ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

WARVET · 28 August 2010, 08:02 AM

I for one love the old clasp, My GMT II clasp provides a seamless transition on the inside of my wrist. I have not tried the New Sub bracelet, I'm sure it's a fine Rolex quality clasp.
For it seems the purpose of the clasp is to secure the bracelet on the wrist with the least amount of metal weight. It seems the old clasp does this very well. I expect to get 10 years use out of this bracelet before I have to find another. I have closely examined my stamped clasp and found it to be a high quality stamping that is very strong and difficult to break. I think people tend to be so familiar with this clasp they take it for granted the great job Rolex did with it. I'ts a free country, if you want to buy the new Sub I have no problem with that, I would probably buy one myself if I had the money. Just don't call my clasp flimsey, it doesn't need to be supersized

28 August 2010, 08:02 AM	#30
WARVET "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: Vincent Location: Louisiana Watch: 16710 Coke Posts: 448	I for one love the old clasp, My GMT II clasp provides a seamless transition on the inside of my wrist. I have not tried the New Sub bracelet, I'm sure it's a fine Rolex quality clasp. For it seems the purpose of the clasp is to secure the bracelet on the wrist with the least amount of metal weight. It seems the old clasp does this very well. I expect to get 10 years use out of this bracelet before I have to find another. I have closely examined my stamped clasp and found it to be a high quality stamping that is very strong and difficult to break. I think people tend to be so familiar with this clasp they take it for granted the great job Rolex did with it. I'ts a free country, if you want to buy the new Sub I have no problem with that, I would probably buy one myself if I had the money. Just don't call my clasp flimsey, it doesn't need to be supersized

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