Coming from Omega, why are Rolex bands so dainty?

[Thuilln]

Re: weight vs quality
My Tag Aquaracer was a LOT heavier than my Sub, and hell wasn't it a better watch...!

[jinikari01]

Originally Posted by Zanotti

While looking at a BLRO or BLNR to add to my collection, I wore my Aqua Terra to the store to look. I was surprised that the Rolex band by comparison is much narrower and thinner.

It seems like a beefy watch with a dainty band. Why?

Is it weight, style, comfort?

A rather surprising result when looking at the watches in person was the weight difference of the bands vs the heads.

Z

I know what you mean and I felt the same way at first and I still think band/bracelet width is not proportional to the entire design of SS sport models.

However, I do feel with recent 2017 SD43 is where Rolex upgraded and made the watch proportion much more balanced.

[jnkay]

The 6-digit oyster bracelets are notably thin from front to back (not referring to side-side). While comfortable, I think they are a bit too thin. The 5-digit Yacht Master and late 5-digit full-gold sports models had thicker bracelets that IMHO look more substantial and preferable and just as comfortable.

[locutus49]

Calling a Rolex dainty compared to Omega is offensive. Trigger warning, I'm going to my safe place and play with my stuffed animals now.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by locutus49

Calling a Rolex dainty compared to Omega is offensive. Trigger warning, I'm going to my safe place and play with my stuffed animals now.

My safe place is actually my room with my Rolex Watches!!!

[LuminousMaximus]

There's a reason you came from Omega, and its all about perspective...

Would you use the Queen Mary to go on a deep sea fishing trip?

So you see, it's not that the ROLEX hands are dainty, it's that the Omega Hands are Gi-Normous

I have always felt that they were the Achilles Heel, of Omega Hands...

Save for the Sword Hands

[Seanken]

In the last nine months I have bought brand new rolex ss subc and an Omega seamaster. I will be selling the seamaster because the bracelet in comparison to the sub is uncomfortable. I will say that the omega micro adjustment is easier and faster.

[Hands90]

Originally Posted by Seanken

In the last nine months I have bought brand new rolex ss subc and an Omega seamaster. I will be selling the seamaster because the bracelet in comparison to the sub is uncomfortable. I will say that the omega micro adjustment is easier and faster.

Agreed. I like both adjustments. Omega is faster and easier but the oyster bracelet is really fantastic.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by Hands90

Agreed. I like both adjustments. Omega is faster and easier but the oyster bracelet is really fantastic.

Try the DSSD version of the GlideLock. That best micro adjustment out there IMO. Wish it would've made it to the new 126600

[Hands90]

Originally Posted by locutus49

Calling a Rolex dainty compared to Omega is offensive. Trigger warning, I'm going to my safe place and play with my stuffed animals now.

I expected more of a response but you guys are too smart.

[KBM]

I've yet to come accross a better bracelet than the current oyster + glidelock combination. Granted, I don't own any APs yet, which seems to be the end all standard for bracelets.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by kauebm

I've yet to come accross a better bracelet than the current oyster + glidelock combination. Granted, I don't own any APs yet, which seems to be the end all standard for bracelets.

Agreed

I've owned an AP Royal Oak, that was moved towards increasing my PP collection. The bracelet finishing was amazing. But, IMO at least, it doesn't/didn't beat the simple luxury and utility of a SS brushed Oyster bracelet with Glidelock. I like that I don't need to overly worry about scraping the finish of my Oyster brushed. Different bracelets, but Oyster beats it IMO for my needs and probably the mass majority of the watch buying public.

[asiparks]

I don't think there are many watches with "uncomfortable" bracelets, I'd describe the Oyster bracelet as unexcitingly functional.
I think Blancpain's X71, AP's RO and VC Overseas bracelets feel and look better, and are better finished than Rolex's
From an innovation point of view, IWC make extremely good bracelets, with the smart sizing/easy link removal system and push button micro sizing clasps, as do Tudor, with their spring loaded, ceramic BB'd Pelagos band.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Zanotti

While looking at a BLRO or BLNR to add to my collection, I wore my Aqua Terra to the store to look. I was surprised that the Rolex band by comparison is much narrower and thinner.

It seems like a beefy watch with a dainty band. Why?

Is it weight, style, comfort?

