Sub and SD clasps dont do justice.

[hacampbell1360]

I love the Sub 16610 and the Seadweller as much as the next guy, but in my humbled opinion, I think the clasps dont do justice for the caliber of these classic time piece.

It is about time that Rolex released the solid center link bracelet with glidelock clasps for the new DSSD and Sub-c.

do you think Rolex ever going to release the Glidelock clasps for purchase, to replace older clasps on SD and Sub 16610? I think a lot of you guys are wishing for this to happen too...Let show some hands.

[Numismatist]

It remains to be seen if the new bracelets will hold the test of time - but they do have nice features. I fear Rolex is straying too far from its TOOL roots. That's why I like my classic 4,000 SD - true to its tool roots.

[Avs Fan]

I have been, and will continue to be a defender of the SD bracelet and clasp. It works, without fail, and keeps the bracelet light, which I like.

I'm sure the new design is great, but I think the original simple design is a perfect match.

greg in denver

[Rags]

I would like to see the glidelock bracelet on the 16610. In the summer I always have to adjust the bracelet on my watches due to temperature changes when my wrist tends to swell a bit.

[Clay]

Why????
I have worn a Sub or SD for over 25 years with a 93150 bracelet with not one problem....
They are light, functional, easy to use, no worries.....
People are always talking down these bracelets....Why???
They work just fine?????
Look great....
Remember..Less is more....

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.....

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by Clay

Why????
I have worn a Sub or SD for over 25 years with a 93150 bracelet with not one problem....
They are light, functional, easy to use, no worries.....
People are always talking down these bracelets....Why???
They work just fine?????
Look great....
Remember..Less is more....

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.....

Rolex have been applying that mantra for a long long time now, and it had resulted in a line up of watches that felt seriously dated compared to much cheaper alternatives. We all know that Rolex watches are built to do a job, and they've done it well for a long time, but we also expect Rolex to be at the cutting edge of design, to feel like we're getting our money's worth. With the updates Rolex has done to its bracelets and clasps over the last few years, it's made the brand appealing to a younger generation again. For me, the bracelet and clasp are vital aspects of the watch, so much so that I wouldn't own a previous generation model now, not because the old clasps are so bad, but the new clasps are so good

[nauticajoe]

John, why fix it when its not broken. In all seriousness, I like what they've done to the clasps of both SubC and DSSD.

[hacampbell1360]

I am sure this is a topic that many will debate on. I sure many like the way it is.

What I am saying is that why not have the options open for other people who really wants them. I can speak for myself that I do need to adjust the bracelet during the day when I am hydrated when the fit became tight. I really like to be able to adjust without and special tool. Belts have adjustments, why not a wrist watch?

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Avs Fan

I have been, and will continue to be a defender of the SD bracelet and clasp. It works, without fail, and keeps the bracelet light, which I like.

I'm sure the new design is great, but I think the original simple design is a perfect match.

greg in denver

Agreed.
dP

[(DMB)]

I don't have as much of an issue with the older bracelets and clasps as I do with all the bling that has been added to the new sub and gmts. The older bracelets and clasps were purpose built, and they still work to this day. It's a dive/tool watch, not a fashion piece. If, or more accurately WHEN I beat the hell out of my SD or GMT bracelet to the point where it really needs to be replaced, it's nice to know I can get one at a fairly decent price as compared to the new glidelock bracelets. The sub was never intended to be a fancy watch. The sub/gmt/explorer has always been a "work watch". If they hadn't become such iconic, classic watches I bet you'd never see ads of some guy in a suit wearing one. Bottom line, they were and are tool watches. I'll take the old bracelets any day; they work fine for me.

[WARVET]

Originally Posted by Avs Fan

I have been, and will continue to be a defender of the SD bracelet and clasp. It works, without fail, and keeps the bracelet light, which I like.

I'm sure the new design is great, but I think the original simple design is a perfect match.

greg in denver

Me too, I think the original clasp should really be judged in It's closed position, The purpose of the clasp is to allow the watch to be taken on and off while providing a sercure comfortable closure at least as strong as the ajoining links. The 16610, 16710 does this without additional weight, I for one do not prefer a clasp that looks like a luggage buckle.

[Atomant]

What's wrong with it? My SD and Sub bracelet never failed on me.

[dalip]

Young people these days

[RedBaronF2001]

I think Rolex had to upgrade the clasp (and bracelet links amongst other things) to continue to justify their price range. Given the amount of competition in this range I'm glad they took it a notch up with the new clasps. The features of the Sub-C brought me back into the brand.

As an owner of a daily worn Sea-Dweller 16660 I could find fault with the clasp. It did come loose on me several times over the years as well. Having said that, however, I do still love the older style for what it was. The new stuff is just nicer.

[wokafu]

I love the new one..but i do think the old one looks good...i like to suggest Rolex gives customers options to change..

