Rolex Bracelets and Clasps Over The Years

[inadeje]

While sat looking at my collection and wearing older 5 digit bracelets back-to-back with contemporary 6 digit bracelets I’ve come to the following conclusion.

Rolex possibly went too far with it’s bracelet and clasp designs in an effort to make these, quite frankly, too durable (if that’s possible?)

The 5 digit SEL bracelets with the pressed steel clasps are the most comfortable, well-centered (clasp) and perfectly balanced, combining an ideal weight and feel on the wrist.

The 6 digit bracelets with heavy cast clasps are over-engineered, too industrially perfect and nowhere near as lithe and comfortable as the 5 digit.

Looking at the 6 digit clasps it appears Rolex’s brief was to create an indestructible item that is simply just too, well, solid. The aesthetic appearance has also suffered as these clasps have become bigger and bigger. Huge reinforced cast slab sides, in most cases covering the whole width of lower wrist, even on my 7 3/4. It has grown markedly worse with the latest 21mm bracelets with their clasps looking like an appendage from Marvel’s Iron Man franchise.

Wearing a 5 digit SEL bracelet after wearing a 2022 latest iteration is a huge comfort advantage in favor of the veteran design. The solidity of the 5 digit SEL bracelet is perfectly fine for a few decades of daily use. The pressed steel clasp, while less substantial than the cast variants, is perfectly serviceable and light, taking up just one third of the lower wrist real-estate compared to the newer 21mm clasps. It distinctly seems that Rolex went overkill in it’s plight to make a solid feeling watch.

Making things indestructible can sometimes be both a disadvantage and discomfort. The finesse is gone in today’s iterations. Instead, replaced by overzealous engineering and atomic bomb proof designs that have lost the delicacy of the older bracelets and clasps.

What say other TRF members? Does anyone wear back-to-back contemporary with neo-vintage and not feel Rolex went too far solving a problem that nobody had?

[Old Expat Beast]

Yes, I much prefer the bracelet and clasp on my late 16570 Explorer II than what was on my Milgauss. Lighter, more comfortable and way easier to micro-adjust with the clasp holes and easier to open. Clasp is a bit tinny, but they do last decades and you can tighten them up yourself as they get older (a bend here, a tweak there). Pretty good middle ground, though, are my Black Bay and Heritage Ranger (both ETA models), which have some of the good points of both.

[joli160]

The glidelock I must admit is an abomination, just weird how big it wears and the clumsy adjustment requiring to remove the watch from the wrist.
It’s the one thing I don’t like about my Submariner.
Than again the DSSD style clasp fits well, because that watch is already totally over engineered and such a clasp does not look out of place on that particular watch.

I do prefer the Oysterlock clasps compared to the old style 5 digits style.
The easy link that comes with it works like a charm and the machined steel feels good. Sourced a modern DJ clasp for my 16622 and feel that this upgraded the wearing experience.

My favourite clasp

[worldofoyster]

Originally Posted by joli160

The glidelock I must admit is an abomination, just weird how big it wears and the clumsy adjustment requiring to remove the watch from the wrist.
It’s the one thing I don’t like about my Submariner.
Than again the DSSD style clasp fits well, because that watch is already totally over engineered and such a clasp does not look out of place on that particular watch.

I do prefer the Oysterlock clasps compared to the old style 5 digits style.
The easy link that comes with it works like a charm and the machined steel feels good. Sourced a modern DJ clasp for my 16622 and feel that this upgraded the wearing experience.

My favourite clasp

i think i am the opposite. i actually like the glidelock and it allows more adjustments when needed.

[EEpro]

Agree with you on the glidelock. It looks like a metal cuff from the wrist. Functionally it's good but aesthetically it is not for me. Lucky for Rolex they will sell them all regardless of what I think

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by EEpro

Agree with you on the glidelock. It looks like a metal cuff from the wrist. Functionally it's good but aesthetically it is not for me. Lucky for Rolex they will sell them all regardless of what I think

Yes, to a certain extent its what I’m saying

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by inadeje

While sat looking at my collection and wearing older 5 digit bracelets back-to-back with contemporary 6 digit bracelets I’ve come to the following conclusion.

