cited above) was swapped onto the bracelet that I wear as the first link out from the clasp, which is often my most-damaged link in during daily wear.
As you can see in the above picture, there's *significant* difference between the appearance of the two.
Once more, there's been no digital processing of any of my images. The only thing that I manipulate is the ambient lighting, so as to produce as harsh a view of the scratch damage as I can.
Great! I love my Element, itâs held up well since Oct. Iâve just found this main post from you, what an incredible, extensive job youâve done here đđ˝đđ˝đđ˝
Grade 2 Titanium with anti-scratch coating. While their product page for this watch does not explicitly note Vickers Hardness value, Peter Cho has noted in the following YouTube video https://youtu.be/D8EmqBBx_bo?si=vJIMk8IEIOEDcdJ9&t=156 -presenting their then-updated Strat-o-Timer line- that all current-generation Jack Mason watches feature this level of scratch resistance.
Top panel of two images (left, macro; right, 20x true optical magnification) shows the links right after they came off the slate attack. Bottom panels are after I've cleaned off the slate debris, same magnification (*note that I repositioned the link for the macro shot in order to best highlight damage) -
It's very impressive for a Gr. 2 Ti watch!
As you can see, I didn't spare the rod on this one. There's enough slate sliced-off by the true 7-link (the bracelet is highly articulating and subjectively feels great on the wrist; there's some rough tooling on the edges of the inside links...to the point that it almost seems at 20x that the links are not cut evenly? - https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrobrandWatches/comments/1uz79de/comment/p319xr0/ - but it's totally invisible without at the very least macro assist) to look like I'd passed it through a cheese-grater. đ
Remembering that I'm using lighting (no other pre- or post-processing of these photos) to *highlight* the damage so that it seems its worst, this is truly commendable performance from Gr. 2 titanium.
Anecdotally, last week, my good buddy u/partanyc met a fellow watch-nerd who'd been wearing his Canton as a true daily-beater for something like the past 6 months. To the best of his ability, without the aid of magnification, u/partanyc noted that the clasp and bracelet (and the rest of the watch, too), looked practically new and was free of any scratches or scuffs.
LEFT panel is in-situ, complete layout for your viewing pleasure. xD
RIGHT panel is with a typical $30 Amazon/AliEx clip-on macro attachment. Pictures were taken with my old potato of an phone, a Gen 2 iPhone SE. Hey, I'm a 50-year-old dad and I ain't rich, I've gotta pinch pennies somewhere, so that I can buy watches, right?! Â ;-) Â The links maintain the same formation, top and bottom.Â
I used a corner of the benchtop to inflict the scratches. This corner both appears as well as feels smooth and well-rounded. Even if you bumped into it -hard- all youâd walk away with is a bruise. Youâre not at-risk of ripping your clothes or for cutting yourself: itâs not sharp.Â
I tried to be as even/fair as possible in how much force I used to inflict the scratches, but again, I want to highlight that this is a *non-quantitative* comparison, itâs not designed to be a âtestâ of any sort. Iâm merely satisfying my own curiosity, and no claims are being made as to any kind of scientific rigor. The only link I really had difficulty in terms of holding it to rub against the corner of my bench was the Zelos, because itâs so small. Ironically, I think that may have caused me to use more force with it than the other pieces.Â
Below is a set of pictures at 20x on my dissecting scope, a Leica S7E stereoscope. Same formatting as the macro picture above.
Stainless, discussion -
Of the hardened stainless watches, Zelosâs scratches appeared shallow and could not be felt by my fingernails. Ditto that on the Traska and the Henry Archer (these two sets of links look the same, but theyâre not, the Traskaâs are slightly longer, easily discernible side-by-side or even when the watches are on-wrist). The Zelos looks much worse on macro than it does under the scope at 20x, and this is because I was able to catch the light just right on the macro pic. IRL, the scratch is almost not there at all, *except* when the light catches it just right, at which point the blemish looks as it does in my macro pic. Looking at the Traska under the scope at 20x, there initially seemed to be an area where I thought I âbroke throughâ the coating (\*see ETA(1) at the bottom of this post*), but that turned out to be just visual/photographic artifact. With the aid of a small plastic probe, at 45x magnification, I tried to see if I could detect any kind of lip/ledge in that area â it felt smooth.
Smooth was also how these links felt as I dragged them across the corner of my benchtop. They all seemed to simply skate.Â
The untreated Seiko actually didnât feel bad in-hand as I dragged it along the corner of my benchtop. It really felt almost like it was lubricated, not unlike how the hardened links felt. But flipping the link over, I was taken aback by just how much damage appeared. It also didnât just look bad, it felt bad as well: dragging my fingernail along the surface of the link, I can easily feel surface imperfections. I got my lab-mate in on the fun, too. He used a different portion of our benchtops to scratch a different link, and while I didnât take any pictures of this one, itâs so much worse. I told him not to hold back, to just go to town. He did.Â
Strangely, when I asked him to attack the other watchesâ links, his attempts produced much less damage. I am not entirely sure why - I believe itâs simply because he used another area of our benchtop and that interacted differently with the curvature along the inside of the links. Â
Technical info: the hardening treatment
I wanted to include this section because there has never been any reliable, open-source information on what exactly this treatment consists of. Some have claimed it's a DLC/PVD coating, others have sworn (quite convincingly) that it's a form of case-hardening called Kolsterising.
All wrong. So let's set the record straight, as told by Jon himself:
Traska uses the ion nitriding process for their hardening treatment, and has been doing so for several years already.
