9RA2 - near perfect movement in a near perfect watch

[Rollieo]

This is such a nice movement. Spring drive along with GS finishing is what’s always been the highlights of this brand for me. The 9RA2 movement is compact, 5 days, and of course spring drive. Quite the looker too with the exhibition case backs.

The watches they’ve put it in, white birch and now the SLGA021, are near perfect. I have to say this clasp is much better. My only gripe, why would you start with a 22mm band, and why wouldn’t they taper it more!!!

GS is almost there. I’m looking forward to getting my next GS when it happens.

https://www.grand-seiko.com/us-en/collections/slga021g

[TimeAZ]

I would buy that exact model if it came with a proper bracelet and clasp, which it does not. A pity.

GS needs to put more thought and effort into their bracelets and clasps.

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by TimeAZ

I would buy that exact model if it came with a proper bracelet and clasp, which it does not. A pity.

GS needs to put more thought and effort into their bracelets and clasps.

Can you explain what you don’t like about the clasp? Is it the lack of micro-adjustment? Even though the Nautilus and Royal Oak don’t have that? Even though that makes for a more elegant and smaller clasp compared to the huge Rolex clasps?

What kind of “thought” has gone into the Oyster bracelet? Its design hasn’t changed for decades. Other than adding PCLs, which isn’t exactly a lot of effort?

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Can you explain what you don’t like about the clasp? Is it the lack of micro-adjustment? Even though the Nautilus and Royal Oak don’t have that? Even though that makes for a more elegant and smaller clasp compared to the huge Rolex clasps?

What kind of “thought” has gone into the Oyster bracelet? Its design hasn’t changed for decades. Other than adding PCLs, which isn’t exactly a lot of effort?

Yep, I couldn't really be any happier with the bracelet and clasp on my SBGT235. So light, thin and easy to operate that it doesn't need micro adjust holes, even here in the sub-tropics. I've worn it most days over the last 5 years and never had an issue.

[Reikolexguy]

Originally Posted by Rollieo

This is such a nice movement. Spring drive along with GS finishing is what’s always been the highlights of this brand for me. The 9RA2 movement is compact, 5 days, and of course spring drive. Quite the looker too with the exhibition case backs.

The watches they’ve put it in, white birch and now the SLGA021, are near perfect. I have to say this clasp is much better. My only gripe, why would you start with a 22mm band, and why wouldn’t they taper it more!!!

GS is almost there. I’m looking forward to getting my next GS when it happens.

https://www.grand-seiko.com/us-en/collections/slga021g

I’m probably wrong about this.

I think the band width starting at 22mm had something to do with the evolution 9 design principles.

Something about the lug width needed to be at least half the size of the diameter of the case and thus ensuring low centre of gravity etc.

If I also recall correctly, since the GS concept is to scale “the pinnacle of practical watchmaking”, hewing to GS design principles is probably the reason most of their watches don’t have on the fly micro adjustments.

The idea was that you only needed to size the bracelet once, and then never have to touch it again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rollieo]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Can you explain what you don’t like about the clasp? Is it the lack of micro-adjustment? Even though the Nautilus and Royal Oak don’t have that? Even though that makes for a more elegant and smaller clasp compared to the huge Rolex clasps?

What kind of “thought” has gone into the Oyster bracelet? Its design hasn’t changed for decades. Other than adding PCLs, which isn’t exactly a lot of effort?

Agreed on the clasp, I like that it’s smaller and more elegant. It’s a nice clasp indeed. I do like having micro adjustment but I can live without it.

The biggest issue with the bracelet is the lack of taper. It makes the width of the clasp too large, and a chunky bracelet is the opposite of elegant. It would wear so much nicer if they tapered it more. Start at 20mm and go down to 16mm. It’s a winning formula.

[Rollieo]

Originally Posted by Reikolexguy

I’m probably wrong about this.

I think the band width starting at 22mm had something to do with the evolution 9 design principles.