Rolex possibly went too far with it’s bracelet and clasp designs in an effort to make these, quite frankly, too durable (if that’s possible?)

The 5 digit SEL bracelets with the pressed steel clasps are the most comfortable, well-centered (clasp) and perfectly balanced, combining an ideal weight and feel on the wrist.

The 6 digit bracelets with heavy cast clasps are over-engineered, too industrially perfect and nowhere near as lithe and comfortable as the 5 digit.

Looking at the 6 digit clasps it appears Rolex’s brief was to create an indestructible item that is simply just too, well, solid. The aesthetic appearance has also suffered as these clasps have become bigger and bigger. Huge reinforced cast slab sides, in most cases covering the whole width of lower wrist, even on my 7 3/4. It has grown markedly worse with the latest 21mm bracelets with their clasps looking like an appendage from Marvel’s Iron Man franchise.

Wearing a 5 digit SEL bracelet after wearing a 2022 latest iteration is a huge comfort advantage in favor of the veteran design. The solidity of the 5 digit SEL bracelet is perfectly fine for a few decades of daily use. The pressed steel clasp, while less substantial than the cast variants, is perfectly serviceable and light, taking up just one third of the lower wrist real-estate compared to the newer 21mm clasps. It distinctly seems that Rolex went overkill in it’s plight to make a solid feeling watch.

Making things indestructible can sometimes be both a disadvantage and discomfort. The finesse is gone in today’s iterations. Instead, replaced by overzealous engineering and atomic bomb proof designs that have lost the delicacy of the older bracelets and clasps.

What say other TRF members? Does anyone wear back-to-back contemporary with neo-vintage and not feel Rolex went too far solving a problem that nobody had?

I agree. The "cheap" stamped clasp on my 16600 is 100% fit for purpose. Its effective, low profile, sits well and easy to adjust. The Glidelock on my 126600 was a piece of heavy engineering by comparison

My CHNR Easylink Fliplock clasp is more aesthetically pleasing than both, but still quite a sizeable item, and 5mm of adjustment is too big an increase for me

Best of the lot is the clasp on my BB58. Its the perfect size, has ceramic ball bearings for both the primary friction closure and the secondary flip lock and doesn't therefore have the necessary sprung joint of the modern Rolex clasps. Fix the articulation issue on the 6 o'clock side (as Tudor has done with the T Fit clasp) and it could be brilliant.

It is, in essence, a modernised version of the old style stamped clasps

[tifosi]

I literally could not disagree more. I'd never choose a 5 digit clasp over a modern one.

Different strokes for different folks. That's what makes this hobby fun. Something for everyone.

[Kap007]

The clasp on my AK 14000 is horrible. Pops open very easily; even after a bend. I don't trust it. I wear that watch(not often) on a Nato. My 116900 clasp is great. Very comfortable, but no safety. The new AK has the safety. I believe all sport Rolex lines should come with the safety lock.

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by tifosi

I literally could not disagree more. I'd never choose a 5 digit clasp over a modern one.

Different strokes for different folks. That's what makes this hobby fun. Something for everyone.

[Ferdelious]

Originally Posted by tifosi

I literally could not disagree more. I'd never choose a 5 digit clasp over a modern one.

Different strokes for different folks. That's what makes this hobby fun. Something for everyone.

I'm in your camp.

[Cwillis0001]

The ridiculous clasp was a major factor in getting rid of my 214060. Covered the entire underside of my wrist and frankly wore like a handcuff. That Sub was far and away the most uncomfortable watch I've ever owned.

[tifosi]

Originally Posted by Cwillis0001

The ridiculous clasp was a major factor in getting rid of my 214060. Covered the entire underside of my wrist and frankly wore like a handcuff. That Sub was far and away the most uncomfortable watch I've ever owned.

