ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Bond's First Watch · 6 February 2015, 07:29 AM

I'm looking at buying a 2003/4 Rolex Explorer, but the bracelet seems really light, tinny, and cheap feeling. It just doesn't even seem to compare to the excellent workmanship of Sub bracelets.

Thoughts?

c.capt · 6 February 2015, 07:35 AM

The older bracelets were not as "robust" as the newer ones if that's what you're comparing it to.

4smanderson · 6 February 2015, 07:42 AM

That's a fact. I recently got the 214270 and the bracelet is MUCH higher quality than the 114270. Night and day difference!

Brushpup · 6 February 2015, 07:44 AM

Yep, they are different, but they will outlast most owners.

FTX I · 6 February 2015, 07:44 AM

Old bracelets are tried and tested and will do the job pretty well, but if you like heavier bracelets you need to own the latest models.

GradyPhilpott · 6 February 2015, 08:11 AM

The older style clasps only had a 60 year history of excellent service.

I like the new bracelets, but I also like the older bracelets.

Before the change, people used to say that for $5000, a Rolex should have a much nicer bracelet.

Rolex must have heard them, because they designed nicer bracelets, but now the watches that used to cost $5000 now cost $7500.

When I wear my BLNR or my DJ with Super Jubilee, I'm no more aware of the bracelet than I am when I wear my 14060M or my 114270.

I'm happy with the old and the new styles.

anothernewphone · 6 February 2015, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

When I wear my BLNR or my DJ with Super Jubilee, I'm no more aware of the bracelet than I am when I wear my 14060M or my 114270.

Try going from a 1675 to a 116610 and tell me there's no difference. The newer bracelets "feel" better, but they are also more comfortable for me.

GradyPhilpott · 6 February 2015, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anothernewphone

Try going from a 1675 to a 116610 and tell me there's no difference. The newer bracelets "feel" better, but they are also more comfortable for me.

I'm glad to know how you feel, but that's not how I feel.

Yes, I know there's a difference.

I'm not going to go out and buy a 116610 though for a new bracelet when the bracelet on my 14060M is just fine and I happen to like the 14060M about a million times better than the 116610.

Cru Jones · 6 February 2015, 08:24 AM

If it's heavier, more complex and does the same job, it must be better. ;-)

Eric Chan · 6 February 2015, 09:05 AM

Love the new bracelets. There is no comparison. The increase in price is worth it for me as it is not just the bracelet that has been improved in many of the watches like the Sub and GMT.

rmfnla · 6 February 2015, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

If it's heavier, more complex and does the same job, it must be better. ;-)

Don't forget more expensive...

subtona · 6 February 2015, 09:21 AM

Love the older bracelets.

MP5 · 6 February 2015, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anothernewphone

Try going from a 1675 to a 116610 and tell me there's no difference. The newer bracelets "feel" better, but they are also more comfortable for me.

There is a different, nothing feels or rallies like a folded link or rivet. Some like personality and charm, others like precision engineering. Nothing wrong with either

Boothroyd · 6 February 2015, 09:25 AM

I only have models with the newer bracelets, including the Explorer 214270, but I would in no way be dissuaded from buying a vintage model based on the bracelet alone.

Tempusfugitus · 6 February 2015, 09:25 AM

I have examples of both and like the lightness of the old. The new style watches seem to have too much inertia on the wrist. New style are more comfortable against the skin.

Old Expat Beast · 6 February 2015, 10:03 AM

I have both and prefer the old ones (with oysterlock/fliplock clasp) for their lightness and comfort. Never heard about one breaking.

Jhquek · 6 February 2015, 11:02 AM

The new bracelets feel more substantial and sturdy
The old stamped bracelets with hollowed links are known to hold out well for years.
Compared to folded and riveted versions. But those are another story by themselves.

Only years down we'll truly tell on how effective are the new bracelets.
They are not even a decade old iirc

CabbageHead · 6 February 2015, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bond's First Watch

I'm looking at buying a 2003/4 Rolex Explorer, but the bracelet seems really light, tinny, and cheap feeling. It just doesn't even seem to compare to the excellent workmanship of Sub bracelets.

Thoughts?

