Is it just me or is the display on the SS S4 easier to scratch than the SS S0?

[nepatriot]

Have you found the oleophobic coating to be as resistant to scratching?

My concern would be if somebody buys the sapphire because it doesn’t scratch easy, yet the coating does. The look of the watch will still be impaired if that is the case

Coatings all wear off over time, and over time can acquire micro-scratches from normal use. i.e if there is dust or other particles on the watch, or your finger, the pressure from using the AW screen can have a "sand paper: effect.

The difference between AW sapphire and glass is would be that on sapphire, the scratches would be in the oleophobic coating; with glass, the scratches could be in the glass itself.

On a traditional watch, we do not use our finger on the crystal to operate the watch. But cleaning a watch crystal, even sapphire, even by simply rubbing with a micro-fiber cloth, can have the same "sand paper" effect. Especially if there is an AR coating.

For that reason, many watch enthusiasts, and most professional watch makers, recommend rinsing a watch off, or using a can of compressed air, before using anything to rub on the crystal.
[doublepost=1546265862][/doublepost]

Even if It’s the oleophobic coating though is still not very good cosmetically. It’s not like u can renew the coating so for all intent and purposes the watch looks scratched.

True, it's a trade off. For that reason, many traditional watch users prefer no external AR coating, at the expense of more glare and occasion reduced readability in certain light. But the oleophobic coating wears off - some say in about a year. What's left will depend on what's underneath. Sapphire is better in that regard.

It does not seem like, given the bonding process between the display and the "glass" (sapphire or glass) on the AW, there is any option except the exterior of the glass to place a AR coating.

There is a difference between micro-scratches and an actual scratch. Something hard enough to leave a clearly visible scratch in the oleophobic coating is more likely to also scratch glass vs sapphire.
[doublepost=1546267062][/doublepost]Reading more posts on this topic, one thing I'm finding is some these scratches on sapphire, micro and otherwise, turn out to be cracks. Many of these pre-date the version 4.

I'm new to AW's, so I don't know all the various features and when they about. I'm wondering about the pressure sensitive screen. Sapphire is not flexible. Under pressure it can crack.

For this reason, there is quite a bit of debate on dive watches between sapphire and other materials. Even through the 1980's and 90's, many divers for military use used plexiglass. Sure, they scratched easily, but would not crack and let water in. Back then, a dive watch was all they had, so this could be life or death. In traditional watches, crystals are easy to replace, and plexiglass was much cheaper then sapphire. Plus when sapphire fails, water getting in means replacing dial, hands, and movement.

Under diving pressure, sometimes all it takes is a small knock to shatter sapphire. Plexiglass, and Seiko's Hardex, can take a more substantial hit before cracking. It's more likely to gouge out a divot before cracking.

My take on the AW: I don't plan to use the pressure sensitive feature on my sapphire SS S4. I don't think there is anything I need to do that I can't get to via another method.

 

[44267547]

Have you found the oleophobic coating to be as resistant to scratching?

My concern would be if somebody buys the sapphire because it doesn’t scratch easy, yet the coating does. The look of the watch will still be impaired if that is the case

The Oleophobic coating is naturally organic, which means that it wears off naturally over the course of time through touching the display. For example, another member actually scratched their display when they purchased the Apple Watch new, but the scratch dissipated when the coating was starting to wear off, it all depends how deep the scratch is as well.

 

[mavis]

Apple's sapphire is known to be substantially inferior to other companies' sapphire - there is a large amount of silicate and carbon in Apple's sapphire, which shouldn't be there. This makes the crystal much easier to scratch than it should be.

 

[tresmith]

I agree with the OP. The quality of the S0 is far better than the S4. I bought an S0 and it stayed flawless for three years. I bought a S4 and in 6 months I had a scratch on the body and a shattered screen. And get this the screen shattered from a two foot drop off a night stand while charging. SMH

 

[44267547]

The quality of the S0 is far better than the S4.

Ok? What are you basing this on? (Aside your own personal experience.) I’ve owned every generation Apple Watch, and I can attest that the durability is _exactly_ the same with the sapphire display/stainless casing that it is with the Series 4. Unless you can prove something has changed with the materials Apple uses, then I would say your opinion isn’t really validated.

 

[nepatriot]

I agree with the OP. The quality of the S0 is far better than the S4. I bought an S0 and it stayed flawless for three years. I bought a S4 and in 6 months I had a scratch on the body and a shattered screen. And get this the screen shattered from a two foot drop off a night stand while charging. SMH

Your 2 examples are really meaningless. I have real watches I've owned for years, and not a mark on them.

The second day after receiving a Seiko MM300 - a real tank of a watch - I put the deepest scratch I've ever put on a watch: caught the clasp on a edge of a shovel I was putting away. Does that make the MM300, the absolute iconic Asian diver, built from the best materials, a lesser watch than other, cheaper watches I've owned?

Is yours aluminum? Real watch cases are not made from aluminum: it easily dents and scratches.

As for your drop, even a real watch crystal can shatter if hit just right. I dropped a Doxa from counter height onto a tile floor. landed square on the crystal. This is a 1200M diver, so a very solid piece of sapphire. The crystal has a dome, so the impact was not shielded by a bezel. Not a mark on it. Others have cracked or shattered crystals on the same watch with far less of a drop.

Sapphire is harder than any glass or mineral crystal. Meaning surface hardness. That related to scratches. But is more shatter prone.

Your examples are more just "luck of the draw", and do not suggest anything about the materials.

If you want a watch that won't scratch, get a Damasko. Or Sinn. But even those, the sapphire can shatter if hit or dropped just right.
[doublepost=1560944947][/doublepost]

Apple's sapphire is known to be substantially inferior to other companies' sapphire - there is a large amount of silicate and carbon in Apple's sapphire, which shouldn't be there. This makes the crystal much easier to scratch than it should be.

"Known to be"? Or just rumored to be? Others have repeated this, but there seems to be zero actual evidence to support that. In fact, Consumer Reports tested AW4 sapphire - scientifically, not some YouTube clown chasing likes - and found it to be the same as previous models. And I believe right where it was supposed to be on hardness.

The problem is Apple's AR coating, which is needed to make the screen visible in direct sunlight, and the fact that it has to be on the exterior. On an actual watch, AR coatings can be on the inside. Not as effective, but won't scratch. External AR coatings scratch easily. To those who don't understand this, they will think the sapphire is scratched.

Also Apple sapphire is very thin. Sapphire will shatter. So pressing on the AW face too hard can flex the sapphire. Because its bonded to the screen, this may look like micro scratches.

Turning a design into reality always comes down to compromises.

The AW is a fashion piece, and built as such. It's also, like your iPhone, disposable technology. It's not built to last a lifetime, or survive harsh environments. Milld sports maybe. It's not a beater. Your mileage - or luck - may vary.