# Luminox watch questions....



## MacTech (May 12, 2006)

the local Brookstone factory outlet has a pair of 3000 series Luminox watches they're selling for $115 ea.

i looked at them last night, in a darkened cabinet, and was extremely underwhelmed with the brightness (or lack thereof) of the Tritium vials, they glowed, albeit very dimly

every picture i see of tritium watches shows the vials glowing an intense green (or red), i know that the pics are time exposures and the vials will seem brighter in the pic than in real life, but what i saw under reduced lighting in the cabinet was about *half* the intensity of pics here

first off, do i have unreasonable expectations for these watches, i'm expecting an intense glow (yes i know luminescent paint gives a brighter output initially but fades as it loses charge....), are tritium vials not as bright as i expect?

secondly, is there any way to tell when the watch was manufactured?, is it possible these watches are dim because they're "old"?

thirdly, i realize that Brookstone isn't an "official" Luminox retailer and that these watches will have no warranty, how reliable are the watches?

finally, is a tritium watch *really* worth the extra expense, even if i bought new from an authorized dealer, after 10 years, when the tritium vials are nearly exhausted, i won't be able to get the watch repaired/replaced under warranty service, i'd be paying a premium for a watch with a consumable illumination system, wheras my beat-up old Timex Ironman Indiglo is still running just as well as the day i got it, the Indiglo backlight is just as bright as the day of purchase, and it's a *heck* of a lot cheaper

i'd basically be paying a premium for the fun factor of tritium vials, and losing the functionality of the digital watch (no stopwatch, countdown timer, or alarm)

so, what makes Luminox watches worth the premium price over a plain vanilla watch like an Ironman, with more features for less money....


----------



## Jumpmaster (May 12, 2006)

MacTech said:


> first off, do i have unreasonable expectations for these watches



Yep. They're not made to signal aircraft. They're made for you to be able to read the time with dark-adapted eyes.



> so, what makes Luminox watches worth the premium price over a plain vanilla watch like an Ironman, with more features for less money....



Nothing. Skip it and get the Ironman.

JM-99


----------



## Planterz (May 12, 2006)

The reason to get a Luminox over a plastic Timex is the same reason you'd get any "nicer" watch over a plastic one. You want one. Up to you whether or not you want to spend the money for it.

As for the trituim indicators, no they're not beacons. But on both my H3/Traser and my Luminox there's plenty of overlap between bright enough to read the hands and dark enough to see the tritium. Even with bright light adjusted eyes, I can see the tritium fine when I turn the light off. You can see both in "dusk" level light; there's no situation where you shouldn't be able to tell what time it is.

I think that tritium trasers are the best option available for those who don't want a back-lit Indiglo watch, which generally speaking, are cheap and cheesy looking. It just depends on what you're in to. I carry a $275 flashlight (and a $175 keychain light), have a $350 Luminox, and an assortment of pocket knives in my rotation that range from $100-400. They go nicely with my $12 shorts and $8 white t-shirts.


----------



## MacTech (May 12, 2006)

I went back again tonight, and checked out the watches in their darkened bathroom, even with stray ambient light, the tritium was half the brightness seen in photos and the picture on the warranty card supplied with the watch, the only way i'd get decent performance out of the tritium vials in those watches is in a pitch black room, they were faint

no, i'm not expecting "lightup the room" brightness from tiny vials of radioactive gas, i just thought they'd be brighter than they were....

they appeared to be 2006 models, so they're not "old"

in terms of bang-for-the-buck, my old Ironman far outperforms them, but there *is* something inherently cool about the watches, even though i know the vials are dim, i'm still tempted to get one, the blue face one seemed *marginally* brighter, but is it worth $112, that's the real question.....


----------



## BIGIRON (May 12, 2006)

My bet is that those were old watches or something with flawed trit vials. 

I can find my watch 15 feet away in a dark room. (Lumi and Marathon) The trit is well worth it to me. I am vision challenged and can read the trit markers well in semi-dark. An indiglo is just a mass of dim light to me.

My watches are tools rather than status symbols or jewlry. When a tool wears out, which I expect it to, I get another one.


----------



## dca2 (May 12, 2006)

I too, had brighter expectations for the output of the vials. I bought a S&W titanium with tritiumand thought the tritium was too dim. I really like the output, now. The only one I do not like is the red vial at the 12:00 position. Even with dark adapted eyes, it is too dim. All of the other markers (hour, minute, second and the other hours) are green and plenty bright enough.

