Hesalite crystal?

[DJ2020]

I'm looking hard at a 3861 moonwatch with the hesalite crystal. I would like to know the advantages and disadvantages of wearing this watch in regards to the hesalite vs. Sapphire crystal.

I love the relatively light weight of this watch at 133 grams. I also like the thinness as well. I would love to hear your thoughts.

[Trogster]

Pro's....more accurate representation of the original moon watch
Con's.... it scratches

[watchnwine]

Both the hesalite and sapphire are reported to be 13.6mm thick on the Omega website so are even on that front (the sapphire version weighs 4 grams more so basically unnoticeable). The hesalite is more historically accurate and optically clearer around the edges (the sapphire has a bit of a "milky" ring around it). As said above, the hesalite is a lot softer and will scratch and the sapphire is much more robust. I've decided on a modern sapphire version - the 3861 movement is already enough different that historical accuracy isn't as important to me.

[AEC]

An acrylic crystal is just cool. You can't know before owning it why you needed it.

[SvenNikolai]

You have to see them both in person, preferably at the same time. If you absolutely need a glass bottom, polished bracelet links and a sapphire, then take the sapphire. However, it also costs about 1000€ more. The wearing comfort is extremely good. The current Speedmaster is an absolute classic and, despite the higher prices, I still can't beat it in terms of value for money. I chose Hesalite.

Short addendum, because the "huge" disadvantage of the Hesalit is described above: I've been wearing the Hesalit for almost a year now and so far I haven't had the slightest scratch on it. Otherwise, you can polish the surface. Likewise, an exchange is much cheaper than with sapphires. It is probably a matter of the head that one always wants to have a flawless glass and is therefore a little "afraid" of scratches. I also think it's perfectly fine if you choose sapphires.

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by SvenNikolai

You have to see them both in person, preferably at the same time. If you absolutely need a glass bottom, polished bracelet links and a sapphire, then take the sapphire. However, it also costs about 1000€ more. The wearing comfort is extremely good. The current Speedmaster is an absolute classic and, despite the higher prices, I still can't beat it in terms of value for money. I chose Hesalite.

Short addendum, because the "huge" disadvantage of the Hesalit is described above: I've been wearing the Hesalit for almost a year now and so far I haven't had the slightest scratch on it. Otherwise, you can polish the surface. Likewise, an exchange is much cheaper than with sapphires. It is probably a matter of the head that one always wants to have a flawless glass and is therefore a little "afraid" of scratches. I also think it's perfectly fine if you choose sapphires.

I did just that. compared them side by side. I also choose hesalite yesterday.
I was thinking that worst case I would just replace the crystal. I love the new bracelet and the adjustable clasp. Pretty nice. I actually knew right away this was the one for me and fits like a glove. The only other watch that has gave me that feeling was my 39.5 Planet Ocean. My SA didn't know it, But it was sold before she even handed it to me.

[Ravager135]

Having owned both, the Hesalite is truer to the original and makes the watch feel more like a "tool" watch or a "beater" or whatever you want to call it. Again, this is just feel. That said, it also feels cheaper even though it isn't by any metric other than price. I think the Hesalite is really good for someone who wants the most modern interpretation of the original watch. To me, it's the "truest" Speedmaster.

The sapphire crystal (if you own other higher end watches) will feel more in line with what you are used to. It does feel higher quality even though this is really a subjective feeling. It isn't just the crystal that does this. The applied logo, polished intermediate links, sapphire caseback make the watch feel more high end even though these are subtle design variations. The sapphire model is for people who want the model that falls in line with the direction Omega is going. The sapphire crystal Speedmaster is basically identical in design to the precious metal versions Omega is producing. To that end, I think of it as the new standard whereas the Hesalite is more homage. To me, the sapphire is the one that most belongs alongside Rolex, IWC, or whatever else you collect.

Which one to go with? Entirely up to you. You can't go wrong. I really only "upgraded" to sapphire from Hesalite because I was going from the 1861 movement to the 3861 movement and aside from the bracelet and other minor cosmetic choices, I needed a way to justify selling a watch, putting in money, only to buy almost the same watch.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Trogster

Pro's....more accurate representation of the original moon watch
Con's.... it scratches

Pretty much

[RW16610]

Originally Posted by AEC

An acrylic crystal is just cool. You can't know before owning it why you needed it.

Agreed, although I don't own a Speedmaster, I have them on several vintages watches. There's just something special about them and how they look from various angles.

Of course the scratching aspect pointed out earlier in the thread is one of the main differences. Sometimes this can be done much easier than one might expect.

It's a tough choice based on your preference and collection.

[Kreyzhorse]

I does scratch easier, but I prefer the way it looks on a Speedy and it does capture the "spirit" of the original NASA watches.

[Trogster]

It should be noted that a few minutes with 'Polywatch' will bring any acrylic crystal back to its new shiny brilliance.

[Alex_TA]

You should look at both side by side.
Hesalite looks cooler but sapphire is easier to live with.
My sapphire version on Omega rally strap:

[SvenNikolai]

Hi Wayne, congratulations on your new Speedmaster! I saw your picture of your new Speedy in another thread here. Looks great!!