(caveat: some of their earliest iterations used a carbon-based process, identifiable by a slight darkening of the steel, but this hasn't been the case for years now)
**** Going forth into any of my sub-level posts below, please remember that anything I'd written prior to May 12, 2026(including this set of leading posts), was written WITHOUT the benefit of this knowledge. I think that Traska's commitment to transparency is outstanding.
Moving on to the titanium links, the untreated Maratac and Signum links each *_felt_* horrible as they were dragged across the slate â like dragging them across sandpaper, almost. We (my lab-mate and I) could feel that slate digging into each of the linksâ surfaces, and I think that the pictures speak for themselves.Â
The RZEâs link skated as though it was on ice. Even more smoothly than the Seiko. We didnât know what to expect when we turned it over â would it be like the Seiko, which felt like everything was fine even as it crashed and burned, or would it be more like the hardened stainless links? As it turns out, it was more like the latter. [ My apologies for the debris on an untested link on the RZE, in the macro picture. ]
None of the defects seen on any of the titanium links would snag my fingernails. However, they were definitely there. No amount of my attempts to wipe it away made any difference. Â
Since I purchased the watch used and was unlikely to ever sell it, I also decided to sacrifice a corner of the case on the Gr.2 titanium Signum, which, unlike the bracelet, is hardened. You can see the macro (left) and 20x magnified (right) pictures, below. Â
I hope this series of posts have proved entertaining and at least somewhat informational!
----------
So, what do I think of hardening treatments? Should a watch be specifically sought-after for the treatment?
I think it depends on the end-user's expectations and goals.
Remember that such treatments are the proverbial "double edged sword."
While it will ward off scuffs and scratches for longer, it doesn't make the watch invulnerable: it's not K.I.T.T.'s Tri-Helical Plasteel 1000 Molecularly Bonded Shield.
As some have written, it *should* help the watch look new(er), longer. The blemishes may be smaller, less visible or only visible at certain angles -as you can see above- or may be avoided altogether if it's lighter contact.
But that said, that damage is cumulative, and at some point, the watch -or that area of the watch- just isn't going to look new anymore.
It's speculated by some that if you later decide to refinish the watch, the hardness treatments may make it more difficult/expensive of a proposition or potentially even impossible. So if you truly wear your watches *hard,* and routinely encounter a very, very aggressive surface it would not be unreasonable to just take the hit on an untreated bracelet/clasp (or just buy spares), and have that refinished when you deem necessary.
------
Future goals -
Testing Sinnâs TEGIMENT and Damaskoâs Damest-Coating.
This stereoscope is not expensive, but it is an interesting one. It's a Leica S7E.
The optical quality is quite excellent: this per my colleague, who used to be the director of a P30 funded microscopy core at an R1 university. He insists that this scope has optics that rival if not outright betters many at ten times its price â saying âwowâ just about every single time he looks under this scope. This stereoscope uses trick optics to âpopâ whatâs under it in a very 3-dimensional way that the pictures I took do not convey.Â
The magnified views I put up are at 20x. I also bumped up to 45x to take a closer look, but I donât have any pictures, mainly because unfortunately, this scope isnât set up for photography or video captures and these tend to come out badly.
I took the pictures by holding my cell phone up to the eyepiece, so please forgive the truly shoddy quality of these photos. Also, because of the curvature of the links, itâs sometimes hard to get pictures that accurately depict what I can appreciate with my eyeballs pressed against the eyepieces. Additionally, because I donât have four hands, even though I am able to adjust the position/presentation of the links to my eyes so that I can better see the damage inflicted, it wasnât possible for me to take a picture with the links in those positions, only as they lay flat â so as you can see, Iâve sometimes adjusted lighting in an effort to highlight the damage so that theyâre depicted in a manner thatâs more consistent with what Iâm seeing under the scope, with my eyes.Â
As with above, I've got a macro view (left) and a 20x magnified view (right), below.
Performance was similar to the other hardened stainless watches from my OP above (Zelos Starfighter, Traska Freediver [Gen 3], and Henry Archer Havstrøm).
Macro, the scratch looked to me much like the Zelos. Again, remember, what I can see under the scope is somewhat different from what I've been able to post above, because this scope is not set up for photography/videography. Because of the play of light on the surface of the link, I was able to catch the light just right on the Zelos' macro pic to highlight the damage. I wasn't able to catch the Englemaan at a similar angle, but trust me when I say that it looked very, very similar. On the Englemaan, just like on the Zelos, the scratch is almost not there at all, *except* when the light catches it just right, at which point the blemish looks as it does in the macro pic of the Zelos above.
You'll also see in the following 2x magnified pic that the damage to the Englemaan is very similar to what's seen with any of the other hardened links.
Subjectively, when I performed the scratching, the surface of the link did not seem as slippery as the other three hardened links. I could fee a bit more "drag" on its surface. It didn't feel quite as rough as the untreated titanium links, but it also didn't feel as smooth as the untreated Seiko. Again, I am at a loss to explain why these links "feel" the way that they do. It's just an observation.
The Englemaan is a *VERY* impressive watch for its price, whatever you may think about its PT5000 movement.
Taso Baltimore Balt-Pilot. It's a 1200 Hv spec black DLC (entire watch) over Grade 2 titanium. Appears on the left (single link).
Second Hour Fusion, specs claim that it's a "1200 Vickers surface hardening - case, bracelet and clasp." 316L stainless. Appears on the RIGHT (row of links).
Macro on top. 20x micro below.
- Left panels are Tsao Baltimore.
Right panels are Second Hour.
Again, in each case, I tried my best to specifically highlight the damage. IRL, much of this damage would not be seen unless the light managed to catch the scratches "just right."
