The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 27 August 2010, 02:32 PM   #1
Sixshooter
"TRF" Member
 
Sixshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Caleb
Location: Lubbock TX. USA
Watch: Crude Prices
Posts: 1,103
Fliplock Clasp... Opinions Anyone?

I am by no means trying to start any debate here, just some good perspective. My question is, why is the fliplock clasp so looked down upon? I have seen the newer glidelock clasp in person but haven't personally worn one. Only other Rolex clasp I have worn for any period is the hidden clasp on my fathers Platinum DD. So, I'm curious... Why is the new glidelock clasp so much better than the old clasp? I understand simple extensions and retractions are much easier, but what else? And bear in mind both my watches have the ol' fliplock on them, and they work great for me. I'm just wondering if it's been in use since the 50's why are they seen as an inferior clasp when they have worked so well all these years? And yes I understand the way they are put together doesn't seem up to par with the rest of the watch in terms of quality. Yet mine have performed flawlessly for me. I am just curious to hear others opinions. So shoot, and sorry for the lack of brevity...
__________________


- VC
- AP
- Rolex
- Omega
Sixshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 August 2010, 02:46 PM   #2
GradyPhilpott
2022 Rolex SKY-DWELLER Pledge Member
 
GradyPhilpott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Mexico
Watch: 14060M
Posts: 32,862
The flip-lock clasp has done well under some harsh conditions for a long time. Frankly, I'm not sure that there are a lot of Rolex owners who hold them in low esteem. A lot of owners of other watches look down on them

The trend now is toward beefy bracelets, whether they are better or not. Other than bulk, most have made few innovations, except for an extra locking mechanism, which isn't bad.

However, I think Rolex has gone even further by including the Glide-Lock, which allows minor adjustments as needed to compensate for wrist-swelling and other situations.

I have a flip-lock on my Explorer and it is about as robust as it needs to be.

I do like the Glide-Lock, but it's not a major issue with me.
GradyPhilpott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 August 2010, 02:53 PM   #3
sleddog
TRF Moderator & 2022 Rolex SKY-DWELLER Patron
 
sleddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Real Name: Rob
Location: Nearby.
Posts: 24,815
The glidelock is just an advancement in the buckle system....
Good or bad,it's a just Rolex moving forward!!

Booth the old and new are great IMO but I see your point..
The glidelock has yet to prove over time..We will see!
__________________
He who wears a Rolex is always on time, even when late!!

TRF's "After Dark" Bar & Nightclub Patron-Founding Member..
sleddog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 August 2010, 03:49 PM   #4
masterkiller
"TRF" Member
 
masterkiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Watch: Rolex, AP & PAM...
Posts: 1,403
The old fliplock clasp of sheetmetal is a great clasp funtion-wise, it have performed flawless for 50 years and have been proven over time,

BUT, it has one major problem, it does not feel as a clasp should on a 5000$ watch, the quality feel of the clasp is not on par with the watch IMHO.

Many potential Rolex customers are turning away from the Sub due to that the clasp feels poor & low quality and that I guess is what Rolex have picked up and that is why the changed it!

The new glidelock is a great clasp and way superior to the old IMHO!

/masterkiller
__________________
Rolex - SubC...
AP - Diver...
Panerai - PAM380
Omega - Speedy PRO
masterkiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 August 2010, 05:27 PM   #5
George Ab
"TRF" Member
 
George Ab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: George
Location: Seattle
Watch: One of Them
Posts: 6,924
Dido on "masterkiller's" thoughts on the subject. Functionally great, but a stamped piece of metal vice a machined ingot of metal is a tad cheezy. I have no problem with the old clasp, but I absolutely love the newer clasp.
__________________

George Ab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 August 2010, 06:06 PM   #6
spuds
2022 Pledge Member
 
spuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Dan
Location: Essex, UK
Watch: West Ham! COYI!!
Posts: 7,927
WOW!!

This post's been up for almost four hours and Randy's not chimed in?!?!?!?








IMPO.....
(hang on while I don my fire-proof overalls...... )

The old-style clasp simply FELT inadequate on a 4-5,000 watch.

I also had two flip-lock clasps fitted to my old Explorer II over an eighteen month period and it was already on it's second clasp which was only a year old when I bought it.
(The clasp not the watch!)

I know the clasp's served others very very well over the years but IMPE it was Rolex's weak-spot.


The clasp on my GMTIIc simply FEELS more robust & 'worthy'..... even though I fully agree that 'feel' & 'heft' are very subjective terms & all down to personal taste.