What is great about the tritium is it is visible all night long. No buttons to push and no markers to charge up with another light source.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 12, 2006)

I like my Navy Seals Luminox. It is about seven years old. I got it three years ago used, and the battery was changed prior to getting it. It is very bright and shines on white paper in the dark. It is my "beater" watch used 24/7. Light weight is one of it's nice points, and every time I try on my Seiko Diver, I know why I prefer my Luminox.

Bill


----------



## MacTech (May 12, 2006)

So, i'm beginning to think that the ones at Brookstone may in fact be defective/factory seconds, especially if everyone elses watch is as bright as they claim

so that's a no-go on the ones at Brookstone then, i'll stop off at my local sporting goods shop and take a look at new ones then....


----------



## BIGIRON (May 13, 2006)

Amazing what some people will do......

I just took my 4yr old Marathon and 2yr old Lumi (Dress Field) to my large den. In the darkend room (I'd guess the equivilent of 1/4 moon on a clear night) I could locate both watches at 20ft. With my glasses, I could actually read the time on the Lumi at 6ft (not to the minute, but I could tell that it was "about" 1035). The Lumi has a larger dial and appears to have larger trit tubes.

Keep in mind I have low vision -- younger, sharper eyes could do much better.

I'm pretty impressed, actually.


----------



## Stormdrane (May 13, 2006)

You're gonna have to let your eyes adjust to the darkness of a room for at least several minutes(seriously, at least 5 minutes) to truly appreciate how bright tritium markers can be. Here's an interesting link: How the human eye works: Pupil Dilation Projects


----------



## TiberiusBeeKirk (May 13, 2006)

In extended darkness, my luminox is very bright.
I was reminded of it's brightness recently when I was in the audience of a darkened school auditorium.
The other time I was on an overnight bus ride and people commented how bright it was.
My Luminox is 4 yrs old, I just replaced the battery.


----------



## Stormdrane (May 13, 2006)

MacTech said:


> ... after 10 years, when the tritium vials are nearly exhausted...




Tritium has a half life of 12.3 years, meaning it'll be at 50% brightness at that time, still plenty of light to tell the time on your watch in the dark.


----------



## MacTech (May 13, 2006)

Latest update, i went to my local sporting goods store and compared a brand-new Luminox 3000 series to the ones at Brookstone....

the markers were the same intensity in the "cupped hands" test on the new watch as the ones at Brookstone, it's clear i wasn't letting my eyes dark-adapt, so it would appear that the watches at Brookstone were just fine....

now comes the dillemma, which one to buy (i've basically admitted to myself that i *will* be purchasing one, they're just too cool....)

Advantages of the Brookstone watch;
much cheaper than a new one from a dealer ($112)
i have a $10 store credit there, so it'd be just over $100 final cost

Disadvantages of Brookstone watch;
Brookstone outlet is not a warranty authorized reseller, so the watch would have no warranty (according to the Luminox website, only watches purchased from a dealer have a warranty)

Advantages of Kittery Trading Post watch;
KTP is an authorized dealer, so the warranty will be valid
i can trade in some of my unused knives and multitools for store credit, to bring the price down

KTP Disadvantages;
higher price ($199) (not counting potential trade-in credits)

so, is it worth spending the extra $87 to get the warranty....
i've *never* had a watch fail and need to use a warranty, then again, my previous watches have all been Timex Ironmans, it's cheaper just to replace them than have them repaired.....


----------



## dirtie (May 13, 2006)

hi mag.. i have a luminox titanium and it came with a pull tab that activates the battery.mine is extremely bright.my wife said she got spooked at night cuz she didnt know where it came from.she is partially blind so things s5artle her some.but it definatly is bright.


----------



## dirtie (May 13, 2006)

mag.. i bought mine though gem of the day.com.. they ARE a dealer. full 10 yr batt replacement.cabelas sell my model for about $500.00 i paid $325.00 shipped.i am very happy with these folks wish ya well o n u r purchase


----------



## dirtie (May 13, 2006)

sorry about my blooper  ya no


----------



## Planterz (May 13, 2006)

MacTech said:


> so, is it worth spending the extra $87 to get the warranty....
> i've *never* had a watch fail and need to use a warranty, then again, my previous watches have all been Timex Ironmans, it's cheaper just to replace them than have them repaired.....


