5 digit’s bracelets are more comfortable

[Daniel23456]

Hey folks,

After having my New Explorer for a month, wearing it back to back with my 16660 and in the past, 16610, 114270, 16570. The 5 digits bracelets are more comfortable. The 6 digits are a wonderful piece of engineering but they're less comfortable & compact than the 5 digits.

I LOVE the new AR, it makes the experience of looking at the watch 10x times better. I wouldn't replace my 124270 with the 114270, but if I had to choose one, I'd take a 5 digit Rolex over the new ones. Only if it's minty and kept its original form.

Would love to know what you guys think

[Chewbacca]

Yes. Always was.

[watchwatcher]

I couldn't disagree more. The 6 digit bracelets have fewer permanent links as well as offer micro adjustment in the clasp. How is not being able to get a better fit more comfortable?

And that's not even considering the aesthetics of a tuna can clasp...

Just my two cents, however. If you like it, that's all that matters.

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

I couldn't disagree more. The 6 digit bracelets have fewer permanent links as well as offer micro adjustment in the clasp. How is not being able to get a better fit more comfortable?

And that's not even considering the aesthetics of a tuna can clasp...

Just my two cents, however. If you like it, that's all that matters.

I found that no matter how many on the go adjustments you have, I am not taking my watch off on the street to start adjusting it. It is never practical for me, and it stays in the same position for the most part. And in that position, the older one is more comfortable. The fact that it is metal pressed, makes it more compact and small, which is more comfortable.

[Mendota]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

I found that no matter how many on the go adjustments you have, I am not taking my watch off on the street to start adjusting it.

A wise man once said, "man who takes off watch on street, watches other man take off with watch on street."

Always do that in your car, at your house, at your office, or at your location where you are going. If your wrist swells you can wait the extra XYZ minutes to get to a safe place to remove your watch.

[Meyrin]

I haven't yet been able to try on one of the 6-digit bracelets, so can't comment on them. All I can say is that the oyster bracelet on my old 5-digit Sub has been extremely comfortable for more than 25 years!

[thefollandgnat]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

And that's not even considering the aesthetics of a tuna can clasp...

Refer to it as the tuna can clasp and you're already tipping the scales against it.

But call it "the Excelsior clasp" and it assumes quite a different cast, and everyone will want one.

[Jackie Daytona]

I agree as well. 5 digit bracelets are great.

[Master_Grogu]

Glidelock is king. Nothing comes closer than perfection but 126610 in terms of comfort. You can adjust to such a degree of accuracy, it’s simply always bespoke to your wrists.

[JSolution]

I don’t know … sold my 5 digit sub and my 5 digit daydate. Complete difference in quality for me personally. Wouldn’t go back to any 5 digit now. Especially that rattly sound when the bracelet is stretched.

[fania123]

Originally Posted by JSolution

I don’t know … sold my 5 digit sub and my 5 digit daydate. Complete difference in quality for me personally. Wouldn’t go back to any 5 digit now. Especially that rattly sound when the bracelet is stretched.

That rattly sound is what gives it its charm. I’ve had 5 and 6 digit Rolex’s and now have gone back to 5s and will never look back. 5 digit Rolex’s are tool watches the 6 digits are just jewelry, IMO.

[karteo]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

Hey folks,

After having my New Explorer for a month, wearing it back to back with my 16660 and in the past, 16610, 114270, 16570. The 5 digits bracelets are more comfortable. The 6 digits are a wonderful piece of engineering but they're less comfortable & compact than the 5 digits.

I LOVE the new AR, it makes the experience of looking at the watch 10x times better. I wouldn't replace my 124270 with the 114270, but if I had to choose one, I'd take a 5 digit Rolex over the new ones. Only if it's minty and kept its original form.

Would love to know what you guys think

the 5 digits bracelets wear more comfortable with the watch even without perfect adjustment. the 6 digits require perfect adjustment otherwise the watch is completely uncomfortable because of size, weight, heft. it's perfect to have a glidelock, it's great in my 114060, but if the 114060 didn't have it i would have sold it because i couldn't make it comfortable enough. on the contrary my 16610 and 16710 are perfect without ever considering perfect adjustment because of weather or other conditions.

besides all this great engineering of the new ones, the old bracelets were always completely reliable and strong with just normal care and cleaning.

i am with the old ones. i even like their sound.

[rmurphy]

I would say that they are indeed comfortable … more so? I’m not sure about that, my Pelagos bracelet and clasp is absolutely amazing and I’m surprised more Rolex family watches don’t utilize something along those lines. I’m probably sort of biased towards the 5 digits because I prefer them to the maxi case watches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

The only things I could see making them more comfortable are lighter weight and shorter clasps (on non-divers).

[douglasf13]

Yep. The older bracelets are much more lightweight and lithe. After having both, I'd also argue that a hollow end link 78360 is more comfortable than the later, solid end link version, due to the extra articulation.

