ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Tudor66 · 18 April 2013, 03:43 PM

Yes, I know there are newer, technical superior bracelets out there, but I am using the 93150 bracelets exclusively as I find them to be superior...!

I've purchased 5 - 10 leather straps for my Submariners and GMT's. Every time I think I like the look of the leather strap, the 93150 goes back on and I reminded that my Subs and GMT's always look better on the stainless steel brace...

So I guess I can't commit to a alternative bracelet on my SS watches..., anyone else going through this...

Clay · 18 April 2013, 04:10 PM

I agree...The 93150 (and 93160) are fabulous and grossly under rated...
I wear a NATO now and then but you can't beat the Bracelets...

Vincent65 · 18 April 2013, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tudor66

Yes, I know there are newer, technical superior bracelets out there, but I am using the 93150 bracelets exclusively as I find them to be superior...!

I've purchased 5 - 10 leather straps for my Submariners and GMT's. Every time I think I like the look of the leather strap, the 93150 goes back on and I reminded that my Subs and GMT's always look better on the stainless steel brace...

So I guess I can't commit to a alternative bracelet on my SS watches..., anyone else going through this...

Strap-makers take full advantage of this syndrome (Got-Rolex-But-Need-To-Mess-With-It-Constantly). I've done the same (mostly NATOs), and still prefer the metal!

mr_gray · 18 April 2013, 05:41 PM

I'm with you. Pre buying a rolex I didn't like the bracelets. Had thoughts of putting my new sub on a NATO or something. Got the tools etc and then changed out bracelet for NATO and just didn't like it. Never thought it would happen but I like these bracelets and they might be the best thing to use with these watches. That said I see some great natos and other straps on this site and I think they look great for the vintage especially. But yes. I try the strap and go back because what can beat it?

jolimont · 18 April 2013, 06:20 PM

tin can or not, you know they can take a beating

swish77 · 19 April 2013, 12:35 AM

Love the 93150 bracelets! They're reliable workhorses. And they look great, too. Much prefer them to the newer "better" Rolex bracelets. But then again, I'm the type of guy who prefers a tin-can 1973 BWW 2002 model over a new 3-series. Go figure.

ecsub44 · 19 April 2013, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swish77

Love the 93150 bracelets! They're reliable workhorses. And they look great, too. Much prefer them to the newer "better" Rolex bracelets. But then again, I'm the type of guy who prefers a tin-can 1973 BWW 2002 model over a new 3-series. Go figure.

Solo118 · 19 April 2013, 01:58 AM

At one time I felt I could not stand the tuna any longer. I upgraded and truly appreciate the tuna can.

For what's its worth the 16610 was the easiest watch to wear for me while the 116610 was a bit complicated with all the micro adjustments I did throughout the day.

Long live the tuna cans!!

jdk123 · 19 April 2013, 02:26 AM

Can someone kindly enumerate the difference between 93150 bracelet vs the 93250?

Solo118 · 19 April 2013, 02:29 AM

I think just a lack of SEL (93250 is the newer of the two)

JP Chestnut · 19 April 2013, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swish77

Love the 93150 bracelets! They're reliable workhorses. And they look great, too. Much prefer them to the newer "better" Rolex bracelets. But then again, I'm the type of guy who prefers a tin-can 1973 BWW 2002 model over a new 3-series. Go figure.

If we're talking just about looks, the old style clasps are much better looking than the newer larger versions. They are much more harmonious in design with the bracelets.

hitman23 · 19 April 2013, 02:37 AM

Have to disagree. The old bracelet/clasps were comfortable to wear, but the newer ones look better to me.

JP Chestnut · 19 April 2013, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitman23

Have to disagree. The old bracelet/clasps were comfortable to wear, but the newer ones look better to me.

I'm the exact opposite! Older better looking and newer more comfortable (mostly due to the additional removable links). Really though, I don't see any visual difference between the bracelets and end links, it's all the clasps.

I am happy we have options.

Solo118 · 19 April 2013, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP Chestnut

I'm the exact opposite! Older better looking and newer more comfortable (mostly due to the additional removable links). Really though, I don't see any visual difference between the bracelets and end links, it's all the clasps.

I am happy we have options.

I agree its all in the clasp as I don't notice the difference in bracelets being hollow or solid.

