Snazzy. For some reason, I always prefer a glow in the dark watch.

You'll never find a cheaper Tritium watch. Most go for $200+. And in my my opinion, most are much bulkier and uglier because Tritium is most often used in tactical and diver watches.

I have the 3 hand TruGlo and the Tritium is quite bright. It's not as bright as my Vostok diver's watch, but the Vostok was several hundred dollars. The movement is also very accurate.

My only complaint is that the 3 colors (orange, green, blue) on the 2 hand model aren't every distinct, as you can see from Woot's photo of the watches in the dark. But the chronograph seems to be a different story. The blues seem very blue so I may give that a try.

My only concern is that the description merely states that this is black stainless steel. Is the black simply painted on? That will make it very prone to chipping. Better black metal watches are ion-plated.

Looks like a great watch, but I would not buy one without an hourly chime! Ideally one that does half-hours too.

Am I the only one who likes the looks of watches, wants to buy them but never actually wears one?

[Homer] Mmmmmm... radioative isotope. [/Homer]

lonelypond wrote:Snazzy. For some reason, I always prefer a glow in the dark watch.

Yeah, Tritium watches are quite striking. They don't only glow in the dark, but glow sharply and never goes off (until about 10 years after manufacture). They really make a statement in a dark theater.

rom wrote:Am I the only one who likes the looks of watches, wants to buy them but never actually wears one?

You are known as a watch collector.

According to wikipedia, the glow has a useful life of 10-20 years. Seeing as half-life is ~12.32 years, I don't see the glow being all that useful after 15 years max.

I think I'd want my glow to last longer than that.

Nice Looking & Tru Glo makes fairly nice night sights for firearms, but 50M water-resistance is the mark of a "cheaply-made" sport watch. You usually get what you pay for....

From the Description:

An advanced timepiece featuring Swiss tritium light technology

There is no such thing. Tritium is tritium, and Swiss implementation is no different from Japanese, German, Chinese or American implementations. And all are very striking.

shakezula wrote:According to wikipedia, the glow has a useful life of 10-20 years. Seeing as half-life is ~12.32 years, I don't see the glow being all that useful after 15 years max.

I think I'd want my glow to last longer than that.

Maybe you'll lose it or break it before then?

shakezula wrote:According to wikipedia, the glow has a useful life of 10-20 years. Seeing as half-life is ~12.32 years, I don't see the glow being all that useful after 15 years max.

I think I'd want my glow to last longer than that.

Normal phosphorescent paint is often shorter-lived than that. Of course, paint can be re-applied and it's much cheaper than replacing a Tritium tube.

You have to remember that Tritium glows 24/7. 10-20 years of constant glowing is not bad. And frankly, how often do we rely on the glowing feature of our watches anyway? Unless you're a soldier or otherwise work mostly in the dark, it's rarely necessary.

3 Hands is $192.11 At amazon.

There is a lonely 1 star review that says there is a problem with the second hand coming off its axle and it stops spinning. He said he found multiple reviews of this problem but he's the only one that warns about it on amazon. Everyone else gave it a 5 star review.

Chrono is 233.23 on the Zon 1 5 star review and a solid 4 star review. This was the only bad Thing I could find on amazon about this watch.

On the downside, it's a bit larger than I'd hoped & the large "sweep" second hand only operates in the stop-watch mode of the chronograph although that's not what I'd thought from looking at the watch on the companies website. One other thing, the contrast between the blue & green on the dial isn't as noticeable as I'd hoped, but that could be my eyesight.

taxwizard wrote:Nice Looking & Tru Glo makes fairly nice night sights for firearms, but 50M water-resistance is the mark of a "cheaply-made" sport watch. You usually get what you pay for....

Unless you're constantly around massive amounts of water, 50M of water resistance is more than adequate and not necessarily a indicator of "cheaply made."

I bought one of the basic TruGlo watches on woot exactly a year ago on Woot,. The tritium is still perfect, it's been waterproof, and at least 12 mos of battery so far. Great buy. The one I bought was cheaper than these models and with a nylon NATO strap. Great company and cheapest bet for a real nighttime watch here or on amazon.

The basic model I got on Woot was a sapphire Swiss made glass front watch.

sdc100 wrote:Unless you're constantly around massive amounts of water, 50M of water resistance is more than adequate and not necessarily a indicator of "cheaply made."

In a sport watch, it is most assuredly a sign of a cheaply made watch. I wouldn't expose a watch rated 50M water-resistance to any more than washing one's hands, and, in all honesty, doubt seriously whether it would ever survive a dip in a pool, despite the water-resistance rating. In a hand-crafted complicated dress watch, one often finds watches with minimal, if any, water resistance, and that is perfectly acceptable, understanding that it, in all probability, will never see any usage greater than a dinner party, a boardroom, or the country club, but a sport-style watch of any repute, will have significantly greater water resistance than 50M.

