Glidelock - why not on all Professional (Sports) models?

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by Devildog

5mm would be too much of a difference for me. However, in the summer I really appreciate the ability to ease out the glidelock a single 2mm notch. To do that on an easy link bracelet would be a spring bar micro adjust which, whilst simple enough at home, would be a PITA out and about.

The glidelock clasp has 10 2 mm adjustment points. A version with just 3 (6 mm) could have a clasp cover the same length as the existing easy link clasp cover with the existing micro adjust points too.

I love that idea, Scott.

And...perhaps there could be a baby version with 3 adjustment points for your DJ's, Daytona's and such and an in between version with 5 points for your larger watches such as the YM2 and the Sky-D.

[GBD]

A glidelock allows for finer adjustment than easy link, which is why I prefer it. A shorter version for non-diver watches would be amazing!

[marc2828]

great thread and love the picture comparison. I only have experience with the glidelock not the easy link. I had a Breitling Pilot bracelet and it drove me nuts...always either too loose or too tight. I love soy sauce and salted pretzels and live in super hot humid and super cold weather extremes. Not quite Africa and Arctic, but close. I adjust the glidelock all the time...love the micro adjustment. A smaller version glidelock would be a great idea...maybe less micro adjustments...I am never at either end of the range on my glidelock.

[Nikrnic]

It would be nice if they would make the glidelock a little shorter. It doesn't need so much adjustment anyway.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[smym18]

I adjust the Glidelock almost every time I wear my Sub. I wish the YM had it because I still can't get that sized perfectly for me.

[Brian Page]

Originally Posted by Devildog

5mm would be too much of a difference for me. However, in the summer I really appreciate the ability to ease out the glidelock a single 2mm notch. To do that on an easy link bracelet would be a spring bar micro adjust which, whilst simple enough at home, would be a PITA out and about.

The glidelock clasp has 10 2 mm adjustment points. A version with just 3 (6 mm) could have a clasp cover the same length as the existing easy link clasp cover with the existing micro adjust points too.

this is why the glidelock is better, smaller increments of adjustment!

[Brian Page]

Originally Posted by GBD

A glidelock allows for finer adjustment than easy link, which is why I prefer it. A shorter version for non-diver watches would be amazing!

This

[joli160]

Personal preference. Glidelock is nice but much prefer the GMT and even more the one on the SkyD.
It's in the name already, easy link you can adjust without removing the watch from your wrist. Adjusting the glidelock feels clumsy compared and often I need to do it twice.

The DSSD clasp should be standard on any diver instead of the glidelock

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Is it mainly about looks? The deployant blades on the Easylink clasp are longer than those on the Glidelock, so I'm not understanding why some people are of the impression the Glidelock is less wearable. I'll grant that it takes up more visual real estate on the underside of the wrist.

Exactly my point! Not much difference in size but way way more adjustable in 2mm increments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SS Oyster]

Baselworld 2019 bring on smaller Glidelock!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rolexpatek363]

IME, the Glidelock is a completely unnecessary bit of marketing gubbins. It's too bulky as well.

Just size the bracelet carefully in the first place, then zero adjustment is needed.

[R!$]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

i wouldn't want one on anything but a dive watch. The clasp is the clasp for a reason on a diver.

[mistercoach32]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

IME, the Glidelock is a completely unnecessary bit of marketing gubbins. It's too bulky as well.

Just size the bracelet carefully in the first place, then zero adjustment is needed.

Disagree completely. Marketing gubbons? I've had both and the GlideLock is completely different than the Easylink. I'm a wide 6-1, 225, work out daily, and I live in an area with four seasons. After a workout, being outside during the summer months, or inside with the heat on during the winter months and I need to expand the GlideLock more than the Easylink allows. Switching to air conditioning or during the cool/cold months and I need to decrease the size more/less dramatically than the EasyLink set 5mm will allow. I use mine often and it's nice to have more than the "tad tight" or "tad loose" options.

[Robbyman]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Is it mainly about looks? The deployant blades on the Easylink clasp are longer than those on the Glidelock, so I'm not understanding why some people are of the impression the Glidelock is less wearable. I'll grant that it takes up more visual real estate on the underside of the wrist.

Because I’ve worn both and then glidelock is too long.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Robbyman

Because I’ve worn both and then glidelock is too long.

Can you explain why the Glidelock is "too long" when the deployant on the Easylink is actually longer? That's an honest question, because I'm having trouble understanding how that's possible.

