GMT II should have the Glidelock clasp bracelet as an option?

[pauljuhn]

Rolex should give us an option to choose bracelet type.
My dream?

[Dr. Robert]

Bah humbug. Every Rolex & Tudor watch on a bracelet should have easy link!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[tyler1980]

easy link is fine by me and for the purpose of the watch. Glidelock is for divers and putting it over a wet suit. It would just seem totally unnecessary to me.

[Vamp]

Cmon really? Its all about exclusivity. Rolex will never give you all the bells and whistles on one watch! Plus the glide lock is supposed to serve a purpose over a wetsuit. Not micro adjust someone with frequent flyer miles..

[pauljuhn]

Can we have an option not to be polished then?

[Dsmith1974]

Easylink is the right choice for GMT. Glidelock for a divers.

[Zakalwe]

The LVc is an amazing watch, but if I had a choice I’d swap the clasp to an Easylink. I’ve got small wrists so have to take links out and the Glidelock is massive so half my bracelet is clasp. The advantage of small wrists is less flesh so less swelling. I’ve not moved the Glidelock since sizing the watch.

[ma2045]

Glidelock for racing suits....

[Dr Watches]

The easy link works much better for me. I don’t need a bunch of on the fly adjustment, and I’m not interested in a huge clasp.

[RHIII]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

easy link is fine by me and for the purpose of the watch. Glidelock is for divers and putting it over a wet suit. It would just seem totally unnecessary to me.

^^^ this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

easy link is fine by me and for the purpose of the watch. Glidelock is for divers and putting it over a wet suit. It would just seem totally unnecessary to me.

Doesn’t the SD43 and DSSD come with both?

Divers extension + glide lock

[Yoda_Eating_Pizza]

Not needed. Glidelock on a GMT is like a 24-hour hand on a Submariner.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by MTBer

Doesn’t the SD43 and DSSD come with both?

Divers extension + glide lock

yeah. but thats just for an even bigger wet suit... or a dry suit. same concept though as the glidelock. Not an easy link which would be a micro adjustment for non diving related use.

[Likestheshiny]

I’ve got small wrists so have to take links out and the Glidelock is massive so half my bracelet is clasp.

I'll echo this. I love the glidelock technology, but the implementation on the sub makes the clasp too large on smaller wrists. My 6.75" wrists are smaller but hardly tiny, and I find the sub clasp too big.

That said, there's really no need for the glidelock tech to be so large. No normal wrist gains anywhere near an inch of size over the course of the day. Even for the submariner, a smaller glidelock section combined with a diver's extension would give the same sizing flexibility. Certainly, a glidelock could be added to any smaller clasp if Rolex wanted. I'd absolutely love to see that happen.

But, I doubt it will unless Rolex does a brand-wide upgrade to clasps. Until then, the sub clasp is a feature and selling point, and not something Rolex is likely to share with other models.

[TswaneNguni]

Subs gildelock and the system on the DSSDs are wonderful

[FTX I]

Would be perfect IMO. Can't see myself spending money on a new Rolex watch without glidelock these days, but that's just me.

[dkg1616]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

easy link is fine by me and for the purpose of the watch. Glidelock is for divers and putting it over a wet suit. It would just seem totally unnecessary to me.

Totally agree on the purpose Tyler (although not like you can debate), but the functionality of it for when it’s cold out vs very humid and hot makes it well more functional than just for diving.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by dkg1616

Totally agree on the purpose Tyler (although not like you can debate), but the functionality of it for when it’s cold out vs very humid and hot makes it well more functional than just for diving.

i did like it on the DSSD when i owned that. Especially because i could do it without taking the watch off. Aren't the sub and SD glide locks different? In any case the DSSD clasp is a beast.

I dont use the easy link much because im lazy and i dont want to take the watch off to do it so unless its really in comfortable im more apt to not use it at all.

[Greenwich Mean Time]

I think the glide lock is really cool however, I'm perfectly happy with the easy link.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

easy link is fine by me and for the purpose of the watch. Glidelock is for divers and putting it over a wet suit. It would just seem totally unnecessary to me.

I have to disagree. I know that technically the Glidelock is intended to be a diver extension, but I find it very useful in everyday wearing. The ability to dial in exactly the right fit of the bracelet, and then be able to adjust it in 2mm increments per my needs, is great. Having to rely on link removal and the hidden microadjustment (for which a tool is required) to size the bracelet on Easylink, and then only have a binary 5mm in or out for needed adjustment, just isn't as optimal, imo. I know Rolex doesn't agree, since they've made it clear the Glidelock is only intended for dive watches, but it was one of the major draws of the Sub for me, despite the fact I don't take it diving.

Originally Posted by tyler1980

iAren't the sub and SD glide locks different?

Yes. The Glidelock on the Sub and SD has to be taken off the wrist to adjust. That's the one disadvantage (and one area where Omega beats them). But even so, it's better than not having it at all. I'd gladly take a few seconds to adjust my bracelet off the wrist, rather than having it get too tight or too loose.

[cvo]

I totally agree - Glidelock and all brushed bracelet for GMTs would be perfect!

[burnthesehills]

Glidelock may have been intended for divers, but it works wonders in terms of finding the perfect fit and making small to large adjustments on the fly. Honestly I have never had a watch fit as perfectly as my Submariner.

But no, Rolex will likely never bring it to non dive models because they want to sell people more than one watch. Which is understandable.

[startrolexendrolex]

I do wish that they would, I gravitate to my sub for that reason.

Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk

[startrolexendrolex]

[QUOTE=startrolexendrolex;9402293]I do wish that they would, I gravitate to my sub for that reason.





Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk

[cvo]

GMT has the same depth rating as the Sub. Why not dive with your GMT?

[Vamp]

Originally Posted by cvo

GMT has the same depth rating as the Sub. Why not dive with your GMT?

The GMT does not have the same depth rating. It does have a triplock crown though, but only rated at 100ft.

[mobster600]

GMT- Travelers/ time zone watch
Sub-Divers watch

What purpose would a glidelock be for traveling?

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by Vamp

The GMT does not have the same depth rating. It does have a triplock crown though, but only rated at 100ft.

For the type of “diving” the majority of people do who own these watches, the difference in depth rating is probably academic.

I’ve tried both a Sub and a GMT on, and though I think the Glidelock is a far better solution in terms of granular adjustability and ease of use, that clasp is just a monster for someone with a 7 inch wrist or smaller.

[samson66]

One of the reasons I switched from a GMT to a SD. Love the glidelock

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

I prefer the GMT with easylink. It’s just suits this reference better than the longer glidelock claps IMO