Original bracelets versus modern on vintage watches

[Jay (Eire)]

Something I've wondered about. Let me qualify by saying that I own only one watch barely qualified as vintage Rolex (Matte dial 16750) at this point, but also a few older Rolex (5 digit t-dial Sea-Dweller, 04 Kermit, Zenith Daytona).

I bought the 16750 in 07 or 08 and it came on a Jubilee. A few years ago I purchased a period correct Oyster and it's been on that since. I like the aesthetic and if I'm honest I like what others hate about the older oysters, the lightness and flimsy feel.

To my question. Is it simply the preference among most to mount a heavier Oyster to vintage watches, is it that simply many of the older Oysters have not survived (swapped out at service many many years ago for the "better" and "newer" Oyster) and therefore hard to come by and or expensive, or I s it a safety / security thing where people believe the more modern bracelets with a flip lock are more secure? Or maybe something else.

What drives the choice? Interested to hear the opinions.

Thanks all.

[goog53]

I would always try for period correct and also prefer the flimsy/cheap feel

[iliketime]

Depends on the owner I suppose, some will say gmt goes better with jubilee. Some of us grew up used to the old oyster and some prefer the changes of the new modern clasp.

[Richard Carver]

Many new owners/collectors seem to equate weight with quality. Back when watches mattered weight was the enemy, old riveted oysters and folded jubilees are still as light, functional and beautiful today as they were 60 years ago. My favorite is the old oval link jubilees made for awhile in the US, supremely silky and comfortable. :)



A bracelet is a consumable, a later bracelet on a vintage is no sin so whatever makes you happy is right.

[tekno]

The old bands aren’t cheap, as long as you don’t let it dangle or beat them up they should work fine. My father wore his 86 Datejust TT Jubilee he bought new wrenching on his motorcycles/cigarette boats/in the water installing props on the boats/at the gym etc. He didn’t baby it at all.

After he passed I wore it 10 straight years and it didn’t stretch a bit, or if it did I didn’t notice. I think he had it repaired once. I can see where they clamped the links.

Did you buy a nice example without a lot of stretch?

My opinion, run the OE... but it’s your watch. I think all the overbuilt newer parts are overrated. Ceramic bezels so they don’t fade or scratch, heavy bands so they don’t stretch, the Sapphire crystal was a natural progression.

I do know the place your coming from, when I was started wearing my dads 1986 DJ I HAD to get that cheap plastic, scratch prone crystal off off the watch ASAP. Now 17 years later I’m changing it all back to stock.

Show us the band.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Chris722]

The " feel " of the vintage bracelet is very unique

[Jay (Eire)]

I’m firmly in the camp of wanting it the way it was born or close enough to it.

Re my 16750 the period correct Oyster was simply because I prefer it over the Jubilee.

My post was intended to be more general, not about my watch, rather about why so many vintage Rolex are not on their original / period correct bracelets be it Oyster, Jubilee etc.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jay (Eire)]

Originally Posted by Chris722

The " feel " of the vintage bracelet is very unique

Indeed. And I like that feel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jay (Eire)]

Originally Posted by Richard Carver

Many new owners/collectors seem to equate weight with quality. Back when watches mattered weight was the enemy, old riveted oysters and folded jubilees are still as light, functional and beautiful today as they were 60 years ago. My favorite is the old oval link jubilees made for awhile in the US, supremely silky and comfortable. :)







A bracelet is a consumable, a later bracelet on a vintage is no sin so whatever makes you happy is right.

Yes, the weight v quality thing is something I’ve noticed a lot over the years.

My preference is for period correct.

What got me thinking about it this morning was I was looking at old subs (5512/13) and 99% are either on straps (head only) or more recent Oysters.

Btw, that’s a beauty you have there. Both the bracelet and the watch itself!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[77T]

Originally Posted by Jay (Eire)

What got me thinking about it this morning was I was looking at old subs (5512/13) and 99% are either on straps (head only) or more recent Oysters.

In most cases the original owners did whatever was cost effective when the original bracelet or clasp broke - ergo the straps. And those who could afford a new bracelet weren’t expecting originality to cause prices to go up sharply.