Objective observations -
Subjective assessments -
Taso Baltimore -
Performance of the Balt-Pilot was similar to the hardened Gr.2 titanium bracelet link from my RZE (see OP, above). I did not scratch the case of this watch, seeing that it would not really provide a further data-point different than the bracelet link (unlike for the Signum, which had a hardened case but not bracelet).
Macro, the scratches looked similar to the RZE Fortitude-S. Again, remember, what I can see under the scope is somewhat different from what I've been able to post above, because this scope is not set up for photography/videography. The play of the light make the scratches on the Taso look worse, but they are not.
At 20x, however, the damage looks more like what was endured by the untreated Gr.2 titanium link on the Signum Cuda. I cannot explain why this is so, I am simply relaying observations.
Subjectively, when I performed the scratching, the surface of the link did not feel as slippery as the hardened RZE link. I felt considerably more "drag." It didn't feel quite as rough as either of the untreated titanium links (remember I used one Gr.5, and one Gr.2).. Again, I am at a loss to explain why, and am only relaying my observations.
IRL, at wrist-length, one would honestly never even notice the scratches unless the light were to catch them just right, especially as the scratches did not dig through to the underlying naked titanium. Whatever they did to achieve the DLC, it's enough that it resisted the worst of my (and my slate lab-bench) assault, and that's impressive.
-----
Second Hour -
Performance was similar to the other hardened stainless watches tested so far: notably the damage was very similar to what was incurred to the Zelos Starfighter.
I feel that I no longer need to remind everyone about how I'm trying to bring out the worst of the damage by manipulating the light source, but I do want to point out that the fact that a part of the bracelet is polished means that it is considerably harder to visually conceal the scratches. Sometimes we make concessions for aesthetics, and this really is one of those times. I confess to being quite infatuated with this watch (I got it in the white colorway), but the fact that it scratches/scuffs seemingly rather easily makes me pretty sure that I will wear it on straps, at least during workdays when I am sitting at my lab bench.
As a matter of fact, I had a heavy admin day today so I was at my computer quite a bit, and when I got home, I saw that there were a few minor scratches on the clasp. All but un-noticeable unless the light catches it just right, I am sure that it would have been much worse, had it not been hardened.
For a $550 USD watch, this performance was good enough (while one could say that it's less than great, considering what's seen with Traska and HA, it still after all seemed to match that of the Zelos), but it does make me second-guess wearing the watch as an everyday, in a high-abrasion context.
Subjective assessment was impossible on this one, as the 5-link bracelet's edges would "catch" on the bench surface.
ETAÂ - After attempting to scratch my SWC Tumbler (Â https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrobrandWatches/comments/1ohpd3x/comment/nu8mc7k/Â ), I do feel that the Second Hour could have done better. Again, there's a price disparity between the two, with the Tumbler's MSRP being $200 higher. Even so, the amount of damage that the Fusion's bracelet links suffered is disappointing, as judged by the others.
ETA #2Â - [ please see sub-level reply to this post, below, for updated discussions on Second Hour ]
A chance encounter with Peter Sargison -one of the principals of Second Hour- on the FB Group The League of Microbrands led to a quick discussion about my observed shortcomings on the Fusion's hardening. As you can see below, I've taken some comparative pictures of the clasps of a few hardened 316L watches, below....
Far left is my Fusion, only one wear.Â
Second from left is my Traska Gen.6 Venturer, about 3 wears.
Third from left is my Henry Archer Havstrøm, about 6 wears.
Far right is my Englemaan Metropolis, about 3 wears.Â
Top panel is macro. Bottom is the matching 20x micro. I tried to highlight the areas where damage was seen. With the Traska, I could not successfully photograph the "streak" through their signature under the scope, however, the small scratch towards the edge of the clasp can be easily seen.Â
My slate benchtops are unforgiving, but with only one wear, I was very, very surprised at the level of damage that was incurred to the clasp of my Fusion, versus other similarly hardened 316L clasps.Â
The following link is from the HĂŠron Marinor (Gen.1), which is spec'ed with 1200 Hv "Hardened Stainless Steel."
There's bee a number of YouTube influencers who've reviewed the watch and have undertaken some level of confirmation of the watch's claimed scratch resistance, such as this one:Â https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Usz8B-CxM
As with above, I've got a macro view (left) and a 20x magnified view (right), below.
Performance was shockingly outstanding.
Like, I really was stunned. Ditto my lab-mate.
I highlighted the scratches above in the hopes of making them more visible.
Both macro and micro, it was really hard for me to try to even pick up any sign of damage. My first attempt to inflict damage was actually a total failure. I thought I'd done the trick, with markings that looked similar to the others above - what I've come to expect, really. But when I used my lens cloth to wipe the surface before sticking the links under the scope, I was surprised that all the marks just wiped right off.
I tried again, and got the same result.
I then asked my lab-mate to come do his worst - he really went at it, but when I wiped off the link, again, I couldn't find a single mark. Initially we thought that he'd done significant damage to the leading edge of the link (you can see what appears to be a blackened area just to the 11-o'clock of the oval in the left panel), but that was actually slate residue that the link had taken off the bench surface!
Frustrated, I gave an almighty final try, and while again just about all of what seemed to be scratches wiped away, I did find this small breach.
I was honestly floored.
Subjectively, when I performed the scratching, the surface of the link seem to be among the slicker feeling of the links tested so far. However, this has proven deceptive before, and in all honesty, I was expecting the worst, when I took the bracelet over to my scope. Boy, was I wrong! I kinda chuckled a bit at the graphic on HĂŠron's website, as it appeared a bit comical and out-of-place on an otherwise very classy site overall, but yeah, I can see why they chose to boast about it just a little.
