Will do... later. With lume shots as well.

In the mean time, the Peregrine passed the test. I woke up at 05:40, and it glowed very faintly... just enough so that I could read the time... but only barely.

peter

The result of the contest:

The Seiko 7T92 (Lumibrite) on the left and the CW C4 red (Superluminova) in the right corner... exposed to the same light for the same duration.

I think the verdict is quite clear...

Lumibrite versus Superluminova: no contest. Lumibrite wins hands down.

peter

My Steinhart has Luminova and is very bright.

Your Steinhart may have Luminova and be very bright, but I've got 5 quid that says that Lumibrite will be briter.

I've done a couple comparisons between two Lumibrite watches and a Superluminova watch. The results are consistent, and in tune with what the Powers That Be On The Internet tell us. As much as I hate to admit, Seiko wins over The Rest Of The World (including CWL) here.

Dontcha just hate Seiko for being this effin' good? I sure do.

peterh wrote:Dontcha just hate Seiko for being this effin' good? I sure do.

Come on, you luv Seiko, we can all see it.

Now my question is, is the Seiko glowing better because lumibrite is brighter than superluminova, or because there is more of it on the Seiko than the CW?

I wonder this because I asked Chris about my Aviator a while back. The hands glow much brighter than the numbers. As I recall, he attributed it to there being more lume on the hands than the numerals.

Of course, the Seiko is still brighter and that makes me like that aspect of it better than the CW, but I am not yet sure it is fair to credit the compound for that.

You might be at - least partly - right there.
I've just spent a couple hours Googling and reading up on the subject...

Although the SuperLuminova (SL from here on) surface area on the Peregrine's hands is larger than the surface area of the LumiBrite (LB from here on) on the Seiko's hands, at least a couple sources state that the way in which the stuff is applied can make a lot of difference.

Markus Hanke said, in a luminosity comparison of two watches with SuperLuminova:

The key factor lies in the way Super Luminova is applied. Brightness and endurance depend on how fine the SL grain used on the dial is, and especially on the thickness of the SL markers. The SL is applied in several layers, each of them bound by a special glue. The thicker, the brighter and longer. Another factor is the base colour. If SL is applied on a dark background, this will shine through a thinner SL layer, and compromise the luminosity. Best effects therefore are to be expected with white or silver dials. Good dial manufacturers will at least leave white base areas on black dials for the SL application. Finally, the purity of the SL granulate is also important. With colour pigments, luminous markers with nice and fashionalbe colours can be made. But these pigments reduce the luminosity. This is why the Blue Wave with its nice blue SL is less bright than a standard Marine Diver.

(source: http://www.network54.com/Forum/201110/m ... 140996787/)

Funny enough, both of my brightest (and longest) glowing watches have a dark face. Maybe there is a white base area under the hour markers, but I can't tell
I have two Seiko quartz chronos, one is dark-faced, and one is bright white... and I've got the wannabe 7s36 diver, which is blue. All three carry LB.
Initial brightness (just after switching off the light) is identical on all three , but after a night in the dark, the this, in descending order of brightness is: the black-faced 7T92, the blue-faced 7S36 wannabe diver, then the white-faced 7T92.

The SL-equipped Peregrine comes well behind all three.
I've also found that, apparently, my LB-quipped watches take less time to charge than the Peregrine. A couple years ago, we were (stupid enough to go*) on a camping trip in Yosemite Park in February.
In the valley, the sun disappears behind the surrounging mountains at 4pm, and by 7pm, it's pretty much pitch-dark. I found that, when I exposed the Seiko to a minute of the full blast of a Maglite, it would still have enough glow left for me to be able to read the time in the morning. I've tried the same with the Peregrine, and that left it completely dark 7 hours later.

I've read at least two posts of people who were under the impression that SL improves after a couple months of use.

Most everyone agrees, though - for whatever reason, Seiko reigns supreme in the luminous paint glow-in-the-dark contest... and tritium tubes have the most longevity.
Practically, this means that, if you step out of the light into a dark environment, Lumibrite or Superluminova is your best shot, because it does take your eyes quite some time to adjust to the darkness... but if you've just been asleep and wake up in a dark room, tritium tubes win.

There are, however, two disadvantages to tritium.
- While the b-radiation of tritium is no problem for the wearer (as long as you don't remove the crystal and lick the dial on a regular basis, it won't make you loose any hair), it may be a problem at the assembly line for workers who are supposed to apply the tubes, and
- There is reason to assume that tritium tubes will loose some of their luminosity over time - tritium has a half-life of 11 years, I think.

Having said all that, if I can read the time in the morning, I'm happy. And you (and many other North Americans, or so it seems) are happy if they can read a book by the light emitted by their watch

*) crikes, it WAS cold!

Seiko uses a lot of lume, which makes it very easy to shoot lume-shots:

One would think that, if quantity is the only parameter, other brands wouldn't have trouble matching Seiko's level of brightness.

This is making me increasingly curious.

joerattz wrote:

peterh wrote:Dontcha just hate Seiko for being this effin' good? I sure do.

Come on, you luv Seiko, we can all see it.

Ooh, I missed that stab

It's not as if I love Seiko. Currently I have as many CW's as I have Seiko's - and the total number of CW's in da house (which have all been bought my me) exceeds the number of Seikos (which have all been bought by me) by one - my wife has two CW's, one Fossil and one Seiko. And when it comes to wrist exposure, CW outscores Seiko by a considerable margin here. My wife almost invariably wears the W1 SSS. Occasionally, she wears the W1 GKG. Her Seiko has been in its box for over a year. And as to the Fossil... it may have stopped running because of a depleted battery for all I know. I know in which closet it should be, but that's about it... it was forgotten when the W1 SSS first hit her wrist.

And with the introduction of the C4, I can't seem to have any reason to grant either of my 7T92's much wrist time. Yes, they are more accurate - but they're so bland when compared to the C4 that the C4's loss of one second a week is easily forgiven. And once the Kingfisher LE hits the scene, that would also go for the wannabe 7s36-powered diver.

But you have to (and yes, I do) admire them for their technical ability. Almost everything they do, they do *very* well, and, along the entire range from the stamped-steel-utility movements like the 7s26 all the way up to Credor- and Grand Seiko movements, almost invariably to quality standards that seem impossible at the price point.

peter

peterh wrote:quality standards that seem impossible at the price point

You'll be surprised how much profit can be made if you make enough of something. Land Rover is/was a good example.

Another lume-test with interesting results:

http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=81978

[quote="Hans"]Another lume-test with interesting results:
This test seems pretty conclusive,
Thanks Hans

peterh wrote:

joerattz wrote:

peterh wrote:Dontcha just hate Seiko for being this effin' good? I sure do.

Come on, you luv Seiko, we can all see it.

Ooh, I missed that stab

That wasn't meant to be a stab, just an observation. There is nothing wrong sith loving Seiko. I love my orange monster and consider it to be one of the best values in watches available. I would say of my watches, I consider it and my 99GBP Malvern my two best values.

Hans wrote:Another lume-test with interesting results:

http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=81978

That's a test against tritium tubes. As I said, over time, tritium tubes have no competition. It's just that you do not want to expose a watchmaker to it.

joerattz wrote:That wasn't meant to be a stab, just an observation. There is nothing wrong sith loving Seiko.

ooh yes there is. It's like selling your soul to the devil.