Now in the current market situation, and with bracelet repairs more available, current owners of “all original” Subs can keep the bracelet safe through an overhaul.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[landroverking]

I don’t have a problem with it.

[zapokee]

For vintage watches I wear often, the original bracelet stays in the safe and the watch is on the correct modern equivalent.

I'll wear the 1964 gilt Sub on its original flimsy rivet bracelet only if I'm feeling particularly brave or not going out.

[Jay (Eire)]

Originally Posted by zapokee

For vintage watches I wear often, the original bracelet stays in the safe and the watch is on the correct modern equivalent.

I'll wear the 1964 gilt Sub on its original flimsy rivet bracelet only if I'm feeling particularly brave or not going out.

And you do that because you don't want to bang up the original bracelet? Or for some other reason?

A beauty of a watch you have.

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by Jay (Eire)

And you do that because you don't want to bang up the original bracelet? Or for some other reason?

A beauty of a watch you have.

Thanks!

The original bracelet is already tired after 50+ years of use. It's beautiful, but the way gilt Sub prices have gone, I have much more peace of mind with it on a more solid modern bracelet.

Actually, I very rarely wear it. Turns out I prefer a sunburst/cream dial.

[lhanddds]

Originally Posted by zapokee

Thanks!

The original bracelet is already tired after 50+ years of use. It's beautiful, but the way gilt Sub prices have gone, I have much more peace of mind with it on a more solid modern bracelet.

Actually, I very rarely wear it. Turns out I prefer a sunburst/cream dial.

Feel the same way Z. I had a rivet years ago that was near perfect. I sold it because I rarely used it. Now it would be worth double what I paid for it. I have an old oval link jubillee that is fairly stretched and worn that I can relax wearing on my 16750. Like Richard said, they are silky comfortable.

[CFR]

Originally Posted by Jay (Eire)

My preference is for period correct.

Jay, same here.

One experience in particular shaped my thinking about this. I got a 1665 awhile ago that came on a 93150 bracelet. Although I like the heft of the 93150 bracelet, it just felt wrong to me because I always identified it with later iterations of the watch (e.g., the same bracelet came on a lightly preowned Sea-Dweller that I bought around 2007). That pretty much cemented my period-correct preference.

But then I got concerned about the reliability/integrity of the older bracelets. I think reading threads on various Rolex forums over the years made me too paranoid about the possibility that a 9315 or Jubilee might spontaneously fail without my first seeing any visible signs of impending doom. Sure, that could happen -- anything's possible. But to assess that prospect, I looked to folks who have far more experience with these things than I have. For example, I spoke with a very experienced watchmaker (whom you may know, in NYC) who has been doing Rolex repairs for decades. I was asking him about both the vintage Jubilee (oval link/USA-made) and 9315 bracelets. He confirmed that I have nothing to worry about unless the bracelet showed signs of obvious concern, e.g., "stretched" to a huge degree (vs. moderate stretch) or metal wearing through.

So that's the long version of my answer!

[Richard Carver]

The vast majority of bracelet failures are actually the spring bars giving it up. Think about the construction of a springbar, a spring within a tube with crimped ends that holds two smaller bars against the pressure of the spring. Your 20k Rolex is held in place by a spring that costs a few cents in volume.

When you get that springbar wet its a matter of time before it rusts the spring through and the bar fails. If you wet your watch daily the spring never really dries out, Once water enters the bar there is almost no way for it to dry, if its salt water it will fail quicker.

Of course, people go for years without the bar failing but for a few bucks why take the chance? If you change your own straps just pop new bars in there once a year or so, they are cheap!

[brandrea]

Somedays I miss the swiss rivet bracelet and overall lightweight comfort of my 5513

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by Jay (Eire)

Something I've wondered about. Let me qualify by saying that I own only one watch barely qualified as vintage Rolex (Matte dial 16750) at this point, but also a few older Rolex (5 digit t-dial Sea-Dweller, 04 Kermit, Zenith Daytona).

