ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

isolator · 5 September 2009, 04:05 PM

Who would like to see Rolex develop a wider (22mm, non-tapered) bracelet for future models (especially the sport models)?

1) Don't touch 'em

2) Yes, 22mm & non-tapered

3) Yes, 22mm, tapered to 20mm

The GMT Kid · 5 September 2009, 08:01 PM

I'm happy with the current bracelet width.

PhilM · 5 September 2009, 09:00 PM

Leave it original IMO

Nicko · 5 September 2009, 09:02 PM

No change please, why try to improve on perfection?

greekbum · 5 September 2009, 11:04 PM

No change

isolator · 6 September 2009, 07:05 AM

Thanks for the responses.
More votes please.

JJ Irani · 6 September 2009, 07:09 AM

The current 20 mm is fine with the 40 mm and 36 mm models; but the new 21 mm width is welcome with the new models......like the 41 mm DJ-II, DD-II and DSSD.

Cheers - JJ

isolator · 6 September 2009, 07:15 AM

JJ,
Thanks for taking the effort to measure with the dial calipers.
Small favor though....could you please double check that width again.
Perhaps the picture is off because it looks like their is a 1mm gap on the left side.
Thanks again.

JJ Irani · 6 September 2009, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isolator

JJ,
Thanks for taking the effort to measure with the dial calipers.
Small favor though....could you please double check that width again.
Perhaps the picture is off because it looks like their is a 1mm gap on the left side.
Thanks again.

Well, for starters.....I can't take credit for that picture 'cause it's not mine; but rest assured 100% that the lug width of the new DJ-II and DD-II are positively 21 mm!!

rkammer · 6 September 2009, 08:11 AM

I voted for the 22mm tapered to 20mm but really would have preferred a 4th option. I'd like to see the bracelet remain at 20mm but taper to 18 instead of 16. Also I'd prefer the links remain the same thickness instead of getting thinner as they get closer to the clasp. (3.9mm down to 2.8mm) I feel the bracelet is the weakest aspect of the great Rolex sport watches.

JJ Irani · 6 September 2009, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkammer

I voted for the 22mm tapered to 20mm but really would have preferred a 4th option. I'd like to see the bracelet remain at 20mm but taper to 18 instead of 16. Also I'd prefer the links remain the same thickness instead of getting thinner as they get closer to the clasp. (3.9mm down to 2.8mm) I feel the bracelet is the weakest aspect of the great Rolex sport watches.

Don't underestimate the strength of the Oyster bracelet. It's been time-proven over many decades and is one of the toughest out there.

Rest assured, an Oyster bracelet will take the weight of a 200 pound man suspended from it!!

sleddog · 6 September 2009, 08:16 AM

My vote is for a 22mm tapered to a 20mm!!

jameshe · 6 September 2009, 08:17 AM

Only on the deep sea

vjb.knife · 6 September 2009, 12:49 PM

I would like to see a wider bracelet with little or no taper on the new suprecased models like the GMTIIC and the Sub and the DSSD, especially. 22mm with no taper or only taper to 20mm would look a lot better on these watches, IMO.

Widening the space between the case lugs would thin them out some and give the watch more balance and look more like the older models, which have a nicer look.

I don't mind it too much on the GMTIIC and Sub but the DSSD is really out of proportion.

STEELINOX · 6 September 2009, 12:54 PM

luv the tuna can !

vjb.knife · 6 September 2009, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Rest assured, an Oyster bracelet will take the weight of a 200 pound man suspended from it!!

I believe the bracelet links would hold that weight, but not the spring pins to the watch case and especially the small spring pin connecting the bracelet to the clasp at the adjustment holes. I would have to see it to believe it.

STEELINOX · 6 September 2009, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vjb.knife

I would like to see a wider bracelet with little or no taper on the new suprecased models like the GMTIIC and the Sub and the DSSD, especially. 22mm with no taper or only taper to 20mm would look a lot better on these watches, IMO.

Widening the space between the case lugs would thin them out some and give the watch more balance and look more like the older models, which have a nicer look.

I don't mind it too much on the GMTIIC and Sub but the DSSD is really out of proportion.

Agree too Vince !

Wolfgang427 · 6 September 2009, 01:43 PM

Yes 22mm

The new Rolex model watches look oversized and the bracelets undersized on the over 40mm models.

CKLinLA · 6 September 2009, 02:41 PM

No way. Rolex should not follow the herd, but stick with good design not 'chase' meaningless size.

rkammer · 6 September 2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Don't underestimate the strength of the Oyster bracelet. It's been time-proven over many decades and is one of the toughest out there.

Rest assured, an Oyster bracelet will take the weight of a 200 pound man suspended from it!!

In using the word "weakest" I probably picked the wrong word, JJ. I didn't mean that the bracelet isn't strong enough. I just feel that for a 40mm sport/diver watch that costs what a Sub costs, the bracelet should be a bit more substantial looking and have a bit less taper from lugs to clasp.

Of course, you might judge from my comments that I'm also an Omega owner and much favor those bracelets as being more in tune with the style, quality and price with their respecctive watches. Having said that, I still love my Rolex 14060 and will soon also own a SeaDweller. I just think Rolex bracelets should be more substantial. Perhaps the new Oyster bracelets are the improvements that have been needed.

Watchdog · 6 September 2009, 03:27 PM

Why not give the consumer all options?

isolator · 6 September 2009, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Well, for starters.....I can't take credit for that picture 'cause it's not mine; but rest assured 100% that the lug width of the new DJ-II and DD-II are positively 21 mm!!

Thanks for the update.

springer · 6 September 2009, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilM

Leave it original IMO

X2, unless my wrist starts growing again.

