Fliplock Clasp... Opinions Anyone?

[Sixshooter]

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...

[GradyPhilpott]

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.

[sleddog]

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!

[masterkiller]

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

[George Ab]

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.

[spuds]

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!!

[spuds]

p.s......

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

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

[dddrees]

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.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by masterkiller

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.

[dysondiver]

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.

[Davvan]

Originally Posted by masterkiller

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.....

[jeremyam]

Originally Posted by padi56

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.

[miner]

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.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by spuds

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.

[spuds]

Originally Posted by masterkiller

...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!

Originally Posted by Davvan

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'.

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

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....... )


!!

[Hansch99]

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.

[sakuraba]

Originally Posted by masterkiller

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.

[WARVET]

Is the new clasp worth a thousand dollars?

[sakuraba]

Originally Posted by WARVET

Is the new clasp worth a thousand dollars?

Good point!

Maybe it's the ceramic content.

[Dr. Robert]

Love the old bracelets & clasps....lightweight, but still strong....makes the watch light on my wrist.

[STEELINOX]

[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 !

[masterkiller]

Originally Posted by Davvan

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

[ArcticMoose]

Originally Posted by Sixshooter

? 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.

[Kokyuryoku]

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

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

[GradyPhilpott]

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.

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

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 !

[STEELINOX]

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.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by miner

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

[PeteNYC13]

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.

[WARVET]

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