CowboyDann wrote: 3 Hands is $192.11 At amazon.

There is a lonely 1 star review that says there is a problem with the second hand coming off its axle and it stops spinning. He said he found multiple reviews of this problem but he's the only one that warns about it on amazon. Everyone else gave it a 5 star review.

Chrono is 233.23 on the Zon 1 5 star review and a solid 4 star review. This was the only bad Thing I could find on amazon about this watch.

On the downside, it's a bit larger than I'd hoped & the large "sweep" second hand only operates in the stop-watch mode of the chronograph although that's not what I'd thought from looking at the watch on the companies website. One other thing, the contrast between the blue & green on the dial isn't as noticeable as I'd hoped, but that could be my eyesight.

I agree that the blue and green appear very similar in the 3 hand model, which I have. In fact, I echoed that criticism in my review. But Woot's photo shows the chronograph model to have very distinct blues and greens, possibly due to larger Tritium tubes.

Does the chrono use the ETA G10 or is it stacked with something like the ETA 2894-2?

sdc100 wrote:Unless you're constantly around massive amounts of water, 50M of water resistance is more than adequate and not necessarily a indicator of "cheaply made."

Eh, 50M is borderline for swimming, generally not recommended as far as I know. It's not that you're going more than 50M under water, but rather you're creating that kind of pressure when you swing your arm through the water. So if you're going to be diving into the water, swimming for sport/exercise, or surfing you'll be much better off with at least 100M.

taxwizard wrote:Nice Looking & Tru Glo makes fairly nice night sights for firearms, but 50M water-resistance is the mark of a "cheaply-made" sport watch. You usually get what you pay for....

With a leather band, it wasn't meant for anything than doing surface water activities where the water will get wet once in a while.

pdubs10 wrote:Eh, 50M is borderline for swimming, generally not recommended as far as I know. It's not that you're going more than 50M under water, but rather you're creating that kind of pressure when you swing your arm through the water. So if you're going to be diving into the water, swimming for sport/exercise, or surfing you'll be much better off with at least 100M.

Correct !

taxwizard wrote:In a sport watch, it is most assuredly a sign of a cheaply made watch. I wouldn't expose a watch rated 50M water-resistance to any more than washing one's hands, and, in all honesty, doubt seriously whether it would ever survive a dip in a pool, despite the water-resistance rating. In a hand-crafted complicated dress watch, one often finds watches with minimal, if any, water resistance, and that is perfectly acceptable, understanding that it, in all probability, will never see any usage greater than a dinner party, a boardroom, or the country club, but a sport-style watch of any repute, will have significantly greater water resistance than 50M.

While I don't recommend it. I've showered with mine with no leakage (I use a nylon band). And I'm talking about 30 min hot showers. And as watch collector, I still disagree that it's necessarily the sign of a cheaply made sports watch. A watch's construction is judged on much more than water resistance, and on every criteria I use as a collector, nothing but the band and mineral crystal is indicative of "cheaply made." Heck, a mineral crystal is normal on a $200 watch, and actually preferable on a sports watch. I've had sapphire crystals chip on me. Sapphire is harder thus harder to scratch, but it's heavier and more brittle.

This is a cheap Chinese-made watch. But the water-resistance is not a reliable indicator of quality. To me, it's more of an indicator of purpose, and no one claims that this is for swimming.

pdubs10 wrote:Eh, 50M is borderline for swimming, generally not recommended as far as I know. It's not that you're going more than 50M under water, but rather you're creating that kind of pressure when you swing your arm through the water. So if you're going to be diving into the water, swimming for sport/exercise, or surfing you'll be much better off with at least 100M.

Well, no one claims that this is a swimmer's watch. Certainly sports watches are not synonymous with a swimmer's or diver's watch. If I'm going to be submerged in water for a long time, I take out my Vostok diver's watch (which is also Tritium lit). But if I'm fishing, boating or even showering, I have no qualms about using this watch. This watch is more than adequate for most sports.

sdc100 wrote:Well, no one claims that this is a swimmer's watch. Certainly sports watches are not synonymous with a swimmer's or diver's watch. If I'm going to be submerged in water for a long time, I take out my Vostok diver's watch (which is also Tritium lit). But if I'm fishing, boating or even showering, I have no qualms about using this watch. This watch is more than adequate for most sports.

Most "sport-watches", whether designated for swimming or not, are water-resistant rated for a minimum of 100M, a fact that is indisputable, period. And, if I'm going to be "submerged" for any significant period of time, I'll be wearing my Breitling Chrono Avenger M1, not some Russian knockoff....

taxwizard wrote:Most "sport-watches", whether designated for swimming or not, are water-resistant rated for a minimum of 100M, a fact that is indisputable, period. And, if I'm going to be "submerged" for any significant period of time, I'll be wearing my Breitling Chrono Avenger M1, not some Russian knockoff....

