Submariners on NATOs

[toxicavenger]

Originally Posted by DramaTurtle

Exactly. That's one of the reasons SELs are so desired, in addition to the more solid feeling they give the bracelet.

And yes, NATOs tend to endanger and then "save" the watch after a spring bar failure. It's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. I like the look, but choose to use natos on my less expensive watches.

So he stated an opinion and now it is a fact????

Prove what I am saying is wrong and I will gladly accept it. But forum lore is what this sounds like.

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by toxicavenger

So he stated an opinion and now it is a fact????



Prove what I am saying is wrong and I will gladly accept it. But forum lore is what this sounds like.

This is an ongoing debate. Until someone takes a watch, a bracelet and a NATO and measures the force to break the head loose both sides can be considered 'forum lore'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DramaTurtle]

Originally Posted by toxicavenger

So he stated an opinion and now it is a fact????

Prove what I am saying is wrong and I will gladly accept it. But forum lore is what this sounds like.

As I said, can't find the exact source I'm looking for right now, but this is from the old Everest bands website:

First we looked at the Nato Straps – which come in many different colors and styles, but have many major negatives. Without the solid end link connection to the Rolex watch, a tremendous amount of pressure is applied to the spring bars, which can damage the lug holes of the Rolex watch. The Nato Strap could unintentionally damage the Rolex lugs and lug holes through continuous grinding and excessive jarring making them larger. In turn when you replace your Rolex bracelet after using a nato strap you could find it to be less snug and tight. We also realized that the Nato Strap or Nylon Straps, since being a nylon fabric based watch band, also took a tremendous amount of time to dry after being wet only momentarily. Eventually, we realized that we could not back this form of replacement watch band, as it was not up to the standards that Rolex owners expect their watch to perform at and could damage their Rolex.

I don't know about you but I consider them to be a relatively knowledgeable source for all intents and purposes (they are in the strap business after all).

Also, as I said, all these milspec watches used to have welded spring bars and so the pressure was of no concern to any watch with such a case. If you're going to be using a nato, the least you should do is try and invest in high quality shoulderless spring bars for your Rolex. If you use OEM spring bars you'll bend the hell out of those.

[toxicavenger]

Originally Posted by DramaTurtle

As I said, can't find the exact source I'm looking for right now, but this is from the old Everest bands website:

First we looked at the Nato Straps – which come in many different colors and styles, but have many major negatives. Without the solid end link connection to the Rolex watch, a tremendous amount of pressure is applied to the spring bars, which can damage the lug holes of the Rolex watch. The Nato Strap could unintentionally damage the Rolex lugs and lug holes through continuous grinding and excessive jarring making them larger. In turn when you replace your Rolex bracelet after using a nato strap you could find it to be less snug and tight. We also realized that the Nato Strap or Nylon Straps, since being a nylon fabric based watch band, also took a tremendous amount of time to dry after being wet only momentarily. Eventually, we realized that we could not back this form of replacement watch band, as it was not up to the standards that Rolex owners expect their watch to perform at and could damage their Rolex.

I don't know about you but I consider them to be a relatively knowledgeable source for all intents and purposes (they are in the strap business after all).

Also, as I said, all these milspec watches used to have welded spring bars and so the pressure was of no concern to any watch with such a case. If you're going to be using a nato, the least you should do is try and invest in high quality shoulderless spring bars for your Rolex. If you use OEM spring bars you'll bend the hell out of those.

Hahaha I am in the strap business, but that doesn't make what I say the deciding factor on whether or not something is true.

Everest sells rubber/leather straps, not natos/Zulus. So I dont' know what they base their finds on. I can tell you this the wrong spring bar will wear out any case. Funny these guys say a nato would wear out lug holes on a case because of "continuous grinding and excessive" what the hell were they doing with the nato? Swinging the watch around in circles over their head and throwing it.

The best option for any strap/bracelet/nato/Zulu is the correct spring bars. I agree with you on that for sure.

[toxicavenger]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

This is an ongoing debate. Until someone takes a watch, a bracelet and a NATO and measures the force to break the head loose both sides can be considered 'forum lore'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I totally agree with you.

[BDL]

Love the option of switching it up, gives it a different look, but does not come close to the Oyster when all is said and done.

[toxicavenger]

Originally Posted by BDL

Love the option of switching it up, gives it a different look, but does not come close to the Oyster when all is said and done.

That looks great! I agree it doesn't come close to the stock oyster but it definitely gives you some options.

[versetti88]

Originally Posted by DramaTurtle

Without the solid end link connection to the Rolex watch, a tremendous amount of pressure is applied to the spring bars, which can damage the lug holes of the Rolex watch. The Nato Strap could unintentionally damage the Rolex lugs and lug holes through continuous grinding and excessive jarring making them larger.

I really don't think that lug damage is possible unless you apply an incredibly strong artificial source. Logically, the strength of 904L steel wouldn't allow that to be possible. It's steel, for goodness sake. Maybe in gold because gold is naturally softer, but still.