So crazy how opinions differ from person to person. The 124060 is probably the most comfortable Sub I've ever owned.

[Cwillis0001]

Originally Posted by tifosi

So crazy how opinions differ from person to person. The 124060 is probably the most comfortable Sub I've ever owned.

It is kind of interesting. I also used to have this giant Planet Ocean, and for whatever reason it was comfortable as hell. It's almost bizarre how a mere 41mm Sub was so uncomfortable on my wrist. Oh well, good thing there's an a$$ for every seat.

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by Cwillis0001

The ridiculous clasp was a major factor in getting rid of my 214060. Covered the entire underside of my wrist and frankly wore like a handcuff. That Sub was far and away the most uncomfortable watch I've ever owned.

May I ask, how big are your wrists?

[Cwillis0001]

Originally Posted by Ollie1982

May I ask, how big are your wrists?

About 6.5 inches or 16.5 cm. It's one of the reasons I pay close attention to Tim Mosso's reviews as we have roughly the same wrist size lol.

[Doc Savage]

Originally Posted by inadeje

While sat looking at my collection and wearing older 5 digit bracelets back-to-back with contemporary 6 digit bracelets I’ve come to the following conclusion.

Rolex possibly went too far with it’s bracelet and clasp designs in an effort to make these, quite frankly, too durable (if that’s possible?)

The 5 digit SEL bracelets with the pressed steel clasps are the most comfortable, well-centered (clasp) and perfectly balanced, combining an ideal weight and feel on the wrist.

The 6 digit bracelets with heavy cast clasps are over-engineered, too industrially perfect and nowhere near as lithe and comfortable as the 5 digit.

Looking at the 6 digit clasps it appears Rolex’s brief was to create an indestructible item that is simply just too, well, solid. The aesthetic appearance has also suffered as these clasps have become bigger and bigger. Huge reinforced cast slab sides, in most cases covering the whole width of lower wrist, even on my 7 3/4. It has grown markedly worse with the latest 21mm bracelets with their clasps looking like an appendage from Marvel’s Iron Man franchise.

Wearing a 5 digit SEL bracelet after wearing a 2022 latest iteration is a huge comfort advantage in favor of the veteran design. The solidity of the 5 digit SEL bracelet is perfectly fine for a few decades of daily use. The pressed steel clasp, while less substantial than the cast variants, is perfectly serviceable and light, taking up just one third of the lower wrist real-estate compared to the newer 21mm clasps. It distinctly seems that Rolex went overkill in it’s plight to make a solid feeling watch.

Making things indestructible can sometimes be both a disadvantage and discomfort. The finesse is gone in today’s iterations. Instead, replaced by overzealous engineering and atomic bomb proof designs that have lost the delicacy of the older bracelets and clasps.

What say other TRF members? Does anyone wear back-to-back contemporary with neo-vintage and not feel Rolex went too far solving a problem that nobody had?

Opposite view for me. Rolex DEFINITELY solved a problem I had.

I owned and loved my 5 digit Sub. It was my daily watch for almost 10 years. I sold it about 8 years ago. Once I tried on the Glidelock clasp, I knew I could never go back to the old style bracelet/clasp. The GL is EXACTLY what I want/need in a clasp - easy to adjust on the fly. Sure, it's a thicker clasp, but that's a tradeoff I am happy to make.

Maybe my wrists are weird, but they are constantly expanding/contracting during any given day, based on my activity level, environmental changes, etc. I find myself adjusting the clasp on my 124060 several times a day, every day, for ultimate comfort. It is wonderful to be able to do so.

With the 16610, I had to size it too large just so it wouldn't become way too small for me as my wrist expanded during the day.

[htc8p]

Current Rolex clasps are solid quality but the design is faulty. I have had multiple watches with jamming parts. The flimsy bendy metal sheet causes it. Screws getting stuck in the clasp.