I bought the 16750 in 07 or 08 and it came on a Jubilee. A few years ago I purchased a period correct Oyster and it's been on that since. I like the aesthetic and if I'm honest I like what others hate about the older oysters, the lightness and flimsy feel.

To my question. Is it simply the preference among most to mount a heavier Oyster to vintage watches, is it that simply many of the older Oysters have not survived (swapped out at service many many years ago for the "better" and "newer" Oyster) and therefore hard to come by and or expensive, or I s it a safety / security thing where people believe the more modern bracelets with a flip lock are more secure? Or maybe something else.

What drives the choice? Interested to hear the opinions.

Thanks all.

I love the older oysters = the rattlier the better too ~

Thanks,
Randy

[roh123]

I mostly wear mine on a springloaded rivet. When/if it gets stretched it is an easy repair to restore it to the original condition.

For me part of the charm in vintage watches are the lightness on the wrist. Wearing vintage pieces on solid link bracelet kind of destroys that feeling for me.

[theflywrist]

Originally Posted by roh123

I mostly wear mine on a springloaded rivet. When/if it gets stretched it is an easy repair to restore it to the original condition.

For me part of the charm in vintage watches are the lightness on the wrist. Wearing vintage pieces on solid link bracelet kind of destroys that feeling for me.

Same here. I wear my watches on the original bracelets.
I try to source period correct ones if they didn't come with them.
Huge chunk of the charm for me is to have them correct, to have them as mint as I can find them, and to wear the heck out of them!

[ROLLiWORKS]

Stretch oysters don't usually get sloppy, just the springs needs to be replaced occasionally. This runs $45 ea including labor. You have to shave your arm to wear one however.

Originally Posted by roh123

I mostly wear mine on a springloaded rivet. When/if it gets stretched it is an easy repair to restore it to the original condition.

For me part of the charm in vintage watches are the lightness on the wrist. Wearing vintage pieces on solid link bracelet kind of destroys that feeling for me.

[ROLLiWORKS]

"the lightness and flimsy feel. "

I don't agree with the statement at all. I personally think the pre-1977 bracelets and 2008+ bracelets feel the best. I'm eh about everything in between.

[roh123]

Originally Posted by ROLLiWORKS

Stretch oysters don't usually get sloppy, just the springs needs to be replaced occasionally. This runs $45 ea including labor. You have to shave your arm to wear one however.

This is why I prefer to use a 6636 before a 7206. Normal rivets rarely become great after a restoration. It is difficult to not get them back too tight while the springloaded bracelets just go back to as they initially were.

I do have hair on my arms but can’t say it is an issue. I wear my bracelets with some extra space which is helpful.

[ROLLiWORKS]

We get the 7206 Oyster to 95% all the time without feeling stiff or unnatural. We even blend repair spots to retain the unpolished original look.




All work done in the good ol’ U.S. of A.

[CFR]

Originally Posted by Richard Carver

The vast majority of bracelet failures are actually the spring bars giving it up. When you get that springbar wet its a matter of time before it rusts the spring through and the bar fails. Once water enters the bar there is almost no way for it to dry, if its salt water it will fail quicker.

I was thinking about this a few weeks ago, when I put an old bracelet in an ultrasonic cleaner. It would've been easier to leave the springbars on the bracelet, but I figured that the ultrasonic cleaner might cause water to penetrate the spring mechanism so I decided to remove the springbars beforehand.

[ROLLiWORKS]

We’ve seen plenty of aftermarket spring bars in rusty condition. Authentic Rolex spring bars we’ve seen badly corroded but never really rusty.

[Richard Carver]

Rolliworks you might get a kick out of this original 1972 19mm C&I that is still stiff from the factory. See how the links are kinked just hanging there? It's on a presentation watch that never got worn much.

[ROLLiWORKS]

Hmmm. They were stiff when new?


All work done in the good ol’ U.S. of A.

[Richard Carver]

Yes! Just about what you see there maybe a bit stiffer. They didn't bind or anything they were just...new. :) Amazing, that's probably the first 'new' rivet you've ever seen.