Something about the lug width needed to be at least half the size of the diameter of the case and thus ensuring low centre of gravity etc.

If I also recall correctly, since the GS concept is to scale “the pinnacle of practical watchmaking”, hewing to GS design principles is probably the reason most of their watches don’t have on the fly micro adjustments.

The idea was that you only needed to size the bracelet once, and then never have to touch it again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not sure if that’s why they went with 22mm but it’s way too big. On my explorer I (2021 release model), Rolex brought the bracelet down to 19mm. Even 1mm difference really changes the look of the dial, since they brought the explorer back to 36mm, the 19mm bracelet really helps.

With GS at 40mm, the watch dial looks tiny with a 22mm bracelet. And then the lack of taper makes for a very big wearing watch.

[TimeAZ]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Can you explain what you don’t like about the clasp? Is it the lack of micro-adjustment? Even though the Nautilus and Royal Oak don’t have that? Even though that makes for a more elegant and smaller clasp compared to the huge Rolex clasps?

What kind of “thought” has gone into the Oyster bracelet? Its design hasn’t changed for decades. Other than adding PCLs, which isn’t exactly a lot of effort?

I decided to make a rudimentary diagram to illustrate why I CANT stand the GS clasp. The lack of micro-adjustment definitely is an issue. But there's more to it than that. It's the shape and general mechanism of it that I don't like.

What I really can't stand is that the GS clasp is designed to be offset. They want the open-close interface at the center of the wrist, but not the actual swing-arm of the clasp; the curvature of the clasp is meant to hug your wrist at the ulna. This is fine if you wear your watch very TIGHTLY. But, if you wear your watch a little loose like I do, it can easily spin around on your wrist. Having no microadjust means I NEED to wear it loose because I have a human wrist, with biologic tissue that is subject to variation in swelling during the day based on ambient temperature/humidity, activity, hydration status, and other physiologic factors. I guess GS made the perfect clasp for a robot that has constant wrist shape. Then, you can set your clasp off to the side like that and have it work.

In contrast, the Rolex clasp is more thoughtfully designed because it actually sits in the middle of your wrist. The swing-arm mechanism is longer and provides more stability. It is also better balanced, provides greater counterweight to the watch-head. Obviously, Rolex also very thoughtfully incorporated tool-less microadjustment systems into the clasp enclosure. This is called "engineering". I know GS is capable of "engineering" because they sure know how to make a great movement. But that's all they seem to care about.

Even a butterfly-style deployant on, say, a Nautilus or Royal Oak, places the clasp into the center of the wrist and provides better balance than the GS clasp does. You can wear that butterfly style a little loose and it still has some balance to it -- it is correctly centered. Granted, the PP and AP still lack microadjustment. I think VC Overseas is the most attractive clasp in this style, because they developed some useful microadjust on their butterfly. The newer Nautilus update from PP has finally added a microadjust and that alone makes it 10x better than its predecessor.

I see a lot of people that say they prefer a smaller clasp and argue that this makes GS better. Really?? What part of the clasp is the small part, might I ask?? Let's look at a Rolex clasp. The swing-arm on an Explorer (ref. 214270) is nearly the same as the one on a Glidelock (ref. 116610). The external enclosure of the Glidelock is much larger than the Explorer. So is the Glidelock clasp bigger than the Explorer? Most people say yes, but functionally, they are the same size when it comes to the swing-arm. To me, it doesn't make any difference at all that the enclosure is bigger. Maybe that is a personal thing. I still prefer the swing-arm of the clasp to have a certain length so that my watch does not spin around on my wrist. And I don't like to choke my wrist by wearing a watch that is too tight. Not good for your neurovascular structures, and not comfortable.

As far as I am concerned GS is and will continue to be a "strap" brand. Nothing wrong with that, but if the watch comes on a bracelet I can't see myself buying it and then tossing the bracelet into the trash the moment I open the box. Unfortunately with these new "Evolution 9" models, the lug width of 22 mm really limits your options for after-market straps, also it's not the nicest aesthetic in my opinion.

