Discussion..................... - Time Talk - Time Tech Talk - TimeTechTalk.com

TimeTechTalk.com > Time Tech Talk > Time Talk > Discussion.....................

Welcome to 3T! Please take the time to register and join in on the friendly,knowledgeable watch talk.Please note that not all registrations will receive an immediate activation e-mail.Those who do not receive an immediate notification will be activated manually within 48hrs. by an admin. without an e-mail activation url sent to you,you may then sign in using your username and password,if you feel there is a problem please e-mail us at timetechtalk@hotmail.com and include your name and username and we activate your account.Thank You!

Moderated by: 3T

Page: 1 2 3

Printer Friendly

Discussion.....................

Author	Post

Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 12:17 pm

KenC
Admin

Joined:	Sun Sep 4th, 2005
Location:	Florida &, Arizona USA
Posts:	11288
Status:	Offline

Tony Duronio wrote: KenC wrote: steve6387 wrote: Tony Duronio wrote: No argument, but wouldn't you pay $10.00 more for the watch if done right? I would. So the minimal cost passed on would be a welcomed item.
You and I certainly would. But we're the vast minority. The real question is: Would John Q. Public pay that extra $10.00 or even know enough to ask about the lume in the first place?

--Steve

My point is...why does the manufacturer have to charge an additional 500% to 1000% ....Seiko (and others) put superluminova on watches that retail for as little as $20.
Missed this before, but Ken are you saying that Seiko does not have a proprietary lume, they just use Superluminova??? I did not know that.

Again...yes and no...Seiko does use their own in-house proprietary lume called Lumibrite...but it is very similar to SL !

Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 12:31 pm

Tony Duronio
3T WIS

Joined:	Thu Sep 29th, 2005
Location:	Clinton Twp, Michigan USA
Posts:	12862
Status:	Offline

KenC wrote: Tony Duronio wrote: KenC wrote: steve6387 wrote: Tony Duronio wrote: No argument, but wouldn't you pay $10.00 more for the watch if done right? I would. So the minimal cost passed on would be a welcomed item.
You and I certainly would. But we're the vast minority. The real question is: Would John Q. Public pay that extra $10.00 or even know enough to ask about the lume in the first place?

--Steve

My point is...why does the manufacturer have to charge an additional 500% to 1000% ....Seiko (and others) put superluminova on watches that retail for as little as $20.
Missed this before, but Ken are you saying that Seiko does not have a proprietary lume, they just use Superluminova??? I did not know that.

Again...yes and no...Seiko does use their own in-house proprietary lume called Lumibrite...but it is very similar to SL !

Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 12:47 pm

daanbc
3T WIS

Joined:	Mon Feb 27th, 2006
Location:	Florida USA
Posts:	548
Status:	Offline

John Q public, won't and doesn't know the difference of a lume. For that fact, They don't even know the word lume. (glow in the dark) is more apparent for these terms. The public will notice a "lume" for the first couple of minutes, then forget about it. Only folks that are into watches will know and see the difference. I for one would like to have ALL my watches have great lume. But there are some companies that don't really strive to earn bussiness. They strive to make a quick $$.

Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 12:56 pm

slinky469
3T WIS

Joined:	Thu Nov 15th, 2007
Location:	San Diego, California USA
Posts:	590
Status:	Offline

daanbc wrote: John Q public, won't and doesn't know the difference of a lume. For that fact, They don't even know the word lume. (glow in the dark) is more apparent for these terms. The public will notice a "lume" for the first couple of minutes, then forget about it. Only folks that are into watches will know and see the difference. I for one would like to have ALL my watches have great lume. But there are some companies that don't really strive to earn bussiness. They strive to make a quick $$.
I agree. Most people just dont care if it glows or not. mater of fact i bet John Q Public buys a watch because it looks good to him and later on that night he looks at it and replies WOW it glows.

Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 01:31 pm

Skipdawg
3T WIS

Joined:	Thu Mar 29th, 2007
Location:	Washington USA
Posts:	14965
Status:	Offline

slinky469 wrote: daanbc wrote: John Q public, won't and doesn't know the difference of a lume. For that fact, They don't even know the word lume. (glow in the dark) is more apparent for these terms. The public will notice a "lume" for the first couple of minutes, then forget about it. Only folks that are into watches will know and see the difference. I for one would like to have ALL my watches have great lume. But there are some companies that don't really strive to earn bussiness. They strive to make a quick $$.
I agree. Most people just don't care if it glows or not. mater of fact i bet John Q Public buys a watch because it looks good to him and later on that night he looks at it and replies WOW it glows.

LOL very true. But many a watch company can make a watch to appeal to John Q Public. All it has to do it tell time and maybe have the date for them.

If the watch company wants to make something real good to appeal to the standard WIS or WIS collector they best be on the top of their game.

Just look at the way some WIS on other forums pick apart some watches. In such a Arena WIS can make or break a new company. So the designers and manufacturers targeting the WIS community over the general public has more to win or loose.

Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 02:07 pm

Crue4
3T WIS

Joined:	Mon Mar 12th, 2007
Location:	Georgia USA
Posts:	298
Status:	Offline

I have to side with the "if it don't glow, then it must go"... I am diver style fan.. and if the lume is not very good, then I just can't fall in love with it.. I cannot for the life of me understand a dive watch with average or poor lume.. just doesn't make any since... How can a Kobold Seal which is rough and rugged and all that... yet have average to poor lume at $2500... makes NO SENSE... (not picking on the Seal b/c their are other examples.., but then again I guess I am kinda picking on it..)..

I have had a few relumed over the years, and really appreciated them so much more when they glowed brightly... but honestly a dive watch period should have good to great lume out of the box... and it just is hard to justify paying the prices we are paying today for pieces only to have to spend even more on them and the time waiting to send them out for relume (which also by the way will void the manufacture's warranty).

Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 02:14 pm

steve6387
3T WIS

Joined:	Fri Jul 13th, 2007
Location:	USA
Posts:	162
Status:	Offline

Skipdawg wrote: ...such a Arena WIS can make or break a new company. So the designers and manufacturers targeting the WIS community over the general public has more to win or loose.

I'm glad you brought that up as I hadn't really thought about it. It makes you appreciate the guts and effort that folks like Enzo/Kenzo/Korsbek bring to the table.

They lack the resources to compete with big boys from a marketing/production perspective. Their market is narrowly defined... I imagine it's a make or break deal for them right out of the gate.

--Steve

Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 02:21 pm

Crue4
3T WIS

Joined:	Mon Mar 12th, 2007
Location:	Georgia USA
Posts:	298
Status:	Offline

By the way there was an article in Watch Time magazine a couple issues back Dec 2007 page 92 actually... which discussed the origin of Super Luminova and Seiko

Paraphrased from article: RC Tritec AG was the first manufacture of "strontium aluminated" named SuperLite and showed up in Swatches in 1993. One year, Japense firm Nemoto was granted a patent on strontium aluminate enriched with europium and dysprosium (which was the same substance that Tritec had already commercialized)... Nemoto's patent prevented the import of Swatches to the Japan and the US that contained the "Lume". Same year, Seiko launched watches that were lumed with Nemotos mixture materials and called it LumiBrite (doesn't clarify if Seiko altered or added anything to the mixture)

RC Tritec and Nemoto reached agreement in 1998 and founded a joint venture named LumiNova AG, under this agreement, Tritec ordered the mixture from Nemoto, and processed it in Teufen to attain right color and size in Switzerland according to customer's order specs. They named this "SumperLuminova".

Although SuperLuminova was Swiss Made, many Swiss watch manufactures were troubled that it was a Japanese-Swiss joint venture. Nemoto therefore agreed to grant LumiNova AG a license to fabricate super-luminova in Switz... which is what we now know today as "Super-Luminova".

I found it interesting..

Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 03:15 pm

Tony Duronio
3T WIS

Joined:	Thu Sep 29th, 2005
Location:	Clinton Twp, Michigan USA
Posts:	12862
Status:	Offline

Crue4 wrote: By the way there was an article in Watch Time magazine a couple issues back Dec 2007 page 92 actually... which discussed the origin of Super Luminova and Seiko

Paraphrased from article: RC Tritec AG was the first manufacture of "strontium aluminated" named SuperLite and showed up in Swatches in 1993. One year, Japense firm Nemoto was granted a patent on strontium aluminate enriched with europium and dysprosium (which was the same substance that Tritec had already commercialized)... Nemoto's patent prevented the import of Swatches to the Japan and the US that contained the "Lume". Same year, Seiko launched watches that were lumed with Nemotos mixture materials and called it LumiBrite (doesn't clarify if Seiko altered or added anything to the mixture)

RC Tritec and Nemoto reached agreement in 1998 and founded a joint venture named LumiNova AG, under this agreement, Tritec ordered the mixture from Nemoto, and processed it in Teufen to attain right color and size in Switzerland according to customer's order specs. They named this "SumperLuminova".

Although SuperLuminova was Swiss Made, many Swiss watch manufactures were troubled that it was a Japanese-Swiss joint venture. Nemoto therefore agreed to grant LumiNova AG a license to fabricate super-luminova in Switz... which is what we now know today as "Super-Luminova".

I found it interesting..

Great info,

I must of missed that article:D

Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 04:32 pm

Upside
3T WIS

Joined:	Fri Aug 31st, 2007
Location:	Alberta Canada
Posts:	343
Status:	Offline

Crue4 wrote: By the way there was an article in Watch Time magazine a couple issues back Dec 2007 page 92 actually... which discussed the origin of Super Luminova and Seiko

Paraphrased from article: RC Tritec AG was the first manufacture of "strontium aluminated" named SuperLite and showed up in Swatches in 1993. One year, Japense firm Nemoto was granted a patent on strontium aluminate enriched with europium and dysprosium (which was the same substance that Tritec had already commercialized)... Nemoto's patent prevented the import of Swatches to the Japan and the US that contained the "Lume". Same year, Seiko launched watches that were lumed with Nemotos mixture materials and called it LumiBrite (doesn't clarify if Seiko altered or added anything to the mixture)

RC Tritec and Nemoto reached agreement in 1998 and founded a joint venture named LumiNova AG, under this agreement, Tritec ordered the mixture from Nemoto, and processed it in Teufen to attain right color and size in Switzerland according to customer's order specs. They named this "SumperLuminova".

Although SuperLuminova was Swiss Made, many Swiss watch manufactures were troubled that it was a Japanese-Swiss joint venture. Nemoto therefore agreed to grant LumiNova AG a license to fabricate super-luminova in Switz... which is what we now know today as "Super-Luminova".

I found it interesting..

I was just going to mention this article. It was a good one!

Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 05:09 pm

Dookie
3T WIS

Joined:	Thu Oct 11th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	282
Status:	Offline

thanks for the info guys.....now i knoww.......

Last edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 05:09 pm by Dookie

Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 06:36 pm

Willieboy
3T WIS

Joined:	Sat Apr 26th, 2008
Location:	South Texas, New Jersey USA
Posts:	1188
Status:	Offline

Skipdawg wrote: I think a watch maker should show as much pride in the product from the start and do it right from the start at the best possible price. The watch should then go over better and sell faster with more customers wanting one.

About the only times I am really willing to pay more for is for Special Editions, Limited Editions and such. And those to me should always be made with the best products available. The lume, crystal and all other materials.

I agree 100%. Why any maker would go to the trouble to produce an otherwise beautiful watch and then skimp on the lume is beyond me.

For what it's worth, the lume on my Zilla and another Citizens diver is every bit as good as that of my Monster. Just as bright initially and lasts as long or longer than the Monster.

I'd like to defend the gas tubes too. When all my lume watches have given up the ghost, my Tritium tubes are still buring brightly. I also have Tritium night sights on my carry pistol and it too just keeps on glowing. I like the stuff.

Current time is 02:25 am	Page: 1 2 3
TimeTechTalk.com > Time Tech Talk > Time Talk > Discussion.....................	Top

Lead Theme By: Di @ UltraBB
UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2012 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1394 seconds (43% database + 57% PHP). 42 queries executed.