-versetti88

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by versetti88

A few months ago I would be tempted to agree, but I think that babying a timepiece who's purpose was originally diving a exploring is a blatant disrespect to the piece. You could keep it on the original bracelet, but I think that doing that just because of it's price is a bit ludicrous, in my opinion.

-versetti88

Like I said, just my opinion. "Blatant disrespect"? It's a watch FFS. It's ludicrous to look after a £6K watch?. Like I said, just my opinion, everyone to his own, you wanna put your watch on a twenty quid strap, thats up to you mate and thats fine, but to call someone disrespectful or ludicrous because they don't agree is pretty shallow.

[versetti88]

Originally Posted by daveathall

Like I said, just my opinion. "Blatant disrespect"? It's a watch FFS. It's ludicrous to look after a £6K watch?. Like I said, just my opinion, everyone to his own, you wanna put your watch on a twenty quid strap, thats up to you mate and thats fine, but to call someone disrespectful or ludicrous because they don't agree is pretty shallow.

You didn't include the context.

I said it was rude and disrespectful to the history and heritage of the Rolex Diver, who's original purpose is to be a tool watch, to baby it and not push it to its limits, which it was designed for.

I'm not disputing your opinion, but I'm just saying mine.

-versetti88

[versetti88]

Originally Posted by daveathall

Like I said, just my opinion. "Blatant disrespect"? It's a watch FFS. It's ludicrous to look after a £6K watch?. Like I said, just my opinion, everyone to his own, you wanna put your watch on a twenty quid strap, thats up to you mate and thats fine, but to call someone disrespectful or ludicrous because they don't agree is pretty shallow.

Also, I haven't called anyone ludicrous or disrespectful; I've think I've said that they've been thinking in a ludicrous and disrespectful mindset. Not the same.

-versetti88

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by versetti88

You didn't include the context.

I said it was rude and disrespectful to the history and heritage of the Rolex Diver, who's original purpose is to be a tool watch, to baby it and not push it to its limits, which it was designed for.

I'm not disputing your opinion, but I'm just saying mine.

-versetti88

I didn't need to include context. We disagree, I still don't see how one can disrespect the history of a watch. Simple as that. You were taking a swipe at my opinion because it differs from yours and you did it in a rude and patronising way.

[versetti88]

Originally Posted by daveathall

I didn't need to include context. We disagree, I still don't see how one can disrespect the history of a watch. Simple as that. You were taking a swipe at my opinion because it differs from yours and you did it in a rude and patronising way.

Well you have my sincerest apologies because I wasn't truly trying to be rude. I think you've misconstrued what I said.

-versetti88

[daveathall]

.

[versetti88]

Originally Posted by versetti88

A few months ago I would be tempted to agree, but I think that babying a timepiece who's purpose was originally diving a exploring is a blatant disrespect to the piece. You could keep it on the original bracelet, but I think that doing that just because of it's price is a bit ludicrous, in my opinion.

Definitely being rude because I was trying to reason with you! Grow up.

-versetti88

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by versetti88

Definitely being rude because I was trying to reason with you! Grow up.

-versetti88

I don't need to grow up, I accepted your reasoning and removed my post, have the last word if you must.

[doc76]

Originally Posted by versetti88

You didn't include the context.

I said it was rude and disrespectful to the history and heritage of the Rolex Diver, who's original purpose is to be a tool watch, to baby it and not push it to its limits, which it was designed for.

I'm not disputing your opinion, but I'm just saying mine.

-versetti88

I think you have it backwards. What's rude and disrespectful is that you would cheapen the Rolex brand which a cheap hideous strap on an iconic watch! Just my opinion.

[versetti88]

Originally Posted by doc76

I think you have it backwards. What's rude and disrespectful is that you would cheapen the Rolex brand which a cheap hideous strap on an iconic watch! Just my opinion.

Lol okay

[nursejm]

Hans Wilsdorf might rise from the grave reading this thread.


Best regards,

[BristolCavendish]

This is becoming an interesting topic/debate. I vaguely recall a thread (during the course of the past 6-8 months) about an unfortunate individual who lost his Rolex during a swim in the ocean. A pin gave way and he was wearing an Oyster bracelet at the time. He spent days searching the waters (to no avail) and there were quite a few follow-up posts offering suggestions and insights.

In retrospect/hindsight. Had he been wearing a NATO at the time, the watch probably would have been retained via the other lug pin regardless of any hypothetical factors such as strap tension on the pins or the watchstrap itself accidentally catching on something.

The stock SS Oyster bracelet is a good-looking and sturdy watch bracelet, no question about it. On the other hand, for some a traditional NATO provides a more suitable alternative based on their working and/or recreational environment. I'm frequently around power tools (i.e. winches/chain saws etc.) and in my case, a metal bracelet can get incredibly grungy between the links with all of the sweat, dirt and it is exposed to. Plus I've got better things to do than clean an Oyster bracelet every other night with a toothbrush and warm soapy water to avoid the dreaded 'black wrist'.