EDIT: Diagrams are representative of intended positioning of the swing-arm of the clasp

[danicasi2002]

Thanks on the heads up on the SLGA021. The dial is similar if not identical (Lake Suwa) the the LE SLGA007 with the exception of the GS logo and second hand (which are gold on the SLGA007). Second chance to get this dial with the 9RA2 movement.

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by Rollieo

Agreed on the clasp, I like that it’s smaller and more elegant. It’s a nice clasp indeed. I do like having micro adjustment but I can live without it.

The biggest issue with the bracelet is the lack of taper. It makes the width of the clasp too large, and a chunky bracelet is the opposite of elegant. It would wear so much nicer if they tapered it more. Start at 20mm and go down to 16mm. It’s a winning formula.

I agree that the new models’ bracelet should have been tapered. That design choice would have been better, IMO. That being said, the quality of construction is there.

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by TimeAZ

I decided to make a rudimentary diagram to illustrate why I CANT stand the GS clasp. The lack of micro-adjustment definitely is an issue. But there's more to it than that. It's the shape and general mechanism of it that I don't like.

What I really can't stand is that the GS clasp is designed to be offset. They want the open-close interface at the center of the wrist, but not the actual swing-arm of the clasp; the curvature of the clasp is meant to hug your wrist at the ulna. This is fine if you wear your watch very TIGHTLY. But, if you wear your watch a little loose like I do, it can easily spin around on your wrist. Having no microadjust means I NEED to wear it loose because I have a human wrist, with biologic tissue that is subject to variation in swelling during the day based on ambient temperature/humidity, activity, hydration status, and other physiologic factors. I guess GS made the perfect clasp for a robot that has constant wrist shape. Then, you can set your clasp off to the side like that and have it work.

In contrast, the Rolex clasp is more thoughtfully designed because it actually sits in the middle of your wrist. The swing-arm mechanism is longer and provides more stability. It is also better balanced, provides greater counterweight to the watch-head. Obviously, Rolex also very thoughtfully incorporated tool-less microadjustment systems into the clasp enclosure. This is called "engineering". I know GS is capable of "engineering" because they sure know how to make a great movement. But that's all they seem to care about.

Even a butterfly-style deployant on, say, a Nautilus or Royal Oak, places the clasp into the center of the wrist and provides better balance than the GS clasp does. You can wear that butterfly style a little loose and it still has some balance to it -- it is correctly centered. Granted, the PP and AP still lack microadjustment. I think VC Overseas is the most attractive clasp in this style, because they developed some useful microadjust on their butterfly. The newer Nautilus update from PP has finally added a microadjust and that alone makes it 10x better than its predecessor.

I see a lot of people that say they prefer a smaller clasp and argue that this makes GS better. Really?? What part of the clasp is the small part, might I ask?? Let's look at a Rolex clasp. The swing-arm on an Explorer (ref. 214270) is nearly the same as the one on a Glidelock (ref. 116610). The external enclosure of the Glidelock is much larger than the Explorer. So is the Glidelock clasp bigger than the Explorer? Most people say yes, but functionally, they are the same size when it comes to the swing-arm. To me, it doesn't make any difference at all that the enclosure is bigger. Maybe that is a personal thing. I still prefer the swing-arm of the clasp to have a certain length so that my watch does not spin around on my wrist. And I don't like to choke my wrist by wearing a watch that is too tight. Not good for your neurovascular structures, and not comfortable.

As far as I am concerned GS is and will continue to be a "strap" brand. Nothing wrong with that, but if the watch comes on a bracelet I can't see myself buying it and then tossing the bracelet into the trash the moment I open the box. Unfortunately with these new "Evolution 9" models, the lug width of 22 mm really limits your options for after-market straps, also it's not the nicest aesthetic in my opinion.