..........OVER TO YOU STEELINOX!!
__________________
Onwards & Upwards Rodders...... Onwards & Upwards.

Life is not about how fast you can run or how high you can climb...........
It's about how well you can bounce!!



TRF HALL OF FAME JANUARY 2010
spuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 August 2010, 06:12 PM   #7
spuds
2022 Pledge Member
 
spuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Dan
Location: Essex, UK
Watch: West Ham! COYI!!
Posts: 7,927
p.s......

the old one was made out of recycled tuna-cans.

Rolex just steam-rolled the cans to make 'em a bit thinner.




__________________
Onwards & Upwards Rodders...... Onwards & Upwards.

Life is not about how fast you can run or how high you can climb...........
It's about how well you can bounce!!



TRF HALL OF FAME JANUARY 2010
spuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 August 2010, 10:12 PM   #8
dddrees
2022 Rolex SKY-DWELLER Pledge Member
 
dddrees's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Real Name: Dan
Location: USA
Watch: This N That
Posts: 33,542
I have one of the old styleon my Yachtmasterand I have to tell you the newer one on my GMTIIC definitely is a whole lot better quality.
__________________
When it captures your imagination, that's when you know you have found your passion.

Loyal Foot Soldier of The Nylon Nation.

Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of
Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons
dddrees is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27 August 2010, 10:31 PM   #9
padi56
"TRF" Life Patron
 
padi56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Real Name: Peter
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng
Watch: ing you.
Posts: 49,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by masterkiller View Post
The old fliplock clasp of sheetmetal is a great clasp funtion-wise, it have performed flawless for 50 years and have been proven over time,

BUT, it has one major problem, it does not feel as a clasp should on a 5000$ watch, the quality feel of the clasp is not on par with the watch IMHO.

Many potential Rolex customers are turning away from the Sub due to that the clasp feels poor & low quality and that I guess is what Rolex have picked up and that is why the changed it!

The new glidelock is a great clasp and way superior to the old IMHO!

/masterkiller
Would agree to a point but there are many that think heavy is always better but this is not always the case.Like you say the fliplock has stood the test of time on millions upon millions of Rolex watches over the last 40 plus years.The glidelock and the rest of these new clasps have to stand the test of time.But today perhaps not so throughly tested as the fliplock was, as most Rolex watches today get quite a pampered life.Some say the Fliplock clasp was a Rolex weakness.But in now well over 30 years around Rolex watches I cannot recollect a bracelet failure because of the fliplock clasp.
__________________

ICom Pro3

All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only.

"The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever."
Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again.

www.mc0yad.club

Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder
padi56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 August 2010, 10:34 PM   #10
dysondiver
"TRF" Member
 
dysondiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: tom
Location: northern ireland
Watch: my fins
Posts: 10,063
pick up a seamaster pro , in one hand , and a flip loc rolex in the other ,,, look at the clasps , and ask yourself which one costs twice as much as the other. thats it.
dysondiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 August 2010, 11:25 PM   #11
Davvan
"TRF" Member
 
Davvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: David
Location: Location Location
Watch: out..make way!!
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by masterkiller View Post

Many potential Rolex customers are turning away from the Sub due to that the clasp feels poor & low quality and that I guess is what Rolex have picked up and that is why the changed it!


/masterkiller

Objection, Your Honor!!!...speculation.....
__________________
Mare Nostrum
Davvan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 August 2010, 11:51 PM   #12
jeremyam
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Jeremy
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Watch: 16610 V
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by padi56 View Post
Would agree to a point but there are many that think heavy is always better but this is not always the case.Like you say the fliplock has stood the test of time on millions upon millions of Rolex watches over the last 40 plus years.The glidelock and the rest of these new clasps have to stand the test of time.But today perhaps not so throughly tested as the fliplock was, as most Rolex watches today get quite a pampered life.Some say the Fliplock clasp was a Rolex weakness.But in now well over 30 years around Rolex watches I cannot recollect a bracelet failure because of the fliplock clasp.
Generally agree with your perspective. I like that you've looked at production volumes over a noteworthy period of time, 40 years and come to a logical conclusion. I would also say that Fliplock clasps do stand the test of time as an owner of a Sub (16610).

I had one major issue with the clasp that required I take the subway to local RSC for 20 minute fix and touch-up... Wasn't a bad experience at all but rather be doing something else- don't know what issue was but I'm learning about the clasp more and more and feel like I could do micro-adjustments with my hands, no tools- boy, that makes Rolex sound cheap but I like it!