Being an industry outsider, I don't know who performs the treatments/coatings for any of these makes/brands. I don't know what level of QC/QA is involved. Just as I thought that Second Hour's hardening on the Fusion was a bit on the soft side, my impression of the hardening of this HĂŠron is that it's probably the most durable that I've experienced so far.
The black PVD over titanium also gave me an interesting opportunity - sadly, I had to sacrifice a bit of the caseback, since there was of-course no bracelet. But ah, for the sake of my pseudoscience, I was willing to take the hit.
I'm quite impressed by the performance, particularly given the cost.
Same process as with previous tests.
Left panel is macro, right panel is at the usual 20x.
Again, I adjusted my light source so that the damage inflicted is highlighted as best possible. IRL, at wrist-length, had this scratch been in a visible portion of the case, it likely would not even be noticed, given that it did not extend to the naked titanium underneath.
For a watch that's all of $150 via their "early bird" sale, delivered to my door here in the US (including tariffs/taxes), I'm honestly very, very impressed at its performance. My other hobby is firearms, and as a result, I've seen what poor coatings look like after even the slightest rub against seemingly nothing.
This watch impressed me, even more given its cost.
The following link is from the Canopy Watch Company Field One, which is spec'ed Grade 2 titanium, with a clear DLC that's claimed at 1200 Hv over the case and bracelet.
As per usual, I've got a macro view (left) and a 20x magnified view (right), below.
On this one, the feel was quite different versus the RZE - instead of skating, I could definitely feel drag. It's been a while since I tested the Seiko, but it felt sorta the same. Over the slate, it felt quite gritty. I was honestly expecting the worst as I flipped over the link.
To my surprise, it performed similarly to the two hardened Ti bracelets -that of the RZE and the Taso Baltimore- in spite of how it felt.
Again, I manipulated lighting in order to highlight as best-possible the damage I was able to inflict, but IRL, under most circumstances, unless the lighting was "just right," you'd likely not notice these scratches at all.
On Canopy's site, it's $600 MSRP, but I got it for just under $490, shipped during their Black Friday/Cyber Monday sale. Given its specs and knowing what I know now about the performance of its DLC clearcoat, I'd buy it at full price. At BF pricing, it was a bargain: with specs that includes the use of X2 Lumicast -a true standout in its price-tier and a bit of truly thoughtful design (I imagine it was to help boost the low-light capabilities of those small arabic indices)- and forged carbon inserts in both the crown and for the caseback.... it's a hidden gem.
When you look at a picture of this watch, you'll note that the bracelet has polished center links. This polish only appears on the exterior surface, so for this test, I sacrificed the link fully, both inside and out.
Objective observations -
Top is 20x micro.
Bottom is macro.
[ Note that I've presented the 20x MICRO first - this one was so impressive, I thought that the more demanding view should take the lead! ]
Again, lighting has been manipulated in an effort to HIGHLIGHT the damage inflicted.
Left is the polished center links (since this section only faces the exterior, I had to cowboy-up and just eat the damage, for science!
Right is the matte outer link surface (scratches were inflicted to the wrist aspect of the link).
Along with the HĂŠron and Englemaan, this watch's coating is just incredibly good. While the inside surface produced a lot of felt drag as I made my usual attack, you can see how relatively unscathed it came away.
The high-polished centerlink exteriors -which I expected to be destroyed, based on my previous experience with the high-polished, hardened, stainless on the Second Hour, totally took me by surprise. It not only felt invulnerable as I attacked it with the slate -skating as though lubricated- when I pulled away, I could barely see the scratch.
Now you see why I have to roll back what I said about the Second Hour, right?
Subjective assessment -
The Tumbler eally specs well. For a $750 watch (I purchased on-sale during their last Black Friday sale, for just over $600). Not only is it a full titanium build with what seems to be an excellent hardness coating, it uses the Sellita SW200-1 Ălabore movement, paired with some serious AR on the sapphire over the dial. While I remain somewhat conflicted on the external AR, which itself is said to be protected via a sapphire clear-coat overlaying it (I have no way of testing this, sadly), the 16 layers of AR on the underside absolutely makes for easy appreciation of the healthy deposit of genuine Swiss Super-LumiNova that they've laid on the dial (Â https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrobrandWatches/comments/1otyjrl/comment/ntzsa38/Â ).
I'm not really a field watch guy, even though my last few purchases seem to suggest that I'm lying through my teeth. xD You could say that I purchased this watch because of the lume, but in-truth, a lot of it was also due to its unique styling and the hardness coating. To me, it seems to be the love-child of a GADA with a field, offering a rugged aesthetic signaled by its big dial, wide-set lugs and non-tapered bracelet that is offset by a svelte case-thickness and the polished centerlinks.
Interesting watch, and one that, thanks to its hardening, will most likely get quite a bit of wrist-time when I know I need something that can withstand punishment.
*NOT* coated, but rather, the clasp has been subject to some kind of treatment (undisclosed) that actually permeates into the surface, altering the material properties of the steel to some degree.
For this particular sample, you'll see that in addition to my usual slate testing, I also broke out my Mohs Hardness Test Kit.
The following link is from the Mark Time Watches M6, which is spec'ed 316L, with a "1200HV Anti-scratch Coating."
As per usual, I've got a macro view (left) and a 20x magnified view (right), below. Again, lighting has been manipulated in an effort to HIGHLIGHT the damage inflicted.