[marc2828]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Can you explain why the Glidelock is "too long" when the deployant on the Easylink is actually longer? That's an honest question, because I'm having trouble understanding how that's possible.

I would like to know the answer to this as well. Are we talking "visual" or actual rigidity vs flexibility? The easylink looks smaller, but is actually less flexible due to the longer rigid deployant.

[smym18]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

IME, the Glidelock is a completely unnecessary bit of marketing gubbins. It's too bulky as well.

Just size the bracelet carefully in the first place, then zero adjustment is needed.

Plenty of people disagree with you.

[singe89]

Originally Posted by joli160

The DSSD clasp should be standard on any diver instead of the glidelock

This!

[Dsmith1974]

You only need a half link adjustment like on the MG. no point having the extra bulk in the clasp unless you need the extra adjustment to accommodate a wetsuit.

[sco]

I mainly use the Glidelock adjustments in the hot summer or the cold winter. In between, I rarely have a need to adjust.

With that said, it is a factor when I'm going on a trip and want to only bring one watch that hits that perfect fit no matter what..

[Nairn1980]

I wear my BLNR and SubC in rotation and really don’t have a preference between Glidelock and easylink.

If anything I find the GMT clasp slightly more comfortable.

Glidelock certainly isn’t a deal breaker to me.

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Is it mainly about looks? The deployant blades on the Easylink clasp are longer than those on the Glidelock, so I'm not understanding why some people are of the impression the Glidelock is less wearable. I'll grant that it takes up more visual real estate on the underside of the wrist.

That's enough for me not to want it. Mms matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[116710er]

I'm all for the shorter Glidelock. I need the quick adjustments and while the Easylink works, it's too much adjustment. I don't wear a Sub on a daily basis but I have a friend who did and he complained about the long clasp all the time. Maybe it bother more people than others. I don't think too many people complain about the length of the GMT/Easylink clasp so if Rolex could make a shorter version, I think it'd be a winner.

[Brny11]

It is a feature used for dive watches to fit over a wet suit more conveniently. A feature not required on any other professional model. Maybe a practical feature in all watches (I agree) but from a utilitarian perspective, it is a diver tool.

Though I could be wrong...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Harry-57]

The Easylink system is excellently engineered if not particularly innovative. I travel between regions with considerably different temperatures and live in a country where it can be freezing cold or boiling hot or anything in between. The Easylink is necessary for me but often gives too big an adjustment, so the bracelet can end up a bit big or a bit small. But it sure beats discomfort and the need to take tools to it.

Not so with the Glidelock. Its finely adjustable size ensures long lasting wearing comfort in any situation. If I thought the clasp was too big or bulky I wouldn't have bought a watch with a Glidelock. Again, beautifully engineered but hardly innovative. I've been wearing a Breitling for years with a multi position, user adjustable deployment clasp.

Those of us with nice even temperature regulation can please themselves. Some of us dilate and contract considerably. That's physiology for you.

[uansari1]

Originally Posted by 116710er

I'm all for the shorter Glidelock. I need the quick adjustments and while the Easylink works, it's too much adjustment. I don't wear a Sub on a daily basis but I have a friend who did and he complained about the long clasp all the time. Maybe it bother more people than others. I don't think too many people complain about the length of the GMT/Easylink clasp so if Rolex could make a shorter version, I think it'd be a winner.

Well said. The reason I don’t bother with the easy link is because 5mm is way too much adjustment. Frankly, I’d remove the easy link altogether if I could...guess maybe I’m in the lucky minority that doesn’t expand or contract too much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boaters]

Didn't care much for the easy link after being spoiled with the glidelock best clasp made IMPO

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by smym18

Plenty of people disagree with you.

Not a problem. I've been wearing Rolex for over 20 years, and I have accumulated a few of them. My three Subs have a diver extension for wetsuits, the others don't. None of my Rolex has a Glidelock, and none needs it.

And yes, I've travelled to warmer and colder climates.

If you want something to fiddle about with, great.

[116710er]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

If you want something to fiddle about with, great.

It's not about something to "fiddle" with. Some of use have wrists that expand quiet a bit so for us it has real world functionality.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by 116710er

It's not about something to "fiddle" with. Some of use have wrists that expand quiet a bit so for us it has real world functionality.

How does your wrist manage to expand so much that you need to adjust the bracelet? It's just not possible.