I have IC Berlin glasses with hinges, check it out! Can break-down and build glasses without going to shop for repairs, I can know do this with the Rolex clasp. Kinda like the 16610 was simple and the new SubC has a clasp that is more complicated, need RSC, the bezel can be switched out at home or on the fly, you need a RSC... I'm becoming more and more fond of the old Sub- including the bracelet and clasp.
jeremyam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 12:04 AM   #13
miner
"TRF" Member
 
miner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,294
My old GMT does this..



BUT I never had a problem, and that watch went everywhere with me, 3000m underground and 3500m above sea level.

My sd with a fliplock is even more reliable.

miner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 01:09 AM   #14
The GMT Master
"TRF" Member
 
The GMT Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: England
Watch: Speedmaster
Posts: 8,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by spuds View Post
WOW!!

This post's been up for almost four hours and Randy's not chimed in?!?!?!?








IMPO.....
(hang on while I don my fire-proof overalls...... )

The old-style clasp simply FELT inadequate on a 4-5,000 watch.

I also had two flip-lock clasps fitted to my old Explorer II over an eighteen month period and it was already on it's second clasp which was only a year old when I bought it.
(The clasp not the watch!)

I know the clasp's served others very very well over the years but IMPE it was Rolex's weak-spot.


The clasp on my GMTIIc simply FEELS more robust & 'worthy'..... even though I fully agree that 'feel' & 'heft' are very subjective terms & all down to personal taste.

..........OVER TO YOU STEELINOX!!
I'm with you on this one, Dan - for me, compared to the new clasps that Rolex offers, there's simply no comparison.
__________________
The Ask An Insider Thread - Now closed but worth a read

Ask An Insider - Round 2: Come and ask me a question!

Twitter: @TheGMTMaster
The GMT Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 01:18 AM   #15
spuds
2022 Pledge Member
 
spuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Dan
Location: Essex, UK
Watch: West Ham! COYI!!
Posts: 7,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by masterkiller View Post
...Many potential Rolex customers are turning away from the Sub due to that the clasp feels poor & low quality and that I guess is what Rolex have picked up and that is why the changed it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davvan View Post
Objection, Your Honor!!!...speculation.....
No No Sir he's hit the nail bang on the head..... well he has for me personally at least....!
It was actually the newer clasps that persuaded me to opt for a GMT-c when I'd actually gone to the AD's to look at a classic (LV) Sub'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The GMT Master View Post
I'm with you on this one, Dan - for me, compared to the new clasps that Rolex offers, there's simply no comparison.
As ever we are in absolute agreement Christopher mate!


(if only I'd met you before I met the wife....... )


!!
__________________
Onwards & Upwards Rodders...... Onwards & Upwards.

Life is not about how fast you can run or how high you can climb...........
It's about how well you can bounce!!



TRF HALL OF FAME JANUARY 2010
spuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 01:24 AM   #16
Hansch99
"TRF" Member
 
Hansch99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USA
Watch: 14060M, 116200
Posts: 318
There was nothing wrong with the fliplock clasp, it just didn't appear to suit such an expensive watch. Experience has shown, however, the fliplock to have perhaps a perfect strength-to-weight ratio. In contrast, the glidelock is heavier and feels more substantial, but I'd argue that the more complicated clasp is more prone to failure. For that reason, I don't think the glidelock is functionally superior to the fliplock, but it certainly is extremely well made, and now no other manufacturer can say they have a better feeling bracelet (whereas that was a pretty easy argument before).

Like others said, it will really come down to long-term performance to see which is better. In my personal experience, the first person I knew with a GMTIIc lost the flip tab on his clasp--apparently a bad weld--whereas I've never had a friend's fliplock fail.
Hansch99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 01:25 AM   #17
sakuraba
"TRF" Member
 
sakuraba's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Jib
Location: SJ, California
Watch: sun dial
Posts: 8,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by masterkiller View Post
it has one major problem, it does not feel as a clasp should on a 5000$ watch, the quality feel of the clasp is not on par with the watch IMHO.
Have to agree. The clasp IMHO is the weakest link to an otherwise well-made watch.