[MortgageGuy]

To answer your question, NO I do not think Rolex will make the new clasp/solid link bracelet available for the older model watches for purchase...

Also, I as well LOVE the new braclet/clasp and personally believe it was a much needed improvement for a watch of this caliber. After wearing my Sub C, the clasp/bracelet on an older 16610 just feels cheap...

That being said I wore a SD for about 10 years and put it through HELL and NEVER once had any issues with the bracelet whatsoever. I mean nothing! I would hope the new ones are the same but time will tell. I have mixed feelings but do love the updates

[Jason71]

I own both the new and the old, but I prefer the old-style

Bah, Humbug.

[dsio]

I think the problem they have is the Sub is in a Swatch Group sandwich, which was squeezing the 16610 from above and below.

Previously you had Omega Planet Ocean -> Rolex Submariner -> Blancpain Fifty Fathoms

In terms of grey market prices, give or take:

PO 42mm = $3,000
16610 = $5,500
BP FF = $9,000

In terms of fit and finish, bracelet quality, and design, I don't understand how the sub was worth $2500 more than a PO when I didn't see it as being as good.

After the Sub-C release

PO 42mm = $3,000
116610 = $7,300-$7,800
BP FF = $9,000

The price bump pushed the sub further away from competing with the PO, and closer to competing with the FF, which, with that old 1970s bracelet was a very sad comparison. Watches in that category, carry exceptional bracelets, especially the FF, I tried one on at Watches of Switzerland on a Blancpain X-71 bracelet, and its easily the most comfortable and well designed SS bracelet I've ever worn with intricate detail and remarkable craftsmanship.

The Blancpain also runs a very special, in-house produced movement with a 120 hour power reserve and is the only dive watch with as much history as the Sub.

I really don't think Rolex had any option but to step up the Sub in every aspect they could to justify the price tag, as otherwise I don't see how smart money would have been spent on it over its higher flying competitor.

Just my 2c. I'd definitely love a Sub-C if there was a deal to be had used, but at current prices, even on here, I'd kick myself for not going the extra step and buying a Fifty instead.

[p_surabhi]

OLD is GOLD !!

[SS Oyster]

I'm a mathematician so I'd like to follow the logic of this thread with that in mind.

If light and cheap is good, even better than the new and more sturdy bracelet, then Rolex should have made it lighter, cheaper, and more susceptible to damage so people could show even more how much of a TOOL watch the Sub/SD is and has been.

Doesn't matter if it feels and sounds like tin ... so long as it works, right? Heck, maybe Rolex could even has cheapened the crown? Why does it have to be SO BIG? They certainly could get away with making it smaller and thinner with much smaller lug protectors.

Sarcasm intended ...

[acce1999]

I'm one of those guys that actually prefers the older clasp. Not only that, I prefer the non-SEL Oyster bracelets. Well worn. They get very, very comfortable. I also like the very simple construction.

I have to admit though, that the new all solid bracelets are impressive! Also. Some models looks better on SEL bracelets than others (IMO).

Best,

A

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Rolex have been applying that mantra for a long long time now, and it had resulted in a line up of watches that felt seriously dated compared to much cheaper alternatives. We all know that Rolex watches are built to do a job, and they've done it well for a long time, but we also expect Rolex to be at the cutting edge of design, to feel like we're getting our money's worth. With the updates Rolex has done to its bracelets and clasps over the last few years, it's made the brand appealing to a younger generation again. For me, the bracelet and clasp are vital aspects of the watch, so much so that I wouldn't own a previous generation model now, not because the old clasps are so bad, but the new clasps are so good

Chris,

Well argued. You must obviously be one of the "younger generation".

(I still prefer the older bracelets, but perhaps it is time to admit that I am not part of the youngest generation... at least this is obvious when I see my children grow bigger, and bigger... Soon I will be old enough to wear an all gold DD.)

Best,

A

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by acce1999

Chris,

Well argued. You must obviously be one of the "younger generation".

(I still prefer the older bracelets, but perhaps it is time to admit that I am not part of the youngest generation... at least this is obvious when I see my children grow bigger, and bigger... Soon I will be old enough to wear an all gold DD.)

Best,

A

Hey Anders,

I'm a 20 year old upstart But I have, from my own personal experience, seen more off a different kind of customer come in now, mainly late 20s/30-something businessmen who have had experience with owning Omegas and Breitlings in the past. It's certainly a generation who had drifted away from Rolex, but the new models seem to be getting their hooks in

Chris

[Clay]

Don't get me wrong.....I think what Rolex has done with the "new" bracelets is fine.......They are certainly very well made and functional....
But there was nothing "wrong" with the old ones.....They did the job and then some.....
Personally, I don't want a bracelet that weighs more then the watch head itself.....
The fact that the old clasps were so light, to me is a plus.....

And here again, they "worked" really well.....

People talk about having to "adjust" their bracelet several times during the day?????