A. True

However they have stood the test of time.

tonyedmunds · 6 February 2015, 11:52 AM

Have to agree the "old" style oysterlock bracelets are comfortable and durable.
The watch design language including the new heavy engineering approach to bracelets, is a very recent trend which I suspect will come and go.

anothernewphone · 6 February 2015, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP5

There is a different, nothing feels or rallies like a folded link or rivet. Some like personality and charm, others like precision engineering. Nothing wrong with either

Yepp, I never said anything was wrong with either, never said either was better, just scoffing at the idea of not being able to tell the difference on the wrist between new and old.

Bond's First Watch · 6 February 2015, 01:51 PM

Bond's First Watch · 6 February 2015, 01:53 PM

Nycturbovr6 · 6 February 2015, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c.capt

The older bracelets were not as "robust" as the newer ones if that's what you're comparing it to.

jshepard · 6 February 2015, 03:51 PM

I used to think the old bracelets were crap, but between the newer bracelet of my 214270 and the older bracelet or my 16710, the 16710 feels more comfortable and like it molds into the curvature of my wrist, while newer bracelet feels a bit rigid, however the easylink clasp is one of the most brilliant inventions!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jason71 · 6 February 2015, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

If it's heavier, more complex and does the same job, it must be better. ;-)

Johny · 6 February 2015, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

If it's heavier, more complex and does the same job, it must be better. ;-)

Jake B · 6 February 2015, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bond's First Watch

I'm not sure if it's just that it's worn right down...but that crown doesn't look like a Rolex crown. Same with those endlinks on the bracelet.

You can look here at an article Jocke did to see what that stuff normally looks like...
http://www.watchwallpapers.com/exprev.htm

116680 · 6 February 2015, 09:13 PM

Wearing sub on the old bracelet today and was wearing the SD-C yesterday on the new. I agree with the comment above about rigidity; the old one is definitely more comfortable PROVIDED that you can get the sizing exact. The way the larger glidelock clasp sticks out on the new one is marginally irritating, though offset by the fact it feels so beautifully constructed.

You could debate the pros and cons of both all day...oh...wait

datejusting · 7 February 2015, 12:26 AM

I have both the new and old and I think I prefer the old.

Bond's First Watch · 7 February 2015, 09:26 AM

I had a guy who worked at an AD take a look at the watch. The end links and crown are indeed authentic, but everything has had the shit polished out of it. They buffed down the sharp edges on the end links and the crown. Why oh why do people do this?

6 February 2015, 07:29 AM	#1
Bond's First Watch Banned Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Idaho Falls, ID Watch: Only the 114060 Posts: 380	Tinny bracelet on Explorer I'm looking at buying a 2003/4 Rolex Explorer, but the bracelet seems really light, tinny, and cheap feeling. It just doesn't even seem to compare to the excellent workmanship of Sub bracelets. Thoughts?

6 February 2015, 07:35 AM	#2
c.capt "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Chicago, IL Watch: Hulk Sub Posts: 683	The older bracelets were not as "robust" as the newer ones if that's what you're comparing it to. __________________ BALL EHC Airborne · EHC Black \| EBEL 1911 BTR Chrono \| GLASHÜTTE ORIGINAL Senator Navigator Panodate IWC Aquatimer 2000 \| OMEGA SMPc · SM PO 8500 · Speedmaster Apollo XI 35th · Speedmaster GSOTM ROLEX Datejust · Datejust II · Explorer II · Sea Dweller Ceramic 4000 · Submariner LVc \| TUDOR Black Shield

6 February 2015, 07:44 AM	#4
Brushpup "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Real Name: Patrick Location: Texas Watch: what I'm wearing Posts: 5,943	Yep, they are different, but they will outlast most owners. __________________ *TRFs "AFTER DARK" Bar & NightClub Patron-Founding Member* PClub # 10 74,592 The safest place for your watch is on your wrist.