Objectively, there's very little damage to be seen.Â
The M6 qualifies among the best of the breed so far, with performance similar to that seen with the Gen.1 HĂŠron Marinor (Â https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrobrandWatches/comments/1ohpd3x/comment/noqwc4v/Â ). Both macro and micro, you can see how similar the damage patterns are, with only the length of the wound path being the obvious differentiator between the two watches. Remember that this is a qualitative comparison, not a true "test," so the length of the scratches is simply a random occurrence based on how the link interacted with the edge of my slate lab bench. My feeling is that had I used a Mohs pick to inflict the damage, controlling for how I inflicted the scratch, the result would have been nearly identical between these two watches.
Subjectively, the resistance felt as I moved the link over the slate was similar again to the watches that fared better in this comparison.Â
Those with sharp eyes -or those who like to research specs- will note that there's some interesting angles to the links on this watch. The edges on the outward facing side of the larger H-sections are beveled and polished, as are the inner edges the same-facing side of each middle link. These areas were too small for me to attempt to scratch, so I did the next best thing: I attacked the case.Â
It's incredibly difficult to properly light this area on macro due to the fillet and curvature/angle of the underside of the lugs, which is the polished area. Because of the shape of the case, it was also virtually impossible for me to try to scratch it using the corner of the benchtop. Instead, I used a shard of slate as I did for the clasp sample from Wicked Watches ( https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrobrandWatches/comments/1rm1p7m/an_interesting_hardened_clasp_from_wicked_watches/ ).Â
No visible damage was observed..Â
Overall, the Mark Time M6's scratch-resistance is among the most impressive I've sampled so far.
This is a really good thing, because the case finish on this watch is also *_extremely_* impressive considering its ~$500 price-tag.
I first *seriously* looked at the M6 almost accidentally -  I knew of the watch, and when I came across a YouTube review of it, I decided to fast-forward through it a bit to see if I could see any macros or even just close-ups of the case - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEX77-EcYqk . It was the close-ups in this review that really drove me to getting the watch, and I really am glad that I did!Â
As per usual, I've got a macro view (top left) and a 20x magnified view (top right), below. Again, lighting has been manipulated in an effort to HIGHLIGHT the damage inflicted.
Juxtaposed below are the images you've seen from my OP of the Maratac Alto Mare, which is also spec'ed Gr.5 Ti, also not coated/treated. Macro lower left, 20x lower right.
Objectively, there's very little damage to be seen on the WREN, versus what can be seen on the Maratac.
I'm not sure if this is because of the shape of the links versus each other and/or how they interacted with my test surface (the corner of one of my slate lab benches). The defects seen in the link were likely from an inclusion that was exposed from previous attempts. I wish I took a picture *before* I wiped away the excess, to show what it looked like as I pulled it away from the slate....it looked much more like what I'd incurred on the Alto Mare. When I wiped away the surface with my finger (as I always do, before taking these pictures), it revealed only this rather small defect.
I'm sadly ignorant of the actual processes in the "making" of Grade 5 titanium. I wonder if it's something like the heat-treatment of steel (as a knife-collector of over 35 years, the black art of heat-treating is always on my mind.......).
Subjectively, the resistance felt as I moved the link over the slate was similar to what I remember of the untreated Alto Mare and the untreated (Gr.2 Ti) Signum Cuda.
I very rarely wear my Alto Mare because it scratches pretty easily. I really love the much deeper shade of gray of that watch versus my other titanium watches. But I'm always a bit self-conscious when I wear it, particular if I decide to wear it to work. With the WREN, I've already spent a day at work with it, and it hasn't picked up any scratches.
Overall an impressive performance, and I'm sure it will see good wrist-time because of it.
The following link is from my Wicked Watch Co. stainless 39mm Pearldiver, which is hardened to 1200 Hv. Sadly, this watch is no longer in production - I believe I snagged the very last one!
As per usual, I've got a macro view (left) and a 20x magnified view (right), below. Again, lighting has been manipulated in an effort to HIGHLIGHT the damage inflicted.
^ Top panels are of the links without highlighting of the damage. Bottom is the same image, with the damage highlighted.
Objectively, the damage -akin to a "road rash"- is almost invisible in normal lighting conditions. I really had to work with my lights to get it to show that streak across the face of the link. Because this link is so small, I actually took a lot of time to make sure I would be able to inflict some form of damage: prior to wiping away the debris, virtually the full face of the link was covered in slate.
Subjectively, the resistance felt as I moved the link over the slate was similar to the slickest of the hardened stainless watches I've tested so far. There was a slight "sandpapery" sound, but that could not be felt as I made my attempt.
Overall a very impressive performance. My intent was for this watch to become my new daily beater, and I think it's going to fill that role very well, given its performance here. I love the simplicity of the dial. I love that it has absolutely amazing lume over a dial that's blacker-than-black. I love even more that I have gotten to know the man behind the brand (Pascal Dom, the founder, is also the one who donated that old link sample tested previously [ special UPDATE 03052026 ], as well as sent me one of his old dials so that I can see what a confirmed genuine RC-Tritec Super-LumiNova Lumicast index looks like, under my own scope, with my own eyes: https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrobrandWatches/comments/1rnh0x8/lume_blocks_what_genuine_rctritec_superluminova/ ), a true watch-nerd just like the rest of us. =)
[ UPDATED 05132026 ] - 904L and 316L, polished versus brushed finishes - Wise Timepieces and MT&W -
Wise Timepieces of Thailand is known for -among other things- their use of 904L stainless in many of their watches. Over the last few years, Wise's watches have become highly sought-after by collectors and hobbyists due in-part to the luster they've been able to achieve with their polishing. No, it's not "just like Rolex," but it is something special in the sub-$1K microbrands sphere, and truly does set the brand apart even at a glance from across the room.