However, I comfort myself by thinking that Rolex has made far more fliplocks than the current glidelocks, with no reported instances of bracelet failure attributable to the clasp.
__________________
F 14000 AirKing black
F 16710 GMT Pepsi
F 16570 Explorer II white
T 16600 SD
D 16610 LV

"fine quality is remembered long after the pain of spending money" -Steve Mulholland
sakuraba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 01:27 AM   #18
WARVET
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Vincent
Location: Louisiana
Watch: 16710 Coke
Posts: 448
Is the new clasp worth a thousand dollars?
WARVET is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 01:29 AM   #19
sakuraba
"TRF" Member
 
sakuraba's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Jib
Location: SJ, California
Watch: sun dial
Posts: 8,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by WARVET View Post
Is the new clasp worth a thousand dollars?
Good point!

Maybe it's the ceramic content.
__________________
F 14000 AirKing black
F 16710 GMT Pepsi
F 16570 Explorer II white
T 16600 SD
D 16610 LV

"fine quality is remembered long after the pain of spending money" -Steve Mulholland
sakuraba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 01:30 AM   #20
Dr. Robert
2022 MN21 MilSub Pledge Member
 
Dr. Robert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: Bob
Location: U.S.A.
Watch: 1655
Posts: 55,097
Love the old bracelets & clasps....lightweight, but still strong....makes the watch light on my wrist.
__________________
Founder & Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons
Dr. Robert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 01:35 AM   #21
STEELINOX
2022 Rolex SKY-DWELLER Pledge Member
 
STEELINOX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Real Name: Sink-O!
Location: a praire in AZ
Watch: ROLEX-less atm...
Posts: 13,943
[QUOTE=Sixshooter;2022162]I am by no means trying to start any debate here, just some good perspective. My question is, why is the fliplock clasp so looked down upon? I have seen the newer glidelock clasp in person but haven't personally worn one. Only other Rolex clasp I have worn for any period is the hidden clasp on my fathers Platinum DD. So, I'm curious... Why is the new glidelock clasp so much better than the old clasp? [QUOTE]

We prolly wouldnt be talkin about this had ROLEX simply added solid links to the bracelet - AND "machined" the shell section [clasp cover] and called it good !
__________________

*Positive Waves Baby*
Lug Hole Loyalist / Chamfer Line Inspector
STEELINOX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 01:53 AM   #22
masterkiller
"TRF" Member
 
masterkiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Watch: Rolex, AP & PAM...
Posts: 1,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davvan View Post
Objection, Your Honor!!!...speculation.....
No I dis-agree I know many people that have chosen other brands due to this so I cannot be all wrong...

/masterkiller
__________________
Rolex - SubC...
AP - Diver...
Panerai - PAM380
Omega - Speedy PRO
masterkiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 02:01 AM   #23
ArcticMoose
"TRF" Member
 
ArcticMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Sea
Posts: 1,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixshooter View Post
? And yes I understand the way they are put together doesn't seem up to par with the rest of the watch in terms of quality. Yet mine have performed flawlessly for me.
I think you just answered your own question. You don't need to pay $5000 for a watch that performs flawlessly. For that kind of money, I think you should expect more.
ArcticMoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 02:37 AM   #24
Kokyuryoku
"TRF" Member
 
Kokyuryoku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Real Name: Rye
Location: Japan
Watch: Sundial
Posts: 2,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Robert View Post
Love the old bracelets & clasps....lightweight, but still strong....makes the watch light on my wrist.
I have to agree. I love my fliplock clasp It works perfectly. When I close it, I have no worries about it failing. Until someone shows me some evidence to the contrary, it's a non-issue. I didn't buy my Sub because of the bracelet, I bought it because I had always wanted one and I liked it. I wouldn't have cared if it came on a piece of string or on leopard print pink leather. I still would have bought it
__________________
'The Way of a Warrior is based on humanity, love, and sincerity; the heart of martial valor is true bravery, wisdom, love, and friendship.
Emphasis on the physical aspects of warriorship is futile, for the power of the body is always limited'- Morihei Ueshiba -


Omega 3570.50 (77mil) Rolex 16610 (V) Rolex 1601 (1966) Seiko BM
Kokyuryoku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 02:47 AM   #25
GradyPhilpott
2022 Rolex SKY-DWELLER Pledge Member
 
GradyPhilpott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Mexico
Watch: 14060M
Posts: 32,862
For those who insist that a flip-lock is unworthy of a $5000, or the monetary equivalent, watch, just think that those watches that now have the glide-lock are no longer $5000 watches.

Since the introduction of the new clasp, the prices have increased several hundred dollars.

I guess it's worth it so that Rolex owners won't feel inferior to their Breitling owning buddies, but every "improvement" has a price.

So, I read a lot of complaining about the price of a Rolex and a lot of carping about a flimsy bracelet that has done its job for decades.