Being relatively inexpensive and easily laundered, a well-made NATO suffices and serves its purpose well (for me). As far as bent pins are concerned, you'd have to crank that strap pretty darn tight and one is limited by the hole placements. Based on the TRF-reported incident cited in the first paragraph and though it is a rare occurrence, even an Oyster bracelet can accidentally bend (or dislodge) a pin as the watch itself disappears into the great unknown.

[Jake B]

I'm good with using a proper G10 type NATO with a one piece buckle and by that I mean one that's a solid loop with no springbar. It's the ones that use a buckle with a tiny little crummy springbar as the weakest link that I'm not so fond of.

Why on Earth bother with the NATO strap to keep the watch safe/prevent loss by supposedly bringing the chances of losing the watch due to springbar failure down by passing behind the watch & over both bars if you're going to use a buckle that's held together by a piddly, tiny little springbar?

[versetti88]

Originally Posted by nursejm

Hans Wilsdorf might rise from the grave reading this thread.


Best regards,

Hahahaha

[versetti88]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

This is becoming an interesting topic/debate. I vaguely recall a thread (during the course of the past 6-8 months) about an unfortunate individual who lost his Rolex during a swim in the ocean. A pin gave way and he was wearing an Oyster bracelet at the time. He spent days searching the waters (to no avail) and there were quite a few follow-up posts offering suggestions and insights.

In retrospect/hindsight. Had he been wearing a NATO at the time, the watch probably would have been retained via the other lug pin regardless of any hypothetical factors such as strap tension on the pins or the watchstrap itself accidentally catching on something.

The stock SS Oyster bracelet is a good-looking and sturdy watch bracelet, no question about it. On the other hand, for some a traditional NATO provides a more suitable alternative based on their working and/or recreational environment. I'm frequently around power tools (i.e. winches/chain saws etc.) and in my case, a metal bracelet can get incredibly grungy between the links with all of the sweat, dirt and it is exposed to. Plus I've got better things to do than clean an Oyster bracelet every other night with a toothbrush and warm soapy water to avoid the dreaded 'black wrist'.

Being relatively inexpensive and easily laundered, a well-made NATO suffices and serves its purpose well (for me). As far as bent pins are concerned, you'd have to crank that strap pretty darn tight and one is limited by the hole placements. Based on the actual TRF-reported incident cited in the first paragraph, even an Oyster bracelet can accidentally catch on something as a pin gives way and the watch itself disappears into the great unknown.

Thats horrible. And the sad irony is that it's supposed to be a diving watch lol

On the point of bent pins; I completely agree with you there. I just don't think its feasible for anything like that to happen unless its the result of pure coincidence or another crazy act of nature. It just doesn't happen in the real world.

[toxicavenger]

Originally Posted by doc76

I think you have it backwards. What's rude and disrespectful is that you would cheapen the Rolex brand which a cheap hideous strap on an iconic watch! Just my opinion.

[toxicavenger]

Originally Posted by Jake B

I'm good with using a proper G10 type NATO with a one piece buckle and by that I mean one that's a solid loop with no springbar. It's the ones that use a buckle with a tiny little crummy springbar as the weakest link that I'm not so fond of.

Why on Earth bother with the NATO strap to keep the watch safe/prevent loss by supposedly bringing the chances of losing the watch due to springbar failure down by passing behind the watch & over both bars if you're going to use a buckle that's held together by a piddly, tiny little springbar?

The same could be said about the spring bars in the watch lugs also.

[versetti88]

Originally Posted by toxicavenger

The same could be said about the spring bars in the watch lugs also.

I like your straps

[toxicavenger]

Originally Posted by versetti88

I like your straps

Thanks!

[Hollister]

Originally Posted by versetti88

Hey all,

I recently visited an AD to view a Submariner that I plan on purchasing for a future grail. In my visit, I was thinking about possible strap options, and I feel like a NATO could completely transform a Sub.

Personally, I love the look of an O.D. or Khaki Green NATO on the 116610LN Submariner. It gives it a rugged, tooly look that I feel fits it perfectly. I understand that there have been threads on this topic before, but I noticed they are all pretty old, so I wanted to make an updated thread to see what RF members think about Subs (or Sea-Dwellers, or GMT-Masters, or any divers, basically) on NATOs.

Thanks!
-versetti88

The only sub that belongs on a NATO is a Milsub. If it's not a Milsub, don't do it.

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by Hollister

The only sub that belongs on a NATO is a Milsub. If it's not a Milsub, don't do it.

How arbitrary. That's like saying brunettes shouldn't color their hair blonde.

Originally Posted by doc76

I think you have it backwards. What's rude and disrespectful is that you would cheapen the Rolex brand which a cheap hideous strap on an iconic watch! Just my opinion.

Rude and disrespectful to whom? People you are trying to impress on a superficial level? Once the watch is sold, Rolex SA could care less what kind of watchstrap folks utilize in order to serve their functional (as well as fashion-conscious) necessities.

As George Clinton (Parliament/Funkadelic) once said, "Free your mind and your ass will follow".

[Hollister]

The notion that a Rolex Sub is a "tool watch" is decades out of date. It's jewellery.