Bracelet Replacement Project for Rolex Explorer II - 16570

[cj3209]

Well, I finally finished my project. Turned out to be a a frankenstein project but it worked out in the end.

INITIAL:
Rolex Explorer II - 16570 with OEM bracelet (hollow links) and clasp.

Purchased Rolex 97200 bracelet from a Sub-Date with damaged Glidelock clasp.

Purchased Rolex polished center link 78200 clasp (normally on a Rolex GMT model) with Glidelock. Now, the 78200 bracelet didn't normally come with Glidelock so I think someone put in the Glidelock. It works fine, slightly loose and doesn't snap shut as cleanly and smoothly as my newer SubC-ND but no biggie.

INSTALLATION:
(1) Replaced the Explorer II bracelet with the 97200 bracelet.

(2) Replaced the damaged clasp with the 78200 clasp w/Glidelock.

(3) Now this is where I had some problems because the 78200 clasp uses a different size link screw. So I had to take two links from the previous Explorer II bracelet (the ones with hollow centers) and attach them to both ends of the 78200 clasp (the link screws fit) and then attach the remaining 97200 bracelet.

CONCLUSION:
So this is what I have: Explorer II (16570) with 97200 solid link bracelet, 78200 Clasp w/Glidelock, and two hollow center links at each end of the 78200 Clasp.

I didn't like the hollow-center links from the OEM Explorer II (16570) bracelet; it made the watch feel tinny and non-Rolex-like. The 97200 bracelet gives this watch a nice heft and feel that I enjoy on my SubC-ND.

PROJECT - SUCCESS!

See pics.

[faimag]

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=333799

[cj3209]

Dang, that was a good thread...thx for the link...good read.

[mimariani]

NICE FRICKEN WORK, that's something I've been thinking about and wanting for a very long time.....Thanks for the info......Looks Awesome!!!

[georgekart]

I'm going to disappoint you. That's not a 78200 clasp. There is no way to introduce Glidelock into a clasp that doesn't support it. Here's why.
If you look at this picture you will see that not only the end piece is required to have the Glidelock, but also the clasp cover takes part in functioning of Glidelock. On a 78200 clasp the inside of the clasp cover is smooth. I couldn't find any pictures online so you can take my word for it or if you want proof I can take picture of the clasp of my 78203 which is just a TT version of 78200.

Additionally look at the length of clasp cover. Both clasps use same blade but the cover on the 97200 is significantly longer and goes to the edge of the clasp blade whereas the cover of 78200 is shorter and ends before the clasp blade.

This picture shows the difference.

What you have is most likely a 97200 clasp that was polished to make it a PCL clasp. Or a fake clasp. One of the two. But definitely not a 78200 clasp. As far as I know the 78200 clasp and 97200 clasp actually use the same size link screw as well and the fact you had issues replacing one 97200 clasp with 97200 points me in direction of either the clasp or the bracelet being fake. Which one is it? I don't know. You have to check. Start by checking the clasp against clasp codes known to be fake. If it is a clasp code associated with fakes, then you will know it most likely is. And check the code of original clasp of the bracelet if you can. It might be the fake.

[cj3209]

Originally Posted by georgekart

I'm going to disappoint you. That's not a 78200 clasp. There is no way to introduce Glidelock into a clasp that doesn't support it. Here's why.
If you look at this picture you will see that not only the end piece is required to have the Glidelock, but also the clasp cover takes part in functioning of Glidelock. On a 78200 clasp the inside of the clasp cover is smooth. I couldn't find any pictures online so you can take my word for it or if you want proof I can take picture of the clasp of my 78203 which is just a TT version of 78200.

Additionally look at the length of clasp cover. Both clasps use same blade but the cover on the 97200 is significantly longer and goes to the edge of the clasp blade whereas the cover of 78200 is shorter and ends before the clasp blade.

This picture shows the difference.

What you have is most likely a 97200 clasp that was polished to make it a PCL clasp. Or a fake clasp. One of the two. But definitely not a 78200 clasp. As far as I know the 78200 clasp and 97200 clasp actually use the same size link screw as well and the fact you had issues replacing one 97200 clasp with 97200 points me in direction of either the clasp or the bracelet being fake. Which one is it? I don't know. You have to check. Start by checking the clasp against clasp codes known to be fake. If it is a clasp code associated with fakes, then you will know it most likely is. And check the code of original clasp of the bracelet if you can. It might be the fake.

Wow. I appreciate your post. I think you may be right.

The size of the clasp is the same size as the 97200 - I matched it with my SubC. But I think the clasp may be fake. Upon close comparison between my SubC clasp and this one, I now notice differences in the rounded edges and slight differences between the shapes. Although the middle part seems just like the SubC (heavier and thicker part where "Rolex Geneva Swiss Made" is shown) so that part looks genuine but not the latches.

Wow. This sort of pisses me off a bit but it will do for now. I think I'll be looking for another clasp soon - arggg..