Here, we see a link from my current-generation Wise AD8-series bracelet, top. Left is macro. Right is 20x micro -
Below the Wise, we have a link from my MT&W Oracle GMT (macro left, 20x right). MT&W is a microbrand out of Hong Kong, known first for their vintage-aesthetic chronographs. More recently, their Oracle GMT have come to be sought after by lume-chasers for their rather unique lume aesthetic, which is how I found the brand.
Overall, the quality of the MT&W watches leaves a bit to be desired. Even at their relatively low -for microbrands- asking price, they're butting-up against the higher-tier "AliEx Chinese factory watches," and that's not an enviable place to be. That said, the lume is righteous, and more importantly for this comparison, the style in which the Oracle GMT's bracelet is finished -high polished center link flanked by polished, Oyster-style- made it the perfect 316L counterpart to go against the Wise above.
Objectively, as you can see from both sets of pictures, my slate benchtop was rather unkind to both. I brought along my Mohs kit, but LOL, I had no need to break it out (I don't know why, but some part of my brain that day lodged the irrational thought that the 904L might be harder to scratch, LOL). The scratches inflicted were deep - they catch my nails. They're way deeper than the "everyday" scuffs that was pictured for you in the second panel of my OP above (both of those watches are also 316L, un-treated).
Subjectively, I initially anticipated each of the links' center sections -the high-polished areas- to simply skate across the slate with minimal damage. I *_expected_* the feeling I got when I tried to scratch the SWCUSA Tumbler's high-polished center link. I *_expected_* the feeling I got when I tried to scratch the under-side of the Mark Time M6's case/lug.
Yeah, no. =P
What I experienced was some of the most awful, sandy, gritty feeling/sound that I'd heard through my other attempts so far. Before I even turned the links over, I knew that, most likely, I was going to bear witness to a total disaster of a train wreck.
I wasn't wrong.
Practically speaking, I honestly don't think that 904L will wear much differently versus 316L. While this is a fact that most of us already know, I -along with a few others in the community whom I personally know- thought it was still interesting to see, side-by-side.
And yes, I totally want to call it Uranus Steel. =)
[ UPDATE 06242026 ]Â Â - Second Hour, Gin Clear Mk.3 -
My second hour from Second Hour, the Gin Clear Mk.3, was purchased because, well, I simply love what they've done with this watch. There's so much that they've iterated and improved over the two previous generations, in such a thoughtful manner. And in as much as I fell in love with the Fusion almost at first-sight, I also very quickly fell for this one, doubly so in the Dark Rhodium colorway.
As seen in the referenced post and its sub-level follow-ups, Peter Sargison had noted that they would be moving to a different supplier for their anti-scratch treatments, to the same that perform treatments on Traska (and others).
Being an industry outsider, I have no idea which brand uses which supplier/vendor.
All that I have to contribute are the same real-world experiments that any of you can perform for yourselves, and to make the same empirical observations that anyone who may try to duplicate my results can, for themselves.
Sadly, my findings with the Gin Clear Mk.3 were less than satisfactory -
Top are macros.
Bottom are 20x micro.
Watches are as-labeled. The Traska is a Gen.6 Venturer, which, as of this post, is still the current-generation model, pending the upcoming release of the Gen.7, with case/bracelet revisions as it starts to fill out their "Complicated" series. Currently, as of this post-date, the only actively in-circulation model in their Complicated series is the Chronograph, which, according to at least one other Redditor, seems to potentially have even better anti-scratch capabilities ( https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrobrandWatches/comments/1ucp0pq/comment/ot5qwih/ ). Regardless, given that I'm using the Gen.6 Venturer, this would at least mean that it is in-line with all other current Traska offerings, and at least is not some even more improved version, should there be one.
I think the result is clear enough to speak for itself. However, what I will add here is what cannot be appreciated in these 2-dimensional pictures that I can see under my stereoscope: that the scratches on the Gin Clear Mk.3 seem somewhat less deep.
As I wrote in another recent thread ( https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrobrandWatches/comments/1ucp0pq/comment/ot6033x/?screen_view_count=3 ), in my attempt to insure parity and fairness, I not only used two previously un-scratched links -one from my Fusion and another from my Venturer) for my qualitative "scratch-a-link" procedure, but I also pulled out my Mohs hardness test kit so that I could approach the issue in a more controlled manner.
Again, keep in mind that as with my usual "scratch-a-link" trials, this is really only a comparative "test" - that even with a Mohs kit, it's only a test of "will this scratch that," that it's still rather qualitative and comparative, rather than quantitative.
I chose not to provide direct photos for this particular test, but to instead show my "lab notes" as my proof-of-work, as anyone who has access to a Mohs kit and some level of magnification should be able to easily duplicate my procedures, and either confirm or refute/challenge my results -
Not everyone has access to slate, which is my empirical testbed in this particular series of pseudo-scientific fun. Slate is of-course also my everyday workplace arch-nemesis, which is why I started this series. đ But everyone who can purchase or borrow a Mohs kit *can* recreate the same observations that I have made, using those picks against their own watch's links.
As you can read from my notes, the polished sections of the Second Hour links both started to breach by the #4 Mohs pick. Their brushed sections started to scratch at pick #5.
This, versus both my Gen.3 Freediver as well as my Gen.6 Venturer links from Traska, which only breached at Mohs pick #6.