That's your choice. All I'm reporting is my ACTUAL experiences with the product and not some speculation based on snobbery and assumptions. The value of your comment is indicated by your use of "knockoff." Without knowing what Vostok I have, how do you know it's a "knockoff"? What is it knocking off? As a collector (yes, I do have watches costing more than $2000), I understand the term "knockoff" to mean an illegal copy of an actual product. Why are you assuming that my Vostok is a copy of an existing model by some other company? I've searched when getting it insured and I did not see any other model resembling it by any other company.

So stick to your bulky Breitling if you want. For my sporting purposes, this TruGlo and my Vostok are just fine. As are my Seiko, Citizen, Raymond Weil, Patek (investment), etc depending on my needs. And for my daily needs in medical research, a $40 atomic solar watch is the watch of choice because of its timer function.

sdc100 wrote:Sapphire is harder thus harder to scratch, but it's heavier and more brittle.

This is a cheap Chinese-made watch.

Curiously, the one photo I found online of the chronograph caseback suggests that at one point, this model (TG31020) had been rated to 10 atm (nominally 100m). The other markings appear to indicate a sapphire crystal and mb-microtec H3 tritium capsules.

The manufacturer's own website only claims 50m WR for this model. It'll be interesting to see what arrives, and which movement (Ronda?) is being used.

sdc100 wrote:While I don't recommend it. I've showered with mine with no leakage (I use a nylon band). And I'm talking about 30 min hot showers. And as watch collector, I still disagree that it's necessarily the sign of a cheaply made sports watch. A watch's construction is judged on much more than water resistance, and on every criteria I use as a collector, nothing but the band and mineral crystal is indicative of "cheaply made." Heck, a mineral crystal is normal on a $200 watch, and actually preferable on a sports watch. I've had sapphire crystals chip on me. Sapphire is harder thus harder to scratch, but it's heavier and more brittle.

This is a cheap Chinese-made watch. But the water-resistance is not a reliable indicator of quality. To me, it's more of an indicator of purpose, and no one claims that this is for swimming.

Interestingly, Amazon review claims that the crystal is sapphire, which makes me very skeptical. Regardless, because my hands move a lot, I don't mind a mineral crystal because chipping is more of a problem than scratching. And cheaper mineral crystals are more chip proof. My sapphire crystal watches are also significantly heavier, which makes it hard to do some patient procedures.

sdc100 wrote:That's your choice. All I'm reporting is my ACTUAL experiences with the product and not some speculation based on snobbery and assumptions. The value of your comment is indicated by your use of "knockoff." Without knowing what Vostok I have, how do you know it's a "knockoff"? What is it knocking off? As a collector (yes, I do have watches costing more than $2000), I understand the term "knockoff" to mean an illegal copy of an actual product. Why are you assuming that my Vostok is a copy of an existing model by some other company? I've searched when getting it insured and I did not see any other model resembling it by any other company.

So stick to your bulky Breitling if you want. For my sporting purposes, this TruGlo and my Vostok are just fine. As are my Seiko, Citizen, Raymond Weil, Patek, etc depending on my needs.

\
You're absolutely right.....I misspoke. "Knockoff" was a poor choice of terms. I was attempting to be charitable. Russian "junk" was more apropos.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaack wrote:Curiously, the one photo I found online of the chronograph caseback suggests that at one point, this model (TG31020) had been rated to 10 atm (nominally 100m). The other markings appear to indicate a sapphire crystal and mb-microtec H3 tritium capsules.

The manufacturer's own website only claims 50m WR for this model. It'll be interesting to see what arrives, and which movement (Ronda?) is being used.

As with many Chinese websites, it's unreliable. The Amazon description, for example, states:

Multi-jeweled precision Swiss Quartz Movement, Swiss made, black stainless steel case

There are several problems with it.

1) Quartz movements don't use jewels. Synthetic jewels are used in mechanical movements to prevent friction, which isn't a problem in much simpler quarts movements.

2) While it does use a Swiss movement, these watches are not "Swiss made." They're made in China. And please note that I'm no slamming Chinese watches. They're very capable of making accurate quality watches but quality control is poor and corruption is rampant in most factories. If you buy from a reputable company, the watches are just as accurate as any Swiss or Japanese watch. For example, I've tested a cheap Stuhrling (with Chinese movement) against a $600 Citizen and a $1500 Swiss Movado, and the accuracy was comparable.