What's up with that????

With the advent of cell phone, etc, most young people today don't even wear a watch....kids...What do they know......

[HL65]

Originally Posted by Clay

Why????
I have worn a Sub or SD for over 25 years with a 93150 bracelet with not one problem....
They are light, functional, easy to use, no worries.....
People are always talking down these bracelets....Why???
They work just fine?????
Look great....
Remember..Less is more....

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.....

X2!!! I am with you Clay!! I wear a 93150 on all of my vintage Subs and SD's. I keep older rivets and 9315's in storage. The 93150 is super comfortable and works 100% perfectly!!!

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Clay

Why????
I have worn a Sub or SD for over 25 years with a 93150 bracelet with not one problem....
They are light, functional, easy to use, no worries.....
People are always talking down these bracelets....Why???
They work just fine?????
Look great....
Remember..Less is more....

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.....

Quite simple because many equate the 16610 16600 clasp as light weight.And think heavier is always better but afraid thats not always the case. There must be millions upon millions of that clasp today in this world so its got a well proved track record.

[Jason71]

Originally Posted by Clay

....kids...What do they know......

[rolexertion]

Originally Posted by dsio

I think the problem they have is the Sub is in a Swatch Group sandwich, which was squeezing the 16610 from above and below.

Previously you had Omega Planet Ocean -> Rolex Submariner -> Blancpain Fifty Fathoms

In terms of grey market prices, give or take:

PO 42mm = $3,000
16610 = $5,500
BP FF = $9,000

In terms of fit and finish, bracelet quality, and design, I don't understand how the sub was worth $2500 more than a PO when I didn't see it as being as good.

After the Sub-C release

PO 42mm = $3,000
116610 = $7,300-$7,800
BP FF = $9,000

The price bump pushed the sub further away from competing with the PO, and closer to competing with the FF, which, with that old 1970s bracelet was a very sad comparison. Watches in that category, carry exceptional bracelets, especially the FF, I tried one on at Watches of Switzerland on a Blancpain X-71 bracelet, and its easily the most comfortable and well designed SS bracelet I've ever worn with intricate detail and remarkable craftsmanship.

The Blancpain also runs a very special, in-house produced movement with a 120 hour power reserve and is the only dive watch with as much history as the Sub.

I really don't think Rolex had any option but to step up the Sub in every aspect they could to justify the price tag, as otherwise I don't see how smart money would have been spent on it over its higher flying competitor.

Just my 2c. I'd definitely love a Sub-C if there was a deal to be had used, but at current prices, even on here, I'd kick myself for not going the extra step and buying a Fifty instead.

?? Competition? Rolex? Surely you jest. Rolex has no competition! Seriously, consider how many Subs are sold for every Blancpain Fifty Fathoms: Twenty? Fifty? And in 5 years, which will be worth more, the Sub or the Blancpain?

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Hey Anders,

I'm a 20 year old upstart But I have, from my own personal experience, seen more off a different kind of customer come in now, mainly late 20s/30-something businessmen who have had experience with owning Omegas and Breitlings in the past. It's certainly a generation who had drifted away from Rolex, but the new models seem to be getting their hooks in

Chris

Well, then it really is a generation thing.

You have a great position, being 20!

When I was 20 I did my military service, and I could not afford a Rolex. At that time I whished for either a pepsi GMT (16750) or a Submariner (16800 or 5513) or an Explorer (1016).

I am in my mid forties now... and it proved that I could get my first just a few years after I left the university. For some strange reason I declined buying a BNIB 5513 when I had the opportunity... at that time I felt that it was too old with its plastic crystal...

Best,

A

[dsio]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

?? Competition? Rolex? Surely you jest. Rolex has no competition! Seriously, consider how many Subs are sold for every Blancpain Fifty Fathoms: Twenty? Fifty? And in 5 years, which will be worth more, the Sub or the Blancpain?

See, thats slightly biased

The Fifty Fathoms is a real competitor, sapphire bezel with inlaid lume, superior movement, superior bracelet, two size options, both larger than the sub. The Fifty was born at the same time as the sub, you can argue who copied who etc. In 5 years time the Fifty would likely be worth substantially more, as they hold their value well, while Sub-Cs are currently still going for a premium (LV particularly), the BNIB price will slide in the next year or so on TRF, and used models will start popping up, just like with the GMT2C and Milgauss.

I don't look at the brand and go on that alone, I look at what I can get in a price-range. There are JLC divers that are in a similar broad price-range to the MSRP-bumped Sub-C that are just plain better as well.

I'm trying to suggest that its likely that in order to retain any degree of credibility while pushing the price tag, Rolex had to do a lot to the old design and have a list of real tangible improvements that seam worth the new money. If they didn't, well... the FF would have had them beaten in the WIS market, and the new Ceramic PO would have had them in the general population. They forced the step up, is I what I'm getting at.