ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Doctorsti · 11 July 2013, 04:23 AM

I was lucky enough to find a spare SubC bracelet and snapped it up. I snapped one up months ago and swapped the glidelock onto my 216570 Explorer II Polar dial. I love the glidelock and would really be happy with it on every watch I own. Soon I will again have 4 Rolex in the house 116610LV, 116660, 216570 all on one version of the glidelock. My DJII is obviously on the easy link clasp without a lock and while I know there is little chance of the release catching on something and letting go I believe I've read of a few people it's happened to.

My question is now, do I polish (or have polished) the central part of the spare glidelock I have and swap it onto the DJII? Has anyone done this before? I sold the easy link clasp off the EXPII but in this situation I would keep the DJII clasp for future "just in case."

SaddleSC · 11 July 2013, 04:27 AM

I own a couple of Rolex on Glidelock and I believe it is the best sport watch clasp on the market. However, I also own a DJII and I feel like the length of the Glidelock (and the beefier look) would overpower the design of the DJII and aesthetically it would not be a good fit to me. YMMV

Doctorsti · 11 July 2013, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

I own a couple of Rolex on Glidelock and I believe it is the best sport watch clasp on the market. However, I also own a DJII and I feel like the length of the Glidelock (and the beefier look) would overpower the design of the DJII and aesthetically it would not be a good fit to me. YMMV

I thought that at first too but aren't the dimensions of the DJII larger then the Sub? 41mm wide and the height can't be much different. The floppy hinged part on the DJII clasp is a little annoying when it's not snug. During the day, most days, I have the easy link in it's shorter position but high humidity and night I typically unclip it to lengthen it. When it's lengthened out if clinks around a little so I'm afraid of catching it on something then. I appreciate the opinion and I may be leaning that way as well.

porschedude · 11 July 2013, 05:02 AM

The DJ is not a diving watch so therefore I would not do it but it's all about what your wanting and looking for.

watchwatcher · 11 July 2013, 05:24 AM

Nay. The easy link on the DJII is fine.

Puffy · 11 July 2013, 05:58 AM

too long and uncomfy

wisguy · 11 July 2013, 06:21 AM

Nay

laphroaig007 · 11 July 2013, 06:39 AM

Nope, DJII should stay as it was designed and conceived by Rolex. IMHO.

crowncollection · 11 July 2013, 06:47 AM

No

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

11 July 2013, 04:23 AM	#1
Doctorsti "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Real Name: Kevin Location: Delaware Watch: 116660 Posts: 586	Glidelock on Datejust II, Yay or Nay? I was lucky enough to find a spare SubC bracelet and snapped it up. I snapped one up months ago and swapped the glidelock onto my 216570 Explorer II Polar dial. I love the glidelock and would really be happy with it on every watch I own. Soon I will again have 4 Rolex in the house 116610LV, 116660, 216570 all on one version of the glidelock. My DJII is obviously on the easy link clasp without a lock and while I know there is little chance of the release catching on something and letting go I believe I've read of a few people it's happened to. My question is now, do I polish (or have polished) the central part of the spare glidelock I have and swap it onto the DJII? Has anyone done this before? I sold the easy link clasp off the EXPII but in this situation I would keep the DJII clasp for future "just in case." __________________ 116660, goodbye old friend. See you in a few years.

11 July 2013, 04:27 AM	#2
SaddleSC "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: Charles B Location: GMT -7 Watch: Hulk 116610LV Posts: 6,125	I own a couple of Rolex on Glidelock and I believe it is the best sport watch clasp on the market. However, I also own a DJII and I feel like the length of the Glidelock (and the beefier look) would overpower the design of the DJII and aesthetically it would not be a good fit to me. YMMV __________________ Hulk 116610LV + GMT II 126710 BLNR + Explorer 124270 + Air King 126900 + Submariner 16613LB

11 July 2013, 05:58 AM	#6
Puffy "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 12,485	too long and uncomfy __________________ Fine Quality is Long Remembered After the Pain of Spending Money is Forgotten

11 July 2013, 06:21 AM	#7
wisguy "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Earth Posts: 2,406	Nay __________________ 5230G / 5146G / 124060 / BB58 / '59 Constellation

11 July 2013, 06:39 AM	#8
laphroaig007 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Real Name: Marc Location: France Watch: 116710 & PAM372 Posts: 1,019	Nope, DJII should stay as it was designed and conceived by Rolex. IMHO. __________________ Always look on the bright side of life... Watch addict...

11 July 2013, 05:02 AM	#4
porschedude "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: USA Watch: 116610LV Posts: 1,207	The DJ is not a diving watch so therefore I would not do it but it's all about what your wanting and looking for.

11 July 2013, 05:24 AM	#5
watchwatcher "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Larry Location: Kentucky Watch: Yes Posts: 34,479	Nay. The easy link on the DJII is fine.

11 July 2013, 06:47 AM	#9
crowncollection "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: David Location: australia Posts: 20,157	No Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk __________________ watches many

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