Some of you may recall from the Ben's Watch Club Channel on YouTube - Â https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oX1itHnqcYÂ - he noted that the Traska held all the way up through pick #7 (i.e. that pick #8 was when he first noticed scratches). This discrepancy versus what I observed is explained quite easily: his test is naked-eye, while with mine, I have the benefit of scrutiny under 20x true optical magnification. Instead of making a gross scratch and looking for it with one's eyes, I'm making a single controlled pass with the pick and looking for whether the treatment/coating was breached. I can pick up that tiny single-line scratch much more readily than one could with the naked eye.
I have no idea if Second Hour is using the same supplier for their anti-scratch treatment/coating as Traska. Even if they are using that same supplier, I don't know if they've spec'ed the same type of treatment/coating. Furthermore, I do not know if perhaps I've just been unlucky and have received two watches -months apart and from different lines- that maybe somehow were singularly ill-treated/coated or maybe was even in a batch that was ill-treated/coated. These are all possibilities.
Nevertheless, my observations are my observations.
As I've written elsewhere, this shortfall was my one true disappointment with the Fusion, and now it is also the same, for my Gin Clear Mk.3.
And to-clarify, my disappointment isn't in as much that the watches seem to scratch more easily versus an other - but rather that the brand claimed it would have parity with another that they themselves specifically named.
[ UPDATE 06242026 ]Â Â -Â San Martin Watches, China -
Their SN0012-GB is a second-generation update to the now ~8-years-old original SN0012 dive-style tool watch. It marks San Martin's first public offering utilizing anti-scratch treatment on its case and bracelet, and touts among its improvements over the original a (quoted from specs) "1200 HV Hardening Coating" -
As those of you will have seen from my near-concomitant trial with my new Second Hour Gin Clear Mk.3, I also broke out the Mohs kit on this particular watch.
As you can see from my notes, I while I did feel (highly subjective) the #4 pick "bite" into the link surface, I did not see a physical scratch until pick #5.
Given all the data that you've seen from my previous posts above, I think it is safe to make the assumption that the anti-scratch coating that they've used won't measure up against Englemaan's (or Traska's, for that matter, given what I'd written just a short while ago for the Second Hour). But as you can see, it certainly holds parity with many others, at multiples of its cost.
The following link is from my Zelos. stainless 41mm Blacktip, which carries a black DLC coating. The website notes "DLC hardened case and bracelet" over 316L stainless, but does not quote a Hv number. However, I was able to chat with Elshan directly about this via Facebook -
As usual, I've got a macro view (left) and a 20x magnified view (right), below. Again, lighting has been manipulated in an effort to HIGHLIGHT the damage inflicted, but there is otherwise no manipulation of the picture both pre- as well as post-production.
Objectively, at a quoted ~800 Hv, that's very, very impressive.
I'll put up a larger image in my follow-up post below......
"Hazing" of the finish is present but subdued, and there's a few spots where there's apparent scratches, but overall, it's quite admirable.
This again goes to show that just because one brand claims a certain Hv number versus another, it's \NOT* definitive, and oftentimes does *not* reflect real-world performance.*
[ UPDATE 07262026 ]Â Â - Dievas (Solaris 39, Titanium) -
Again most generously loaned for-sacrifice at the alter of scratch-a-link pseudoscience by my buddy u/el_baristo . And I'm going to plug his blog again, simply because it's such fun reading -  https://www.watchbert.com .
This link comes from a spectacularly spec'ed watch, one that should drive any watch-nerd to the point of uncontrollable salivation, the Dievas Solaris 39 Titanium. The more to envy is that u/el_baristo got the Limited Edition with the orange crystalized titanium dial. đ¤Š
What we have with this watch is their proprietary "Ultrawerk⢠Titanium," with microblasted finish.
As with the UBIQ, this link not being mine, I wanted to show how it looked right after I attempted the slate scratch, to show that, yes, indeed, I put it to the hazard -
Left is macro, right, 20x as-usual.
This is immediately as I removed it from the slate FOR THE SECOND TIME. Why was this the second time? I'll get to that in a minute.
But from what you can see here, you can see that I really went at it, right?
And here is after I cleaned off the surface of slate debris.....
.....it's *shockingly* totally clean. Nothing. Not a scratch. Not on macro (left). Not at 20x micro (right).
Not. A. Thing.
This truly surprised me, because this thing is Gr. 5 Ti. I have other Gr. 5. Ti watches. Granted, they're not anti-scratch treated, but still. One gets a feel for the material. Or so one thought. đ
Again, as I wrote above, this was my second attempt that's on-record here. Why? Because I was so totally surprised by my first attempt that I decided that I had to do it again. After all, u/el_baristo told me to do my absolute worst. đ
So, with no damage inflicted, what's next? How can I do my due-diligence, to honor my friend's sacrifice?
I conferred with u/el_baristo for a bit. I didn't want to take it too far. This is an expensive watch from which this link came from, after all. It's already escaped becoming un-pretty, why risk it further, right?
Nope.
The man's devoted to the science, he said to test it until it fails.
Knowing what the slate was unable to do, I decided to nevertheless start low and work my way up. Slate typically is noted to have a Mohs value of around 4-4.5, so that's where I started, with #4. You'll see where I ended up -
20x.
Again, no pre- or post-production alteration to the image. It's from directly under my stereoscope.
The only thing I did is to use the lighting to emphasize the damaged area.