Somewhere, there's a disconnect. Did all these Rolex watches whose most challenging adventure will be a mowing a lawn and a subsequent dip in the pool really need that new addition?

Well, if it make us all feel better about ourselves and the pecking order of watch ownership, I guess it is.

We've all ponied up for a Rolex that was more costly when we bought it than it was a couple of years before.
GradyPhilpott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 02:49 AM   #26
STEELINOX
2022 Rolex SKY-DWELLER Pledge Member
 
STEELINOX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Real Name: Sink-O!
Location: a praire in AZ
Watch: ROLEX-less atm...
Posts: 13,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott View Post
For those who insist that a flip-lock is unworthy of a $5000 or its equivalent watch, just think that those watches that now have the glide-lock are no longer $5000 watches.

Since the introduction of the new clasp, the prices have increased several hundred dollars.

I guess it's worth it so that Rolex owners won't feel inferior to their Breitling owning buddies, but every "improvement" has a price.

So, I read a lot of complaining about the price of a Rolex and a lot of carping about a flimsy bracelet that has done its job for decades.

Somewhere, there's a disconnect. Did all these Rolex watches whose most challenging adventure will be a mowing a lawn and a subsequent dip in the pool really need that new addition?

Well, if it make us all feel better about ourselves and the pecking order of watch ownership, I guess it is.

We've all ponied up for a Rolex that was more costly when we bought it than it was a couple of years before.
Amen Grady !
__________________

*Positive Waves Baby*
Lug Hole Loyalist / Chamfer Line Inspector
STEELINOX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 02:51 AM   #27
STEELINOX
2022 Rolex SKY-DWELLER Pledge Member
 
STEELINOX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Real Name: Sink-O!
Location: a praire in AZ
Watch: ROLEX-less atm...
Posts: 13,943
I tellya where the disconnect is and it the fact that we are a growing minority of WISs that understand function in its most simplest form(s) albeit, insert, hollow, stamped, holed, and those newbies that think "more is better" !

Its not rocket science.
__________________

*Positive Waves Baby*
Lug Hole Loyalist / Chamfer Line Inspector
STEELINOX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 06:59 AM   #28
JJ Irani
Fondly Remembered
 
JJ Irani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by miner View Post
My old GMT does this..



BUT I never had a problem, and that watch went everywhere with me, 3000m underground and 3500m above sea level.

My sd with a fliplock is even more reliable.

That's one sure-fire way of losing your Rolex. Same thing happened to me with my very first TT DJ which I had purchased in 1980.

Of course, this happened after several years of wear and tear, but Rolex have solved this problem by now rounding off this pin on both ends for complete security and surity that it will NOT slip out.

JJ
__________________
Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!!

I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!
JJ Irani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 07:14 AM   #29
PeteNYC13
"TRF" Member
 
PeteNYC13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Pete
Location: USA
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 1,566
It's funny, for almost 9 years I never thougth of the flip lock as being "bad" on my Sub...then I started reading TRF, and playing with the new clasp on the Daytona and now I am thinking about switching out the clasp on my YM (if it's not a small fortune). I also find myself looking at the clasp on the Sub and thinking that it does look "cheap". I am never changing the clasp on the Sub because it was the first but I would switch o the YM if the right opportunity shows up.

-Pete

PS - I do love the wet suit extention on the Sub and play with it all the time, so maybe it's not so bad.
__________________
SS Submariner K16610
SS Submariner F16610LV
SS/P Yachtmaster M16622
SS Black Dial Daytona M116520
SS Explorer II D16570
PeteNYC13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 August 2010, 08:02 AM   #30
WARVET
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Vincent
Location: Louisiana
Watch: 16710 Coke
Posts: 448
I for one love the old clasp, My GMT II clasp provides a seamless transition on the inside of my wrist. I have not tried the New Sub bracelet, I'm sure it's a fine Rolex quality clasp.
For it seems the purpose of the clasp is to secure the bracelet on the wrist with the least amount of metal weight. It seems the old clasp does this very well. I expect to get 10 years use out of this bracelet before I have to find another. I have closely examined my stamped clasp and found it to be a high quality stamping that is very strong and difficult to break. I think people tend to be so familiar with this clasp they take it for granted the great job Rolex did with it. I'ts a free country, if you want to buy the new Sub I have no problem with that, I would probably buy one myself if I had the money. Just don't call my clasp flimsey, it doesn't need to be supersized
WARVET is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

DavidSW Watches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright 2004-2022, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.