JJ Irani · 6 September 2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by springer

X2, unless my wrist starts growing again.

That would depend on your nocturnal activities, buddy!!!

DadsWatch72 · 7 September 2009, 12:28 PM

I don't think we need new bracelets. I think Rolex needs to start making ORIGINAL bracelet designs for older watch models. And to start them off, I will buy the first 9315 hot off the press.

View Poll Results: Who would like a wider Rolex bracelet?
Don't touch the original	41	57.75%
Yes, 22mm, non- tapered	14	19.72%
Yes, 22mm, tapered to 20mm	16	22.54%
Voters: 71. You may not vote on this poll

5 September 2009, 04:05 PM	#1
isolator Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cheese country Posts: 130	Rolex bracelet width poll Who would like to see Rolex develop a wider (22mm, non-tapered) bracelet for future models (especially the sport models)? 1) Don't touch 'em 2) Yes, 22mm & non-tapered 3) Yes, 22mm, tapered to 20mm

5 September 2009, 11:04 PM	#5
greekbum "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Real Name: Nikos Location: Florida Watch: Rolex GMT 16750 Posts: 8,418	No change __________________ Follow Me On Instagram @nickgogas Original Owner ROLEX 16750 GMT Daily Wearer For Over 13,000 Days And Counting

6 September 2009, 07:09 AM	#7
JJ Irani Fondly Remembered Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: JJ Location: Auckland, NZ Watch: ALL SOLD!! Posts: 74,319	The current 20 mm is fine with the 40 mm and 36 mm models; but the new 21 mm width is welcome with the new models......like the 41 mm DJ-II, DD-II and DSSD. Cheers - JJ __________________ Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!! I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!

6 September 2009, 08:11 AM	#10
rkammer "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Central Florida Posts: 440	I'd like a 4th option I voted for the 22mm tapered to 20mm but really would have preferred a 4th option. I'd like to see the bracelet remain at 20mm but taper to 18 instead of 16. Also I'd prefer the links remain the same thickness instead of getting thinner as they get closer to the clasp. (3.9mm down to 2.8mm) I feel the bracelet is the weakest aspect of the great Rolex sport watches.

5 September 2009, 08:01 PM	#2
The GMT Kid Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: S.F. Peninsula Watch: what you say! Posts: 815	I'm happy with the current bracelet width.

5 September 2009, 09:00 PM	#3
PhilM "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Real Name: Phil Location: London Watch: Sea-Dweller Posts: 1,765	Leave it original IMO

5 September 2009, 09:02 PM	#4
Nicko Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Not here anymore Posts: 4,787	No change please, why try to improve on perfection?

6 September 2009, 07:05 AM	#6
isolator Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cheese country Posts: 130	Thanks for the responses. More votes please.

6 September 2009, 07:15 AM	#8
isolator Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cheese country Posts: 130	JJ, Thanks for taking the effort to measure with the dial calipers. Small favor though....could you please double check that width again. Perhaps the picture is off because it looks like their is a 1mm gap on the left side. Thanks again.

6 September 2009, 08:16 AM	#12
sleddog TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Rob Location: Nearby. Posts: 24,931	My vote is for a 22mm tapered to a 20mm!! __________________ He who wears a Rolex is always on time, even when late!! TRF's "After Dark" Bar & Nightclub Patron-Founding Member..

6 September 2009, 08:17 AM	#13
jameshe "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: James Location: UK Watch: AP ROC, SkyDweller Posts: 812	Only on the deep sea

6 September 2009, 12:49 PM	#14
vjb.knife Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Real Name: Vince Location: Pittsburgh, PA Watch: Rolex Sub & GMTIIC Posts: 626	I would like to see a wider bracelet and I would like to see a wider bracelet with little or no taper on the new suprecased models like the GMTIIC and the Sub and the DSSD, especially. 22mm with no taper or only taper to 20mm would look a lot better on these watches, IMO. Widening the space between the case lugs would thin them out some and give the watch more balance and look more like the older models, which have a nicer look. I don't mind it too much on the GMTIIC and Sub but the DSSD is really out of proportion.

6 September 2009, 12:54 PM	#15
STEELINOX 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Sink-O! Location: a praire in AZ Watch: ROLEX-less atm... Posts: 14,021	I wuf tuna ! luv the tuna can !

6 September 2009, 01:43 PM	#18
Wolfgang427 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Real Name: Wolfgang Location: New Jersey. Watch: Rolex Tudor Omega Posts: 5,592	Yes 22mm The new Rolex model watches look oversized and the bracelets undersized on the over 40mm models.

6 September 2009, 02:41 PM	#19
CKLinLA "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: KL Location: Los Angeles Watch: Explorer II Black Posts: 1,480	No way. Rolex should not follow the herd, but stick with good design not 'chase' meaningless size. __________________ Explorer II 1655; Day Date 1803; Submariner 14060; Deepsea Sea-Dweller 116660; 5-Digit Datejusts; Perpetual Date 1500 and 15000; Pelagos FXD M25707B; Omega Dynamic 'Targa Florio' 5291.51.07; 'Good Planet' GMT 232.30.44.22.03.001; Planet Ocean 215.30.40.20.03.002; Zenith Chronomaster Original 03.3200.3600/22.M3200.

6 September 2009, 03:27 PM	#21
Watchdog "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Junkyard Dog Location: The Doghouse Watch: I can't tell time Posts: 6,822	Why not give the consumer all options?

7 September 2009, 12:28 PM	#25
DadsWatch72 Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: USA Watch: DRSD 1665 #3551XXX Posts: 2,401	I don't think we need new bracelets. I think Rolex needs to start making ORIGINAL bracelet designs for older watch models. And to start them off, I will buy the first 9315 hot off the press.

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