Look here. Basically the same style watch, made in the same factory as Luminox, come with a 2 year warrenty (3 if you register on their website!). Just make sure you pay attention to which ones have a date window if you want it.


----------



## MacTech (May 13, 2006)

Well, after some strategic trades/returns at KTP, i had enough to go to Brookstone Outlet and purchase the blue faced Luminox, and the final cost to me was "free", i got enough cash back from the return of my Leatherman Blast and trading a couple of knives so i didn't have to spend any additional money....

It also turns out that Brookstone sells the watches in their retail store and brick-and-mortar shops as well, so the warranty (if i ever need to use it) should be good, that said, if a simple Timex can survive me and not need warranty repair, a higher end watch like the Luminox should also work just fine

my eyes are dark adapting as we speak, and the trit vials *do* look substantially brighter than in store, i think i got away with a major steal here 

okay, i admit it, i was wrong, the Luminox *IS* worth the added expense over the Ironman, there's just something....comforting about the precise movements of an analog watch, feels more organic, more....natural....

Whoa....COOL!!!, when i shine my UV light on the watch face the trit vials *really* glow brightly, at least for a few seconds, then fade to normal....

i won't do it that often as i imagine it will decrease the lifespan of the vials, but still, it's quite cool....


----------



## Stormdrane (May 13, 2006)

Now that you've got a Luminox, you might try a Zulu watchband for it.


----------



## Planterz (May 13, 2006)

MacTech said:


> Whoa....COOL!!!, when i shine my UV light on the watch face the trit vials *really* glow brightly, at least for a few seconds, then fade to normal....
> 
> i won't do it that often as i imagine it will decrease the lifespan of the vials, but still, it's quite cool....


I don't see why it should. The UV and the tritium's beta radiation both cause the phosphors to glow. If the tritium can make the phosphors glow brightly for 12+ years, UV won't do any different. Remember that the sun gives off UV light too and that glow-in-the-dark stuff glows in sunlight as much as it does in the dark.


----------



## Penguin (May 13, 2006)

Stormdrane, how comfortable is that Zulu band? Countycomm has a couple nice looking ones..


----------



## Stormdrane (May 13, 2006)

Penguin said:


> Stormdrane, how comfortable is that Zulu band? Countycomm has a couple nice looking ones..



The Zulu bands are quite comfortable to me. I bought one from TAD Gear and another from County Comm. I no longer have the Luminox(had to sell to pay medical bills) but I do have the other 4 ring Zulu band on my 'beater' Citizen Promaster. I prefer the 4 ring style, others like the 2 ring style. I'll definately get another Luminox when I get my finances turned around. The tritium made it easy to see what time it was waking up in the dark without my glasses on.


----------



## MacTech (May 14, 2006)

What size watch band does the Luminox take, i picked up a 19MM Freestyle band last night, but it was just a hair too small, i could see a tiny bit of the pins past the band, i'm thinking it's a 20 or 22MM band, i prefer the "sport-band" style velcro strap band over the stock plastic band it ships with, there's no buckle to scratch up the palmrest on my PowerBook G4 Aluminum....

i was also wrong about the dimness of the Tritium, after my eyes dark-adjusted it was plenty bright, heck, i could go into a dark room with white countertops and have just *barely* enough light to see things on the countertop....


----------



## Stormdrane (May 14, 2006)

I used the 22mm Zulu watchband on my Luminox. You should measure between the lugs to be sure though.


----------



## MacTech (May 16, 2006)

I don't know if i'm blowing this out of proportion or i'm overreacting about this, but this is my first *nice* watch...

I've noticed the second hand doesn't perfectly line up with the second marks on the bezel, it seems to vary slightly, sometimes it's dead on, somtimes it's a little to the right, sometimes a little to the left, it *does* perform 60 clicks per second so it's not missing or skipping anything. typically around the 0-20 second range it's a little behind the hash mark, from 30 seconds to 60 it's largely spot on

the hour and minute hands *are* accurate, dead on

i realize the 3000 series is the entry level piece, it's not going to have the most precise clockwork/electronics mechanism, i may be expecting too much from this watch in terms of precision....

there's also a couple variables as well...

the seconds marks may not be spaced evenly they may just be *slightly* off by a few micrometers, again it's an entry level watch

the bezel may not be aligned to the internal watch mechanism precisely, or the clockwork may be slightly off kilter, this is less of a factor with the hour/minute hands as they have stepless movement as opposed to the discrete steps of the second hand...

everything is aligned properly and this is normal behavior, i'm expecting Rolex (or whatever the highest-end precision watch is) precision from a watch that's not built to those standards, i'm expecting Ferrari level performance from a Viper, both are high-performance vehicles, and go from point a to point b, the Ferrari's just built to tighter tolerances....

so, is this normal behavior, is the watch within spec, am i (more than likely) overreacting, or is there potentially something wrong with it?