EDIT: Diagrams are representative of intended positioning of the swing-arm of the clasp

Maybe I’m just lucky then, but my clasp was perfectly centered by my GS AD, and the bracelet feels great in cold or hot weather. YMMV.

[tufa]

Originally Posted by TimeAZ

I decided to make a rudimentary diagram to illustrate why I CANT stand the GS clasp. The lack of micro-adjustment definitely is an issue. But there's more to it than that. It's the shape and general mechanism of it that I don't like.

What I really can't stand is that the GS clasp is designed to be offset. They want the open-close interface at the center of the wrist, but not the actual swing-arm of the clasp; the curvature of the clasp is meant to hug your wrist at the ulna. This is fine if you wear your watch very TIGHTLY. But, if you wear your watch a little loose like I do, it can easily spin around on your wrist. Having no microadjust means I NEED to wear it loose because I have a human wrist, with biologic tissue that is subject to variation in swelling during the day based on ambient temperature/humidity, activity, hydration status, and other physiologic factors. I guess GS made the perfect clasp for a robot that has constant wrist shape. Then, you can set your clasp off to the side like that and have it work.

In contrast, the Rolex clasp is more thoughtfully designed because it actually sits in the middle of your wrist. The swing-arm mechanism is longer and provides more stability. It is also better balanced, provides greater counterweight to the watch-head. Obviously, Rolex also very thoughtfully incorporated tool-less microadjustment systems into the clasp enclosure. This is called "engineering". I know GS is capable of "engineering" because they sure know how to make a great movement. But that's all they seem to care about.

Even a butterfly-style deployant on, say, a Nautilus or Royal Oak, places the clasp into the center of the wrist and provides better balance than the GS clasp does. You can wear that butterfly style a little loose and it still has some balance to it -- it is correctly centered. Granted, the PP and AP still lack microadjustment. I think VC Overseas is the most attractive clasp in this style, because they developed some useful microadjust on their butterfly. The newer Nautilus update from PP has finally added a microadjust and that alone makes it 10x better than its predecessor.

I see a lot of people that say they prefer a smaller clasp and argue that this makes GS better. Really?? What part of the clasp is the small part, might I ask?? Let's look at a Rolex clasp. The swing-arm on an Explorer (ref. 214270) is nearly the same as the one on a Glidelock (ref. 116610). The external enclosure of the Glidelock is much larger than the Explorer. So is the Glidelock clasp bigger than the Explorer? Most people say yes, but functionally, they are the same size when it comes to the swing-arm. To me, it doesn't make any difference at all that the enclosure is bigger. Maybe that is a personal thing. I still prefer the swing-arm of the clasp to have a certain length so that my watch does not spin around on my wrist. And I don't like to choke my wrist by wearing a watch that is too tight. Not good for your neurovascular structures, and not comfortable.

As far as I am concerned GS is and will continue to be a "strap" brand. Nothing wrong with that, but if the watch comes on a bracelet I can't see myself buying it and then tossing the bracelet into the trash the moment I open the box. Unfortunately with these new "Evolution 9" models, the lug width of 22 mm really limits your options for after-market straps, also it's not the nicest aesthetic in my opinion.

EDIT: Diagrams are representative of intended positioning of the swing-arm of the clasp

Why don't you just move one link from one side to the other? It should resolve your issue...

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by TimeAZ

I decided to make a rudimentary diagram to illustrate why I CANT stand the GS clasp. The lack of micro-adjustment definitely is an issue. But there's more to it than that. It's the shape and general mechanism of it that I don't like.

What I really can't stand is that the GS clasp is designed to be offset. They want the open-close interface at the center of the wrist, but not the actual swing-arm of the clasp; the curvature of the clasp is meant to hug your wrist at the ulna. This is fine if you wear your watch very TIGHTLY. But, if you wear your watch a little loose like I do, it can easily spin around on your wrist. Having no microadjust means I NEED to wear it loose because I have a human wrist, with biologic tissue that is subject to variation in swelling during the day based on ambient temperature/humidity, activity, hydration status, and other physiologic factors. I guess GS made the perfect clasp for a robot that has constant wrist shape. Then, you can set your clasp off to the side like that and have it work.