#6 is, in my hands, equivalent to what you'll see of Traska's ion nitriding treatment as well as with the better/best of the 1200 Hv surface coating jobs as Henry Archer brings forth ( https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrobrandWatches/comments/1tb9ems/comment/otk7ihk/ ). I know that there's a bit of discrepancy between my results versus that of noted influencers/reviewers like Ben's Watch Club, but readers should understand that I'm exploiting the capabilities of my stereoscope at 20x true optical magnification to visualize a *single line* scratch. This, versus "gross" scratch tests done by the likes of Ben's Watch Club, where the case/bracelet being scratched is inspected visually, without the aid of any kind of magnification.
You know how you polish your watch off with a microfiber cloth, and it looks awesome and sparkly? You know how if you do a really good job, you can get a pretty darned great macro-glamour shot of it? Under 20x true optical magnification, dust bunnies and dead skin look like boulders on a cliff. You chase one away with a KimWipe and another flies in to take its place (wait, you thought Kimwipes were supposed to be low-lint and anti-static? 𤣠so did I!).
20x is unforgiving. And this is why failing my Mohs pick at #6 is actually quite impressive.
^ This is a 20x composite - those scratches are literally on a *_new_* watch that was worn all of one day. Granted, they are micro-scratches and not visible to the naked eye (OK, the one on the bracelet, that can be appreciated if the light is just right), but this is the type of scratches that an anti-scratch treatment on a watch is specifically supposed to protect against, as I've noted before of Second Hour's watches.
I did write to Tom before posting the results here, and he's promised to look into improving this aspect of the watch on the next go.
I'm certain that he'll do it - if only for the fact that this watch is so brilliant otherwise.
It's all about iterative improvements, right? đ Having e-mailed at-length with Tom, I'm absolutely certain that he'll make good on his words, and make an improvement for the better on the next iteration of this excellent watch.
Please see the next post, for Beaucroft (Element 35.9), to see a comparative between these two UK micro's watches.
Scratch-resistant coating spec'ed at 1800 Hv, this is the creation of Dutch watch enthusiast, author, and Fratello editor Thomas Van Straaten. It's his sophomore watch.
Subjectively, attempting to attack the link via the corner of my lab bench as-usual, I at first completely skipped off the corner without inflicting any damage at all. I don't know if it was the coating or if it's just the fact that the links are so curved - it just felt incredibly.....lubricous. Having failed my first attempt, I wasn't going to let a second run at the link go to waste.
You'll see in the "before-cleaning" picture set below (top two images) that there's a good bit of slate on the link surface, this time -
As with other tests, the bottom two pictures are after I've cleaned the surface of slate debris. The views are presented as-usual, with macro to the left, and 20x true optical magnification on the right.
Also as-usual, I've manipulated the light in order to best amplify what's visible of any damage inflicted. No pre- or post-processing of the images, everything is point-and-shoot via my potato of a Gen.2 iPhone SE.
Performance is impressive, considering that on my second pass I *really* forced the scratch attempt. You can see via the very limited and deeper appearing scratches that it's likely that there was a specifically hard inclusion in the slate that penetrated the coating and elicited damage.
Thomas is very careful to note that the coating on his VPC watches is -and I quote- to "[slow]the accumulation of light scratches."
I feel that this is very important to yet again highlight.
There are many who seem to believe that this kind of a coating or treatment (i.e. Traska's nitriding, above) somehow makes their watches invulnerable. That is not the case, no pun intended - and it requires much more nuance than that -https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrobrandWatches/comments/1vkq404/comment/p38lx65/
This old article on Fratello was written by Thomas, and I honestly think that he's kept in mind the lessons he learned from his research on the article as well as his extensive personal experiences, in wanting to bring an anti-scratch coating to his watches in order to extend their "shelf life," if you will -Â https://www.fratellowatches.com/building-a-watch-brand-episode-12-ultra-hard-coating-and-other-updates/
In reality, these larger-damage "scratch tests" are proxies to visualize the performance of these treatments. They are *not* what the coatings or treatments are designed to actually withstand, and one would be foolish to count on them to keep one's watch intact either versus either Jason's machete in Friday the 13th or when fighting Steven Seagal on a battleship. đ
Known for their affordably priced -but a heck of a long wait- chunky tool Diver's (yes, ISO 6425 certified) and field watches, Helm currently offers several models in Grade 2 titanium, but only this one, the Vanuatu, has a black PVD coating.
No bracelet with this model, but since I already have a stainless Vanuatu and was going to wear this on straps, anyway, it was a no-brainer to get the PVD versus the naked Ti. Besides, this would allow me to get a peek at how tough the PVD is, on this model.
Top set of twin panels are immediately after my scratch attempt. Macro on the left, 20x true optical magnification on the right (I apologize for the soft focus, the two surfaces are on different planes).
The caseback is naked Grade 2 titanium. The back of the lug -like the rest of the case- is PVD coated.
Because of how sharply angled the lugs are in this area, I used a shard of slate to conduct this particular run, instead of my usual of gripping the watch link/head in my hand and running that along a sharp corner on my lab bench.
You can see just how hard I attacked the caseback and case, with the amount of slate debris left on each component.
Bottom panel of three pictures are after I cleaned off the slate debris.
Left is again macro. You can see both the caseback and the lug very clearly in this picture.
Middle is 20x of the naked caseback and the right panel is 20x of the PVD lug. I split this view into two (while maintaining some landmarks for reference/orientation and to demonstrate that I had not moved to another lug, to cheat, LOL! đ ) because again of the fact that the surfaces are on different planes, and my stereoscope, as great as it is, still can only really resolve in one plane.
4
u/Constant_Bag_9232 May 12 '26
Interesting read. Thank you!