ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Baptistman · 3 June 2008, 02:13 AM

Ok guys, devils advocate here. The Sub date and Sub ND are under the microscope, Having experienced both, my observation were that the Sub Dates bracelet felt more solid due to the SEL, the actual divers extension bit are exactly the same apart from the extra links that lock into the clasp on the Date version. However, the dial on the ND version imo is superior in that i am quite surprised how much the cyclops interferes with the view.

The ND version also seems to fit a little more comfortably. Now the big question. Regarding the 14060M, costing £2790 in the UK, most of us accept the bracelet as it is, but should we, I no it's stood the test of time, but when off the wrist, does feel quite light and a little flimsy yet we know its not. Taking our "Love of Rolex" heads off for a bit, is it acceptable for this type of braclelet to be on a £2790 watch. Or is that part of Rolex's appeal, in that the braclelet is not a gimic, and does the job well and reliably.

meloncap78 · 3 June 2008, 02:20 AM

I thought this too when I first purchased my LV. The case itself is a monster of solidity with substantial weight, but the bracelet seems a bit "clunky". I will say that the bracelet HAS withstood the test of time... apparently; although fairly light it seems to be well engineered to take a beating. There is no real way to break the hollow center links. They are a solid loop of 904L. The only weak point I could foresee would be the pins but not too many people break those either. I have worn my LV every day since I got it about 3 months ago and not one scratch yet. I will say, yes, it is a light bracelet but seems to serve the purpose it was intended to without incident.

cmcm3 · 3 June 2008, 02:21 AM

The bracelet is one thing that puts me off the older Rolexes. It just doesn't inspire any confidence, and because of this I dont think its good enough for a watch of this value. The reason I think that is because probably 99% of people in the market for such watches do not come on TRF or other such specialist forums, know little about the history and durability of the bracelet, and just want to buy a nice watch and get on with it.

I am lucky enough that I have recently joined here and my education has begun, but if I hadn't and had just gone out and tried one on, I would be thinking "what is this all about? £3k for a watch with a bracelet that feels like it might as well be made of cheese!?!?!"

The SEL bracelets really are a necessary step forward, and the new GMTIIc bracelet (shiny bits excepted) is a pretty good indication of the level that should be expected.

cmcm3 · 3 June 2008, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meloncap78

I thought this too when I first purchased my LV. The case itself is a monster of solidity with substantial weight, but the bracelet seems a bit "clunky". I will say that the bracelet HAS withstood the test of time... apparently; although fairly light it seems to be well engineered to take a beating. There is no real way to break the hollow center links. They are a solid loop of 904L. The only weak point I could foresee would be the pins but not too many people break those either. I have worn my LV every day since I got it about 3 months ago and not one scratch yet. I will say, yes, it is a light bracelet but seems to serve the purpose it was intended to without incident.

Meloncap, I think the bracelet on the LV is improved over that found on the ND Sub? Due to SELs? Correct me if Im wrong. Im pretty much 98% happy with my LV's bracelet, its more the older style bracelets that concern me.

Baptistman · 3 June 2008, 02:24 AM

Interesting points you both make, so if the hollow links are "one continuous loop of 914L steel," does this mean that the metal is drilled to make it hollow?

meloncap78 · 3 June 2008, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmcm3

Meloncap, I think the bracelet on the LV is improved over that found on the ND Sub? Due to SELs? Correct me if Im wrong. Im pretty much 98% happy with my LV's bracelet, its more the older style bracelets that concern me.

You would be correct. I love the bracelet on my LV. Still the hollow center links make it feel insubstantial when off the wrist, even though we know it's a beast.

SPACE-DWELLER · 3 June 2008, 03:02 AM

Imho, knowing that the non SEL bracelet has stood the test of time many times, I think that the bracelet is fine, even on a watch of that price.

3 June 2008, 02:13 AM	#1
Baptistman "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Real Name: Jon Location: UK Posts: 2,405	Sub Date and ND under scrutiny Ok guys, devils advocate here. The Sub date and Sub ND are under the microscope, Having experienced both, my observation were that the Sub Dates bracelet felt more solid due to the SEL, the actual divers extension bit are exactly the same apart from the extra links that lock into the clasp on the Date version. However, the dial on the ND version imo is superior in that i am quite surprised how much the cyclops interferes with the view. The ND version also seems to fit a little more comfortably. Now the big question. Regarding the 14060M, costing £2790 in the UK, most of us accept the bracelet as it is, but should we, I no it's stood the test of time, but when off the wrist, does feel quite light and a little flimsy yet we know its not. Taking our "Love of Rolex" heads off for a bit, is it acceptable for this type of braclelet to be on a £2790 watch. Or is that part of Rolex's appeal, in that the braclelet is not a gimic, and does the job well and reliably. __________________ Whatever the watch, it's your wrist, it speaks to you, enjoy it

3 June 2008, 02:24 AM	#5
Baptistman "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Real Name: Jon Location: UK Posts: 2,405	Interesting points you both make, so if the hollow links are "one continuous loop of 914L steel," does this mean that the metal is drilled to make it hollow? __________________ Whatever the watch, it's your wrist, it speaks to you, enjoy it

3 June 2008, 03:02 AM	#7
SPACE-DWELLER "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Real Name: Bo Location: Denmark Watch: Rolex, of course! Posts: 22,436	Imho, knowing that the non SEL bracelet has stood the test of time many times, I think that the bracelet is fine, even on a watch of that price. __________________ With kind regards, Bo LocTite 221: The Taming Of The Screw...

3 June 2008, 02:20 AM	#2
meloncap78 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Real Name: Joshua Location: Syracuse, NY Watch: LV C Posts: 2,204	I thought this too when I first purchased my LV. The case itself is a monster of solidity with substantial weight, but the bracelet seems a bit "clunky". I will say that the bracelet HAS withstood the test of time... apparently; although fairly light it seems to be well engineered to take a beating. There is no real way to break the hollow center links. They are a solid loop of 904L. The only weak point I could foresee would be the pins but not too many people break those either. I have worn my LV every day since I got it about 3 months ago and not one scratch yet. I will say, yes, it is a light bracelet but seems to serve the purpose it was intended to without incident.

3 June 2008, 02:21 AM	#3
cmcm3 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Scotland Posts: 1,112	The bracelet is one thing that puts me off the older Rolexes. It just doesn't inspire any confidence, and because of this I dont think its good enough for a watch of this value. The reason I think that is because probably 99% of people in the market for such watches do not come on TRF or other such specialist forums, know little about the history and durability of the bracelet, and just want to buy a nice watch and get on with it. I am lucky enough that I have recently joined here and my education has begun, but if I hadn't and had just gone out and tried one on, I would be thinking "what is this all about? £3k for a watch with a bracelet that feels like it might as well be made of cheese!?!?!" The SEL bracelets really are a necessary step forward, and the new GMTIIc bracelet (shiny bits excepted) is a pretty good indication of the level that should be expected.

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