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

Jason71 · 28 August 2010, 12:49 PM

At least the older-style flip lock clasp did not have welds that are apt to fail

No thanks.........I will keep my tried and true flip lock design.

Dr. Robert · 28 August 2010, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jclevoy

At least the older-style flip lock clasp did not have welds that are apt to fail

No thanks.........I will keep my tried and true flip lock design.

I like the old lightweight, rattly oyster bracelets!

Route 66 · 30 August 2010, 01:06 AM

I don't have a problem with the design of the flip lock clasp, but I just wish that it were made of a heavier guage steel. I know it's built sturdy enough, but it still does seem a little flimsy to me. I'd like it to have a beefier feel, more in keeping with the bracelet itself.

28 August 2010, 12:49 PM	#2
Jason71 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: Jason Location: USA Watch: Rolex/Tudor Divers Posts: 7,973	At least the older-style flip lock clasp did not have welds that are apt to fail No thanks.........I will keep my tried and true flip lock design. __________________ Best Regards, Jason Just Say "NO" to Polishing Card-Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch Curmudgeons LIfe is too short to wear inexpensive watches PLEXI IS SEXY

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

28 August 2010, 08:02 AM	#1
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

30 August 2010, 01:06 AM	#4
Route 66 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Real Name: Steve Location: Burbank, CA Watch: 214270 Mark II Posts: 4,121	I don't have a problem with the design of the flip lock clasp, but I just wish that it were made of a heavier guage steel. I know it's built sturdy enough, but it still does seem a little flimsy to me. I'd like it to have a beefier feel, more in keeping with the bracelet itself.

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