In contrast, the Rolex clasp is more thoughtfully designed because it actually sits in the middle of your wrist. The swing-arm mechanism is longer and provides more stability. It is also better balanced, provides greater counterweight to the watch-head. Obviously, Rolex also very thoughtfully incorporated tool-less microadjustment systems into the clasp enclosure. This is called "engineering". I know GS is capable of "engineering" because they sure know how to make a great movement. But that's all they seem to care about.

Even a butterfly-style deployant on, say, a Nautilus or Royal Oak, places the clasp into the center of the wrist and provides better balance than the GS clasp does. You can wear that butterfly style a little loose and it still has some balance to it -- it is correctly centered. Granted, the PP and AP still lack microadjustment. I think VC Overseas is the most attractive clasp in this style, because they developed some useful microadjust on their butterfly. The newer Nautilus update from PP has finally added a microadjust and that alone makes it 10x better than its predecessor.

I see a lot of people that say they prefer a smaller clasp and argue that this makes GS better. Really?? What part of the clasp is the small part, might I ask?? Let's look at a Rolex clasp. The swing-arm on an Explorer (ref. 214270) is nearly the same as the one on a Glidelock (ref. 116610). The external enclosure of the Glidelock is much larger than the Explorer. So is the Glidelock clasp bigger than the Explorer? Most people say yes, but functionally, they are the same size when it comes to the swing-arm. To me, it doesn't make any difference at all that the enclosure is bigger. Maybe that is a personal thing. I still prefer the swing-arm of the clasp to have a certain length so that my watch does not spin around on my wrist. And I don't like to choke my wrist by wearing a watch that is too tight. Not good for your neurovascular structures, and not comfortable.

As far as I am concerned GS is and will continue to be a "strap" brand. Nothing wrong with that, but if the watch comes on a bracelet I can't see myself buying it and then tossing the bracelet into the trash the moment I open the box. Unfortunately with these new "Evolution 9" models, the lug width of 22 mm really limits your options for after-market straps, also it's not the nicest aesthetic in my opinion.

EDIT: Diagrams are representative of intended positioning of the swing-arm of the clasp

I may well be wrong but to me it looks like your bracelet is installed with the 6-side on the 12 and vice-versa.

[Jack T]

Originally Posted by TimeAZ

I would buy that exact model if it came with a proper bracelet and clasp, which it does not. A pity.

GS needs to put more thought and effort into their bracelets and clasps.

Surprising that the bracelets and clasps are so far behind the rest of their watches. That's one reason why I bought a SBGM221, nice strap and deployant buckle; I take delivery later this week.

Hodinkee has an exclusive limited edition GS model, the dial and the bracelet looks great, can't comment on the clasps, would like to try one on my wrist.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by TimeAZ

I decided to make a rudimentary diagram to illustrate why I CANT stand the GS clasp. The lack of micro-adjustment definitely is an issue. But there's more to it than that. It's the shape and general mechanism of it that I don't like…

As others have said, you need to remove all or most of the links on the 6 o’clock side and add them to the 12 o’clock side so the clasp blades are centered.

I was worried about fit when I ordered a SBGX093, because I’ve had a fitment issue with a Sinn before, but it fits me just fine. One thing I like about the bracelet is the center links have a bit more of a gap between them vs. a modern Oyster, so it has a little built in “stretch” that makes the bracelet more supple and comfortable. If I could change things, I’d certainly add some more taper, better end link fitment, and maybe more adjustment holes, but none of it is a dealbreaker.

Here is a photo of the clasp blade centered on my wrist:

[douglasf13]

To add to the above, one basically had to think of the GS clasp as being similar to a DD clasp, where the blade is centered, but the opening is off to one side:

[SilverStar]

No complaints here, I really like the SLGA021 and how the AD sized it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk