SD 16600 Bracelet Options?

[Driver8]

I know the 97200 Oyster bracelet from the 6 digit (116610) Sub fits the older 5 digit 16610 case perfectly, and I also know that it does not fit the 14060 case without some serious SEL modifications.

But does anyone know if the 97200 (or any other modern Rolex bracelet) fits the 16600 SD at all please? (Specifically a late model "no holes" case).

[Driver8]

I think I've just found my own answer - https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=621150

Apparently it does.

[Chester01]

Why? So the old bracelets are just as strong, as they are held together by the same pins and equally as adjustable. There is no function for the new bracelets, they just feel heavier and so people equate that with better and more luxury. The function of the old bracelets was to decrease weight for those of us who actually wear the watches doing things. Added weight flopping around is never a benefit in real life-it’s just not.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Why? So the old bracelets are just as strong, as they are held together by the same pins and equally as adjustable. There is no function for the new bracelets, they just feel heavier and so people equate that with better and more luxury. The function of the old bracelets was to decrease weight for those of us who actually wear the watches doing things. Added weight flopping around is never a benefit in real life-it’s just not.

Just asking as someone I know is looking to sell their 16600 SD and I’m considering having it off him.

I’ve owned two 16610’s over the years and while I have never doubted the longevity or comfort of the old hollow centre link bracelets, they are (IMHO) just not up to the overall quality of the modern 6 digit bracelets, which I also find to be highly durable and comfortable. I guess Rolex felt that way too. In fact, the rattly bracelets and tin foil clasps were the reasons I sold both of my 5 digits as I personally just didn’t think it was in keeping with the build quality of the head. Just my opinion after owning both types, but I get that a lot of people are very passionate about the old bracelets and that’s absolutely fine.

That said, I’m not sure I understand how there’s “no function for the new bracelets” - the newer bracelets are less prone to wear/“stretch”, and the Glidelock clasp is one of the most functional clasps on the market. And if you size a watch bracelet correctly then it should never flop around, irrespective of weight.

Fortunately I’m lucky enough to have reasonable sized arms so I think I can just about cope with those extra couple of grams!

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Just asking as someone I know is looking to sell their 16600 and I’m considering having it off him.

I’ve owned two 16610’s over the years and while I have never doubted the longevity or comfort of the old hollow centre link bracelets, they are (IMHO) just not up to the modern quality of the 6 digit bracelets, which I also find to be highly comfortable. I guess Rolex felt that way too. In fact, the rattly bracelet and tin foil clasps were the reason I sold both of my 5 digits as I personally just didn’t think it was in keeping with build quality of the head. But I get that a lot of people are very passionate about the old bracelets and that’s absolutely fine.

That said, I’m not sure I understand how there’s “no function for the new bracelets” - the Glidelock clasp is one of the most functional clasps on the market. And if you size a watch bracelet correctly then it should never flop around, irrespective of weight.

Fortunately I’m lucky enough to have reasonable sized arms so I think I can just about cope with those extra couple of grams!

Maybe it was just me, but I have the old bracelet and had the new and the heavier bracelet would make my wrists more sweaty and uncomfortable. Perhaps it was just that there was a bit more space between the links of my old bracelets and so more air got in. Idk. But with regard to strength and the ability to hold up, they are both equal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Maybe it was just me, but I have the old bracelet and had the new and the heavier bracelet would make my wrists more sweaty and uncomfortable. Perhaps it was just that there was a bit more space between the links of my old bracelets and so more air got in. Idk. But with regard to strength and the ability to hold up, they are both equal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For those with smaller wrists the old bracelet has more fixed links than the new, which at best can cause clasp positioning issues and at worst can require removal of a permanent link.

At 6.75 inches my wrist due to its shape was on the limit for a good fit and claps positioning on the six o’clock side on the older bracelets.

On the new I have 4 links in addition to the endlink on the 6 o’clock side. On the older ones I had to have 5

In that respect the new bracelets are much more adjustable.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Just asking as someone I know is looking to sell their 16600 SD and I’m considering having it off him.

I’ve owned two 16610’s over the years and while I have never doubted the longevity or comfort of the old hollow centre link bracelets, they are (IMHO) just not up to the overall quality of the modern 6 digit bracelets, which I also find to be highly durable and comfortable. I guess Rolex felt that way too. In fact, the rattly bracelets and tin foil clasps were the reasons I sold both of my 5 digits as I personally just didn’t think it was in keeping with the build quality of the head. Just my opinion after owning both types, but I get that a lot of people are very passionate about the old bracelets and that’s absolutely fine.

That said, I’m not sure I understand how there’s “no function for the new bracelets” - the newer bracelets are less prone to wear/“stretch”, and the Glidelock clasp is one of the most functional clasps on the market. And if you size a watch bracelet correctly then it should never flop around, irrespective of weight.

Fortunately I’m lucky enough to have reasonable sized arms so I think I can just about cope with those extra couple of grams!

Originally Posted by Chester01

Why? So the old bracelets are just as strong, as they are held together by the same pins and equally as adjustable. There is no function for the new bracelets, they just feel heavier and so people equate that with better and more luxury. The function of the old bracelets was to decrease weight for those of us who actually wear the watches doing things. Added weight flopping around is never a benefit in real life-it’s just not.

Have to agree being heavier is not always better today this Internet term "hollow link" is a complete and utter misnomer all it means in the real world, is simply this. All the links are made from heavy solid gold or solid S.steel tubing and then formed into shape in a press. This leaves a void in the centre, just like any other piece of tube, however, the tubes are still made from solid 18Ct gold or solid SS tube.


While the newer so called solid link bracelet might feel more substantial the newer type or so called solid links are still machined but they are machined with holes drilled right through the metal. So in the real world they are as well technically hollow but not to the same extent as the older type. Just like the cases on so called solid gold watches, technically you could call them hollow much like the so called hollow bracelet links.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by padi56

Have to agree being heavier is not always better today this Internet term "hollow link" is a complete and utter misnomer all it means in the real world, is simply this. All the links are made from heavy solid gold or solid S.steel tubing and then formed into shape in a press. This leaves a void in the centre, just like any other piece of tube, however, the tubes are still made from solid 18Ct gold or solid SS tube.


While the newer so called solid link bracelet might feel more substantial the newer type or so called solid links are still machined but they are machined with holes drilled right through the metal. So in the real world they are as well technically hollow but not to the same extent as the older type. Just like the cases on so called solid gold watches, technically you could call them hollow much like the so called hollow bracelet links.

Indeed. I have mountain biked in my watches, play baseball, golf, climbing, basketball and nothing more annoying than a bulky heavy watch flopping around. I forget my 16610 is on my wrist, which is how I like it. Maybe that’s why unlike others here that reach for the gshock, I stay with my 16610.
I have owned the old and the new and never once had a hard time getting a fit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Indeed. I have mountain biked in my watches, play baseball, golf, climbing, basketball and nothing more annoying than a bulky heavy watch flopping around. I forget my 16610 is on my wrist, which is how I like it. Maybe that’s why unlike others here that reach for the gshock, I stay with my 16610.
I have owned the old and the new and never once had a hard time getting a fit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have to agree below is a picture of my own personal working tool watch 16600 SD,it was used and many times abused for many years underwater as a real working tool with well over 600 hours underwater. Would expect this working tool has seen more use that todays mainly pampered watches will see in ten lifetimes. And all done with hard effortless almost daily use without the so called solid link or easy link clasp.

[e dantes]

During the summer I prefer the glidelock on my 5-digit Explorer II for ease of adjustments. Between heat and AC, I end up adjusting it a few times per day. During the rest of year I use the original bracelet. It is strong enough to do the job well but is so light I barely notice it. Both choices are good, depends what you are looking for.

[FTX I]

As an owner of both, the 97200 with glidelock is light years ahead IMO but I wouldn't mod a 5 digit Sub.