[OrangeSport]

Yes

Sound better too!

[Kevin of Larchmont]

The five digit bracelets are hateful, I’ll fitting and with limited adjustment. Consequently I wear my 14060m on a NATO.

[Chadridv]

yes and no. There are two major factors and they're both related to wrist size. Assuming you have the perfect fit with a 5 digit bracelet, yes, it's extremely comfortable, more so than the 6 digits IMO. However, if you can't quite get the perfect fit, the modern EZ link or Glidelock make a world of difference, obviously more so on the fly.

All that said, a lot of the comfort comes from the shorter/smaller clasps and lighter weight. If you have a big wrist, i'd say 7.5"+, I don't see those factors making a big difference, in which case you'd likely want the adjustability and build quality of the modern clasps.

[csaltphoto]

I find it so. I've never had to adjust my 5 digit in 3 years so that isn't an issue. I've tried on 6 digits and while they are impressively solid my first impression was not as comfortable. Just no flexibility between the links. And I prefer the subdued clasp.

The dive extension set up is pretty worthless though. But not really a consideration since when I have to take it diving I wear it under my wetsuit sleeve so it doesn't get beat up.

[Chester01]

No question. Lighter, as strong as the new bracelets, and just as adjustable. People equate heft with luxury. Back when these were tools, being light and strong rather than heavy and strong is a benefit.

[Golf&Watches]

Yes to five digits being more comfortable and it's not even close for me (own five 5 digits, and four 6 digits in both SS and PM) ����

[1995akcoop]

My 6 digit Rolexes made all my 5 digits feel cheap as hell. I would sell all of them in a heartbeat if it wasn’t for the sentimental value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kg19989]

Originally Posted by 1995akcoop

My 6 digit Rolexes made all my 5 digits feel cheap as hell. I would sell all of them in a heartbeat if it wasn’t for the sentimental value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know what you mean, but they sure look nice. I was amazed when I tried on a 16710 after wearing the Tudor Pepsi. A watch I was hell bent to purchase suddenly went to the bottom of the list. It’s making a comeback though!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cru Jones]

5 vs 6.

Dead horse meet beating.

[JakeK]

I thought so too when i recently tried on a few Rolex, some 5 and some 6. I was quite surprised by it. 6 was definitely more solid, but that didn't make it more comfortable.

[stewester]

Completely agree. Weight is the enemy of comfort. The only bad thing is the stretch, but if you wear them relatively snug and clean regularly then it's not really an issue.

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

I found that no matter how many on the go adjustments you have, I am not taking my watch off on the street to start adjusting it. It is never practical for me, and it stays in the same position for the most part. And in that position, the older one is more comfortable. The fact that it is metal pressed, makes it more compact and small, which is more comfortable.

To a point, I would agree with you. However, my point is that having fewer permanent links and some sort of micro adjustment in the clasp means I can achieve a better fit to where I don't have to adjust my watch in the street.

You're the one who said you would "love to hear our thoughts." Or, did you mean just the ones you agreed with?

Originally Posted by thefollandgnat

Refer to it as the tuna can clasp and you're already tipping the scales against it.

But call it "the Excelsior clasp" and it assumes quite a different cast, and everyone will want one.

I didn't come up with the name "tuna can," my friend. It is what it is.

I have no idea where you came up with the name "Excelsior," but in my 20+ years of collecting Rolex watches, I have never, ever heard that name in conjunction with a 5 digit clasp.

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

To a point, I would agree with you. However, my point is that having fewer permanent links and some sort of micro adjustment in the clasp means I can achieve a better fit to where I don't have to adjust my watch in the street.

You're the one who said you would "love to hear our thoughts." Or, did you mean just the ones you agreed with?

I am all over different opinions and thoughts… I thought we were having a discussion?

Cheers

[thefollandgnat]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

I didn't come up with the name "tuna can," my friend. It is what it is.

I have no idea where you came up with the name "Excelsior," but in my 20+ years of collecting Rolex watches, I have never, ever heard that name in conjunction with a 5 digit clasp.

No, I didn't say you came up with the term, Larry, and I apologise for the confusion if you thought I did. I'm well aware it's a commonly used term.

My point is that we experience things partly, albeit not wholly, as a consequence of the terms we use to name them. The clasp does indeed look like a tuna can, but it could equally be said to look like part of the bottom band of a coronet worn by a marquess, earl or baron. "Excelsior" might be a term used to suggest the sorts of aristocratic qualities upon which Rolex, with its crown logo, plays so effectively. As you point out, there is no "Excelsior" clasp.

Words and meanings are fluid. Just as "Jubilee" might suggest punk rock to some, I now discover that in the US "excelsior" refers to "fine curled wood shavings used especially for packing fragile items"... I'm sure you knew that one, but it's new to me.

[Etschell]

Disagree.