3) "Black stainless steel" is meaningless without knowing how the black is applied. If it is merely painted on, it won't last more than a month of normal wear. Ion-plating is preferred.

taxwizard wrote:\
You're absolutely right.....I misspoke. "Knockoff" was a poor choice of terms. I was attempting to be charitable. Russian "junk" was more apropos.

My appraiser at William Barthman in NYC certainly didn't think so. So stick with your opinion. It has no influence or practical value on my appraiser, insurer or most other watch owners.

Since y'all (mostly sdc100) has the topic covered, I'll only add one thing. The product manual:

http://www.truglowatch.com/docs/Denali%20Instruction%20Manual.pdf

I found vis the service page:
http://www.truglowatch.com/service.aspx

Good night.

Thank you, sdc100, for your mature thoughts and points of fact. You've swayed me to buy. I fully expect to "get what I pay for" & won't be expecting the world. But for the price (and seeing as all TruGlo products I've owned/used have been just fine for this commoner), it'll do just fine as a "no worries/disposable."
Oh, and taxwizard... you come across as very snooty and self important. If you can't make your point w/o being a braggart or attacking... you discredit yourself. That's truly not an attack, I believe you know something of watches & have plenty of quality info to share. Just keep the snotty attitude to a minimum. People will respect your thoughts & you might just make a friend or two.
(Posted via cell and at a very sleepy 4am... please forgive.)

SenSo wrote:Thank you, sdc100, for your mature thoughts and points of fact. You've swayed me to buy. I fully expect to "get what I pay for" & won't be expecting the world. But for the price (and seeing as all TruGlo products I've owned/used have been just fine for this commoner), it'll do just fine as a "no worries/disposable."
Oh, and taxwizard... you come across as very snooty and self important. If you can't make your point w/o being a braggart or attacking... you discredit yourself. That's truly not an attack, I believe you know something of watches & have plenty of quality info to share. Just keep the snotty attitude to a minimum. People will respect your thoughts & you might just make a friend or two.
(Posted via cell and at a very sleepy 4am... please forgive.)

I didn't post to "make friends". I posted to keep a wealth of misinformation from being disseminated on a subject with which I have significant knowledge & factual information. Your point is well taken, however.

sdc100 wrote:There are several problems with it.

1) Quartz movements don't use jewels. Synthetic jewels are used in mechanical movements to prevent friction, which isn't a problem in much simpler quarts movements.

Quartz movements can and do have jewels.

I bought one the last time they were on Woot. It shipped with a dead battery and flooded with water the first time I wore it in the pool.

They do not have screw down case backs or screw in crowns, that should have been my first clue.

Many of the reviews on Amazon also talk about the lack of water resistance.

On the plus side the tritium still glows, its just hard to see it under all the water bubbles.

Better deal...

http://www.buy.com/prod/truglo-watch-switchback-3-hand-tritium-watch-black/228613670.html

$54.00 each

I own 2 of these. Come with Nylon band (not leather) and I wear it everyday. Good watch. Very Good price. They are quartz but haven't had any problems. Battery replacement is cheap.

Jay

undrpsi wrote:Better deal...

http://www.buy.com/prod/truglo-watch-switchback-3-hand-tritium-watch-black/228613670.html

$54.00 each

I own 2 of these. Come with Nylon band (not leather) and I wear it everyday. Good watch. Very Good price. They are quartz but haven't had any problems. Battery replacement is cheap.

Jay

Thats the exact model that leaked when I wore it in my pool.

joecooool wrote:Thats the exact model that leaked when I wore it in my pool.

Hmmm...both of mine have been abused. Outdoor sports, swimming, kayaking, and I work in a machine shop. Mine have been great. Killed 2 Swiss Army watches just at work..but the 'cheapy' tru-glos have lasted fine.

joecooool wrote:I bought one the last time they were on Woot. It shipped with a dead battery and flooded with water the first time I wore it in the pool.

They do not have screw down case backs or screw in crowns, that should have been my first clue.

Many of the reviews on Amazon also talk about the lack of water resistance.

On the plus side the tritium still glows, its just hard to see it under all the water bubbles.

I also got the more basic one on Woot last time it was up and was very pleased with it. The tritium was excellent and I had a good battery.

That being said the first time I wore it in the pool helping a dive class (only 12' max) it was full of water and literally rusted within 36 hours. My jeweler who looked at it was amazed at the poor internal build quality and the "waterproofing" was clearly sub-par as evidenced by the rust and water sloshing around. The crystal fell out of the case when he had the back off. Further inspection showed the sealant/glue was only applied to the face rim not the edge as is customary.

Still I wore it in the shower and it was fine and it worked fine elsewhere. For the $50 woot price it was great as a beater watch/when I wanted the tritium glow so I'm not too disappointed but be warned the internals aren't exactly high-quality and I wouldn't put much/any faith in the "50m water resistance".