A rather surprising result when looking at the watches in person was the weight difference of the bands vs the heads.

Z

Eight posts in almost 3.5 years and all posted in 2017. What happened? This seems almost trollish in nature.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Eight posts in almost 3.5 years and all posted in 2017. What happened? This seems almost trollish in nature.

Perhaps the Omega house account

[hsm]

I really don't feel the need to analyse watch straps, rolex or other,

mine feels totally solid, looks great, its really not something I worry about,

if they are good enough for roger, they are good enough for me.

[landroverking]

Been wearing Rolex since 1978. In all that time I had one Oyster bracelet break.
And that was a spring bar on the clasp, yet the watch didn't fall off.

[gregmoeck]

Omega has some great bracelets but I don't think they compare to some such as milgauss and the new explorer. I just love the milgauss feel, not a fan of the new buckles on subs, too bulky

[vanyir]

I have had my Explorer 216570 for just over a month. My first Rolex. I too thought the bracelet was small coming from wearing mostly Breitlings, but I have grown accustomed to it and the comfort and quality are without question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bigblu10]

OP, stick with your Omega. Rolex is not for everyone, simple.

[peterpl]

If the Op tried on these watches and called them dainty and cheap well then thats a different story. I thought he was referring to 5 digits and SS models.

That Plat Daytona is like 300 grams. Heavier than most APs and larger watches you cant call that dainty and cheap feeling thats for sure.

[Zanotti]

Originally Posted by peterpl

If the Op tried on these watches and called them dainty and cheap well then thats a different story. I thought he was referring to 5 digits and SS models.

That Plat Daytona is like 300 grams. Heavier than most APs and larger watches you cant call that dainty and cheap feeling thats for sure.

I said they were smaller than the Omega. I never referred to them as cheap.

You guys are too defensive.

I asked a legit question: Other brands use heavier and more solid feeling bands than Rolex. I asked why? You all referred to failure prone and cheap, I only asked why.

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by Zanotti

I asked a legit question: Other brands use heavier and more solid feeling bands than Rolex. I asked why? You all referred to failure prone and cheap, I only asked why.

Why? Well, Rolex used the same style of band that some describe as "rattly" and "tinny" and consider to be otherwise "cheap" or "inferior" for decades. Rolex used this design because it had proven to be durable, comfortable, easy to adjust and relatively inexpensive to fix if necessary. The fact that the design was used for decades is a testament to its superior design and quality. It's that simple.

Personally, I love the design. Simple, yet it does the job and I never grow tired of looking at the Rolex logo stamped into the steel.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by Zanotti

I said they were smaller than the Omega. I never referred to them as cheap.

You guys are too defensive.

I asked a legit question: Other brands use heavier and more solid feeling bands than Rolex. I asked why? You all referred to failure prone and cheap, I only asked why.

You referred to them though as dainty, which they really are not, which is why some members may have responded as is.

Smaller is associated with the definition of "dainty", but so is delicateness, and Rolex bracelets have never been delicate. Dainty, may have been a poor choice for description.

Are Rolex bracelets, typically more slender or perhaps svelte?

I'd agree there, but far from dainty nor delicate by any means.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by 904VT

You referred to them though as dainty, which they really are not, which is why some members may have responded as is.

Smaller is associated with the definition of "dainty", but so is delicateness, and Rolex bracelets have never been delicate. Dainty, may have been a poor choice for description.

Are Rolex bracelets, typically more slender or perhaps svelte?

I'd agree there, but far from dainty nor delicate by any means.

Yes, dainty is provocative and perjorative and OP got the kind of response it deserved, no backtracking.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by Zanotti

I said they were smaller than the Omega. I never referred to them as cheap.

You guys are too defensive.

I asked a legit question: Other brands use heavier and more solid feeling bands than Rolex. I asked why? You all referred to failure prone and cheap, I only asked why.

How big is your wrist size? Mine is 8 inches, and the oyster bracelet is anything but "dainty" which sounds like something to describe a small womens watch. The oyster bracelet has been around for many decades. One of the best designed watch bracelets on Earth, IMO.

[KrismanX]

You should get something with a little more heft...



good luck

[Boothroyd]

I do prefer Rolex to the "dainty" resale value of the Omega brand, in general.

[carlhaluss]

The simple answer is that a watch does not have to be large to be worn by a real man.