----------



## Jumpmaster (May 16, 2006)

I told you to just get the Ironman. 

Normal for Luminox...I think at least one of mine is like that. But hey -- isn't the tritium "cool"??? 

JM-99


----------



## MacTech (May 16, 2006)

Yep, the Tritium is definitely cool, then again i'm a Flashaholic and have a weakness for photon-emmitters, no matter how bright or dim they are....

a cool glowing watch? like i could resist....

i still have my old Ironman and it's still a good watch (needs a new battery though), but there's just something cool about Tritium illumination....

good to know the alignment issue/imprecise second hand positioning is normal, lets be honest here, it's a $200 entry-level analog watch, it's not meant to be a super-precision Rolex....

besides, i really bought it for the Tritium lighting system....

as expected, i'm overreacting again

What, Me, paranoid?!?!?.....who wants to know


----------



## BIGIRON (May 16, 2006)

Hey. It's a machine- it can't be perfect.

You bought a rugged, accurate watch that rather uniquely glows in the dark for a couple of hundred bucks. I'm sure you can find a watch that will be just as accurate, if not more so, for under $5.00. 

Long as you like it, that's all that matters.


----------



## felder (May 16, 2006)

MacTech said:


> I don't know if i'm blowing this out of proportion or i'm overreacting about this, but this is my first *nice* watch...
> 
> I've noticed the second hand doesn't perfectly line up with the second marks on the bezel, it seems to vary slightly, sometimes it's dead on, somtimes it's a little to the right, sometimes a little to the left, it *does* perform 60 clicks per second so it's not missing or skipping anything. typically around the 0-20 second range it's a little behind the hash mark, from 30 seconds to 60 it's largely spot on
> 
> ...


 I'd say you're overreacting a bit. A watch in the Luminox price range is likely to have some imperfections. I wouldn't analyze it too closely or you may find that you can see a little glue from where tritium vials were attached and what not.

Enjoy your watch. Tritium markers are cool, it looks good and as long as it keeps good time it should serve you well. If you go looking for imperfections, you're going to find them so don't. ;-)


----------



## MacTech (May 17, 2006)

Heh, it's funny, i went to the Luminox website this afternoon and looked at the enlarged pictures of the 3000 series, *all* of them had a slightly misaligned second hand, the hand didn't point directly at the seconds mark

it seems to be normal, it doesn't bother me anymore....


----------



## GarageBoy (May 17, 2006)

In a dark movie theater..my marathon navigators from '01 is still bright as sin. The lummies should be even brighter since they use even more phosphorus compounds


----------



## Metro (May 18, 2006)

I bought the Traser H3 6500 and love it, I could'nt stand the second hand not lining up with the markers on every Luminox I looked at. Not a problem with the Traser. Bright a heck too.


----------



## BIGIRON (May 18, 2006)

Hey Metro -- you ever watch "Monk"? (he said with tongue in cheek)


----------



## mccavazos (May 18, 2006)

Metro said:


> I bought the Traser H3 6500 and love it, I could'nt stand the second hand not lining up with the markers on every Luminox I looked at. Not a problem with the Traser. Bright a heck too.



My luminox does the same thing and it bugs me. I would have got a traser, but I couldn't find one with tritium on the second hand. Guess you cant have everything that you want in one watch.


----------



## [email protected] (May 18, 2006)

My Unterwasser H3 also has small irragularities with the second hand, so not only Luminox suffers from it.


----------



## TiberiusBeeKirk (May 18, 2006)

I was under the assumption that Luminox is the USA distributor of these watches. 
Traser is the UK distributor.
On the back of my Luminox it says "swiss traser by mb-mircotek inc"


----------



## MacTech (May 19, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> My Unterwasser H3 also has small irragularities with the second hand, so not only Luminox suffers from it.


[email protected], that's a sweet time exposure, irregularaties aside, i really like the layout of the trasers on that one....


----------



## dca2 (May 19, 2006)

I'm just going to make a random guess as to the length of exposure: 15sec?


----------