I don’t experience these on the double folding double release clasps


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ROlesorusLEX]

Far and away for me, the Crownclasp on my DateJust 36 and DayDate 36 are the best clasps in the line. They are unobtrusive and just work. The bracelet is uninterrupted and beautiful. Shame they stopped it on the DJ.

I love my sports watches with the larger clasps (Sub, GMT), but the Crownclasp is a jewel.

Sent from my NE2215 using Tapatalk

[Emery]

My 14060’s tuna can bracelet has a lot of old-world charm, but my 124270’s bracelet feels better in every way imo.

[samuel019]

I like and dislike things from both.

Love the size on a 5 digit better than a 6 digit

Love the sturdiness on a 6 digit better than a 5 digit

Love the ability to make a size adjustment on a 6. Dislike I can’t on a 5 as easy

Love how the crown is on a 6. Dislike how it can polished away on a 5

All of the above is in regards to SS on divers. Subs and SeaDwellers. All other SS models are fine and PM models I have zero issues on 6 digits.

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by samuel019

I like and dislike things from both.

Love the size on a 5 digit better than a 6 digit

Love the sturdiness on a 6 digit better than a 5 digit

Love the ability to make a size adjustment on a 6. Dislike I can’t on a 5 as easy

Love how the crown is on a 6. Dislike how it can polished away on a 5

All of the above is in regards to SS on divers. Subs and SeaDwellers. All other SS models are fine and PM models I have zero issues on 6 digits.

Thanks for the concise analysis and opinions

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by samuel019

I like and dislike things from both.

Love the size on a 5 digit better than a 6 digit

Love the sturdiness on a 6 digit better than a 5 digit

Love the ability to make a size adjustment on a 6. Dislike I can’t on a 5 as easy

Love how the crown is on a 6. Dislike how it can polished away on a 5

All of the above is in regards to SS on divers. Subs and SeaDwellers. All other SS models are fine and PM models I have zero issues on 6 digits.

I’m exactly the same Anthony

I’ll add that as my watch journey moves along, comfort on the wrist takes over most. There’s no denying (for me) that the 5 digits have that over their modern counterparts.

That’s not to say I can’t find a comfortable fit with the 6 digits, but overall I’d say the 5 digits were better in that regard, in part due to being lighter overall. YMMV

[Ketler]

The new clasps and bracelets are fine…But I find my 93150 and 93160 much more comfortable.

[AAVDB]

Same here! I just got the newest Sub, and it's even bigger than my other sub that is previous model. (I somehow think the older ceramic wears nicer as well)

But wearing my Tudor BB58 is more easy on the wrist than both submariners. Also my Yachtmaster wears like a dream as well. You are maybe right that they went to far, but mostly on the glidelock.

[77T]

For active sportsfolk the newer bulletproof clasps make sense.

But for daily use the tuna cans are so light and capable. Their only drawback is blade arc and “click tight” are intermarried. But over time one can learn how to resolve any overly loose clasp action.

This one has a great light feeling bracelet.




But then I don this new one and it’s so heavily shod…




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Newt]

I'm with the "new bracelet" crowd. I really love the new machined leaves, and the way the clasp itself isn't as sharp and sits a bit off the wrist. The old ones always seemed to almost feel like they were cutting into me as my wrist expanded. I tried adding easylink to an older clasp, and it helps, but I've also purchased 3 modern bracelets for 5-digit watches(which I largely prefer to 6 digit sports models).

[inadeje]

Since it appears I’m not emphasizing my point perhaps an image can replace a thousand words?

[Meyrin]

Originally Posted by inadeje

Since it appears I’m not emphasizing my point perhaps an image can replace a thousand words?

Oh yes, a picture can indeed sometimes say more than a thousand words! I love the bracelet and clasp on my old 14060 Submariner, and I´ve had no problems with it after wearing the watch nearly every day for 27 years. It´s extremely comfortable. But to be fair, I´ve not yet had the chance to try the new 6-digit bracelets...

[Boopie]

I am definitely not a fan of the clasp on my 5-digit Datejust.