Why doesn't Rolex use the Tudor style safety clasp?

[samson66]

I'm the proud owner of a Rolex Sea Dweller and a Tudor GMT. Love the bracelets on both and I think Rolex makes the best bracelets i have ever encountered. However, in comparing the two it seems to me there are a couple things Tudor does better in terms of design. Both involve the safety clasp and how it interacts with the bracelet itself

With the Rolex the clasp just sort of lays down harshly on the bracelet itself when open causing metal-to-metal contact. Over time this will leave a nice scratch line across the bracelet.

The Tudor on the other hand uses a notch design on the clasp so that it comes to rest in an upright configuration with only the very edges of the clasp touching the metal.

Additionally another thing I like about the Tudor are the little ceramic (not sure on material) protruding dots where the claps locks in when closed. Again eliminating metal-to-metal contact and giving a buttery smooth action when closing. Curious why Rolex doesn't do something similar.

Here are some pictures to show the differences. First pics are Rolex, second Tudor.

Curious to hear opinions and explanations on the differences from the very knowledgeable TRF community.



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S10 using Tapatalk

[MSchu]

I give up... why doesnt rolex use the tudor safety clasp?

[kieselguhr]

There are some things that Tudor gets right like the ceramic pushers. I imagine Rolex will eventually incorporate it if they deem it necessary. It may just be marketing gimmick as Rolex clasps are tested rigorously to ensure security and longevity of the product even without them.

I agree that Tudor incorporates interesting tech into their bracelets and are comfortable overall but they could do a lot better with fit. Simple things like how this link doesn’t pivot down freely for example,

[Dan Pierce]

Love my ceramic balls. Yeah, you heard me.
dP

[Smarties]

The only one thing I don't like about Tudor clasp is that it only has 3 holes for adjustment.

With only 3 holes together with the absence of half links, I can't have the bracelets adjusted to liking.

[GradyPhilpott]

Because Tudor isn't Rolex.

[GONZO2LR]

then it be a Tudor! Right?

[samson66]

I remember seeing a review of the SD43 when it first came out and one of the few negatives they could come up with was that the safety clasp could scratch up the bracelet. Then lo and behold I pick up a Tudor a year later and realize they have solved the issue. Surprising Rolex has not come up with some sort of design that accomplishes the same thing.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Love my ceramic balls. Yeah, you heard me.
dP

sick.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Love my ceramic balls. Yeah, you heard me.
dP

Thought you had balls of steel Dan??? You switched over to ceramic?

[Chewbacca]

Can you imagine the look on JFD's face if someone suggested this?


*cue Hitler last days in the bunker rant gif*

[junamuan]

GMT vs Diver?

Could be Rolex clasp is designed to work flawlessly underwater whereas the Tudor ceramic pusher may interfere with sands and other objects during diving?

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by junamuan

GMT vs Diver?

Could be Rolex clasp is designed to work flawlessly underwater whereas the Tudor ceramic pusher may interfere with sands and other objects during diving?

I’ve used the BB in saltwater diving. You wouldn’t want to open the clasp underwater. There is no reason to. No issues with saltwater with regards to ceramic pushers

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by samson66

Thought you had balls of steel Dan??? You switched over to ceramic?

You bet I did. Tired of being called rusty nuts.
dP

[exador]

However Tudor cocked up the clasp on the BB58. The pointy end leaves a scrape on the link every time you open it.

[tie219]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

You bet I did. Tired of being called rusty nuts.
dP

Not Steely Dan?

[JasChCh]

I am the owner of a Black Bay as well as a Rolex DSSD 126660.

There are some advantages that Tudor has. the biggest one in my opinion is the 'stop' at the 12 o'clock position on the bezel, which provids the ability to recenter the bezel without even needing to look!

But, as far as the clasp goes, the Deep Sea is leagues ahead in both feel and operation. I am not sure if this is the case on the Sea Dweller, but on the DSSD the clasp is hinged and sprung, which provides a wonderfully satisfying click, as does the safety....although I have to admit that Tudor's ceramic balls are great!

[SS Oyster]

Maybe because Rolex wanted more friction to secure their clasp. I’m not a big fan of pointy anything at the end of the Tudor clasp. I think Rolex has that right. Also, while I like the idea of the rivet look as a throw-back vintage look, I think Tudor could have done it better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Laszlo]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Love my ceramic balls. Yeah, you heard me.
dP

They are fine balls.

[Chaching]

Tudor = Toyota / Rolex = Lexus .... just saying...

[Ducky]

I don't know if it's been mentioned (did a quick search) but the Sea Dweller has steel ball bearings in the clasp to hold the safety clasp.

[Laszlo]

Originally Posted by Chaching

Tudor = Toyota / Rolex = Lexus .... just saying...

Oh that’s such a poor analogy. It’s more like the 911 and Boxster.

[andrewjb88]

Originally Posted by exador

However Tudor cocked up the clasp on the BB58. The pointy end leaves a scrape on the link every time you open it.

GMT also does this.

[bonatto]

Originally Posted by Laszlo

Oh that’s such a poor analogy. It’s more like the 911 and Boxster.

More like 911 vs Cayman. Boxster is pre in-house Tudor.

[gunhose]

I gave up trying to figure our why rolex does what it does. But his thread was very informative never knew this info !

[samson66]

The safety clasp in the Sea Dweller is about the only thing I have found that Rolex could have done better. The Tudor safety clasp is a superior design just because it prevents metal-to-metal contact. Not sure why Rolex didn't do something similar. The Tudor clasp comes to rest on the rivets so that would be one challenge for Rolex to overcome. But I would think they could come up with some way to keep that clasp from coming right down on the bracelet. Just something I noticed. Love everything else about the Rolex oyster bracelet!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S10 using Tapatalk

[fsprow]

Perhaps Rolex doesn't mind metal to metal contact on a closure designed for simplicity and longevity -- even at the risk of a hidden tiny scratch. If so, I agree with them.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by tie219

Not Steely Dan?

Well played, Troy! Well played.

Originally Posted by Laszlo

They are fine balls.

Glad to know they're appreciated.

Originally Posted by Chaching

Tudor = Toyota / Rolex = Lexus .... just saying...

Status freaks need some new material............just saying.
dP