That being said the new clasps are cool and all but the old style gets the job done as well. The welding on the new clasp still bothers me a bit.

For some reason I loved the clasp on the Dayton a before the update a few years ago. It wasn't a tuna can, but wasn't the updated style either. It worked well, and looked modern.

mcavana · 19 April 2013, 07:51 AM

It took me buying 3 different leather bands to figure out the bracelet is simply better.

Nato though is a different story.. In some situations it can actually be more comfortable then the bracelet... and more appropriate for certain activities too...

cop414 · 19 April 2013, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolimont

tin can or not, you know they can take a beating

In total agreement. I love my "older" style bracelet and clasp. Here's to old school!

godowning · 19 April 2013, 12:06 PM

Also like the 93150, but the 93250 is a step up. No rattle.

18 April 2013, 03:43 PM	#1
Tudor66 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Real Name: Al Location: California, USA Watch: GMT- Pepsi Posts: 3,462	93150 Bracelet is simply supreme... Yes, I know there are newer, technical superior bracelets out there, but I am using the 93150 bracelets exclusively as I find them to be superior...! I've purchased 5 - 10 leather straps for my Submariners and GMT's. Every time I think I like the look of the leather strap, the 93150 goes back on and I reminded that my Subs and GMT's always look better on the stainless steel brace... So I guess I can't commit to a alternative bracelet on my SS watches..., anyone else going through this... __________________ -NAWCC Member

19 April 2013, 02:26 AM	#9
jdk123 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Seattle, WA Watch: 16610LV Posts: 88	Can someone kindly enumerate the difference between 93150 bracelet vs the 93250? __________________ "Of all losses, time is the most irrecuperable, for it could never be redeemed." -King Henry VIII

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

18 April 2013, 04:10 PM	#2
Clay Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Up a tree Posts: 4,001	I agree...The 93150 (and 93160) are fabulous and grossly under rated... I wear a NATO now and then but you can't beat the Bracelets...

18 April 2013, 05:41 PM	#4
mr_gray "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Real Name: steve Location: sydney Watch: SMURF Posts: 653	I'm with you. Pre buying a rolex I didn't like the bracelets. Had thoughts of putting my new sub on a NATO or something. Got the tools etc and then changed out bracelet for NATO and just didn't like it. Never thought it would happen but I like these bracelets and they might be the best thing to use with these watches. That said I see some great natos and other straps on this site and I think they look great for the vintage especially. But yes. I try the strap and go back because what can beat it?

18 April 2013, 06:20 PM	#5
jolimont "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Real Name: Will Location: land of oz Watch: sundial Posts: 2,219	tin can or not, you know they can take a beating

19 April 2013, 12:35 AM	#6
swish77 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Aaron Location: CT/NYC Watch: ing the time! Posts: 7,003	Love the 93150 bracelets! They're reliable workhorses. And they look great, too. Much prefer them to the newer "better" Rolex bracelets. But then again, I'm the type of guy who prefers a tin-can 1973 BWW 2002 model over a new 3-series. Go figure.

19 April 2013, 01:58 AM	#8
Solo118 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Watch: Daytona Posts: 6,092	At one time I felt I could not stand the tuna any longer. I upgraded and truly appreciate the tuna can. For what's its worth the 16610 was the easiest watch to wear for me while the 116610 was a bit complicated with all the micro adjustments I did throughout the day. Long live the tuna cans!!

19 April 2013, 02:29 AM	#10
Solo118 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Watch: Daytona Posts: 6,092	I think just a lack of SEL (93250 is the newer of the two)

19 April 2013, 02:37 AM	#12
hitman23 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: ny Posts: 765	Have to disagree. The old bracelet/clasps were comfortable to wear, but the newer ones look better to me.

19 April 2013, 07:51 AM	#15
mcavana Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Real Name: Mikey Location: Jacksonville, fl Watch: 16610 Posts: 247	It took me buying 3 different leather bands to figure out the bracelet is simply better. Nato though is a different story.. In some situations it can actually be more comfortable then the bracelet... and more appropriate for certain activities too...

19 April 2013, 12:06 PM	#17
godowning "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Real Name: Greg Location: New York Watch: Rolex Posts: 514	Also like the 93150, but the 93250 is a step up. No rattle.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)