6 February 2015, 08:11 AM	#6
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK047 Posts: 34,460	The older style clasps only had a 60 year history of excellent service. I like the new bracelets, but I also like the older bracelets. Before the change, people used to say that for $5000, a Rolex should have a much nicer bracelet. Rolex must have heard them, because they designed nicer bracelets, but now the watches that used to cost $5000 now cost $7500. When I wear my BLNR or my DJ with Super Jubilee, I'm no more aware of the bracelet than I am when I wear my 14060M or my 114270. I'm happy with the old and the new styles. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

6 February 2015, 09:05 AM	#10
Eric Chan "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Real Name: Eric Chan Location: Vancouver, BC CAN Watch: Day-Date 118238 Posts: 8,798	Love the new bracelets. There is no comparison. The increase in price is worth it for me as it is not just the bracelet that has been improved in many of the watches like the Sub and GMT. __________________ Official Member: 'Perpetual 30' Vegas International GTG 2016

6 February 2015, 07:42 AM	#3
4smanderson "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Real Name: Scott Location: Virginia Watch: 16710 (P serial) Posts: 84	That's a fact. I recently got the 214270 and the bracelet is MUCH higher quality than the 114270. Night and day difference!

6 February 2015, 07:44 AM	#5
FTX I "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Real Name: Flavio Location: N/A Posts: 14,654	Old bracelets are tried and tested and will do the job pretty well, but if you like heavier bracelets you need to own the latest models.

6 February 2015, 08:24 AM	#9
Cru Jones 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Paris, France Posts: 35,303	If it's heavier, more complex and does the same job, it must be better. ;-)

6 February 2015, 09:21 AM	#12
subtona "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: gus Location: East Coast Watch: APK & sometimes Y Posts: 26,601	Love the older bracelets. __________________

6 February 2015, 09:25 AM	#14
Boothroyd 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2011 Real Name: Daniel Location: Minneapolis, MN Watch: Wilsdorf(s) Posts: 10,259	I only have models with the newer bracelets, including the Explorer 214270, but I would in no way be dissuaded from buying a vintage model based on the bracelet alone.

6 February 2015, 09:25 AM	#15
Tempusfugitus "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: UK Watch: Sub 5513 Posts: 187	I have examples of both and like the lightness of the old. The new style watches seem to have too much inertia on the wrist. New style are more comfortable against the skin.

6 February 2015, 10:03 AM	#16
Old Expat Beast TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Adam Location: Far East Watch: Golden Tuna Posts: 28,826	I have both and prefer the old ones (with oysterlock/fliplock clasp) for their lightness and comfort. Never heard about one breaking.

6 February 2015, 11:02 AM	#17
Jhquek "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Singapore Posts: 177	The new bracelets feel more substantial and sturdy The old stamped bracelets with hollowed links are known to hold out well for years. Compared to folded and riveted versions. But those are another story by themselves. Only years down we'll truly tell on how effective are the new bracelets. They are not even a decade old iirc

6 February 2015, 11:52 AM	#19
tonyedmunds "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: UK Watch: 16700 and 14270 Posts: 49	Have to agree the "old" style oysterlock bracelets are comfortable and durable. The watch design language including the new heavy engineering approach to bracelets, is a very recent trend which I suspect will come and go.

6 February 2015, 01:51 PM	#21
Bond's First Watch Banned Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Idaho Falls, ID Watch: Only the 114060 Posts: 380

6 February 2015, 01:53 PM	#22
Bond's First Watch Banned Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Idaho Falls, ID Watch: Only the 114060 Posts: 380

6 February 2015, 03:51 PM	#24
jshepard "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: USA Watch: GMTII Posts: 1,180	I used to think the old bracelets were crap, but between the newer bracelet of my 214270 and the older bracelet or my 16710, the 16710 feels more comfortable and like it molds into the curvature of my wrist, while newer bracelet feels a bit rigid, however the easylink clasp is one of the most brilliant inventions! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

6 February 2015, 09:13 PM	#28
116680 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: London Posts: 214	Wearing sub on the old bracelet today and was wearing the SD-C yesterday on the new. I agree with the comment above about rigidity; the old one is definitely more comfortable PROVIDED that you can get the sizing exact. The way the larger glidelock clasp sticks out on the new one is marginally irritating, though offset by the fact it feels so beautifully constructed. You could debate the pros and cons of both all day...oh...wait

7 February 2015, 12:26 AM	#29
datejusting "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Real Name: Al Location: USA Watch: Rolex Posts: 1,153	I have both the new and old and I think I prefer the old.

7 February 2015, 09:26 AM	#30
Bond's First Watch Banned Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Idaho Falls, ID Watch: Only the 114060 Posts: 380	I had a guy who worked at an AD take a look at the watch. The end links and crown are indeed authentic, but everything has had the shit polished out of it. They buffed down the sharp edges on the end links and the crown. Why oh why do people do this?

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