97200 on 126710?

[Crown & Shield]

I believe the new GMTs have 1.2mm holes, so installing a 97200 Sub bracelet would require 20mm springbars that are 2mm in diameter with 1.2mm ends. Does anyone know if such springbars exist?

[037]

Yes, the springbars from the 214270 are 2.0mm diameter with 1.2mm pivots, although I can't say whether or not the 97200 endlink through holes are in line with the holes in the 126710 case. My guess is that they aren't.

You might have to use the original springbars from the 126710.

[Crown & Shield]

Thank you, I'll try to get hold of those Explorer springbars. I do not think the original springbars will work because they are quite thin at 1.5mm, being designed to use on the Jubilee.
Then of course there is the risk of the holes on the lugs not lining up with those on the endlinks, as you pointed out.

[acr]

Didn't someone install a 78200 bracelet (oyster GMT) on a 126710? If so, I would think the 92700 would work since people have installed those on 116710s....but I'm just guessing here. I actually had issues getting a 97200 to work on my 116710, probably had the wrong springbars though.

[037]

The 78200 will fit the 126710/126713 case using the original 1.5mm springbars from the 12671x GMT. I've done that myself. But, the 97200 endlinks are slightly different so I can't say for sure what combination is needed for that to fit.

[Crown & Shield]

Originally Posted by 037

The 78200 will fit the 126710/126713 case using the original 1.5mm springbars from the 12671x GMT. I've done that myself. But, the 97200 endlinks are slightly different so I can't say for sure what combination is needed for that to fit.

Aren't the springbars on the 78200 from the 116710 originally 2mm in diameter? If so, the 126710 springbars will fit but there might be some play given that they are 0.5mm smaller.
For my project I need a perfect fit because this is going to be an everyday/travel watch and I am most concerned about wear & tear.
Also, I already have a 116710BLNR, so now I want something different which is why I chose the 97200 bracelet: fully brushed look & Glidelock clasp.

[037]

Originally Posted by Crown & Shield

Aren't the springbars on the 78200 from the 116710 originally 2mm in diameter? If so, the 126710 springbars will fit but there might be some play given that they are 0.5mm smaller.
For my project I need a perfect fit because this is going to be an everyday/travel watch and I am most concerned about wear & tear.
Also, I already have a 116710BLNR, so now I want something different which is why I chose the 97200 bracelet: fully brushed look & Glidelock clasp.

Yes, but because of how the hole locations changed on the 12671x cases, 1.5mm springbars are the only way to get the 78200 to lock in despite the bars fitting inside the endlink through holes eccentrically. Rolex moved the holes due to the 69200 endlink design and it threw everything off in terms of backward compatibility. Older bracelets can fit but a bit of creative Lego work is required.

Using the 2mm Explorer bars probably won't work with the 97200 as a result. I still believe your only bet is using the 1.5mm BLRO bars.

I used a 78200 on my TT CHNR for about a month with no ill-effect. The original 1.5mm springbars had to be used. There was a small amount of play in the endlinks but it was minimal at best when worn on the wrist. The CHNR and BLRO cases are identical.

[Crown & Shield]

Originally Posted by 037

Yes, but because of how the hole locations changed on the 12671x cases, 1.5mm springbars are the only way to get the 78200 to lock in despite the bars fitting inside the endlink through holes eccentrically. Rolex moved the holes due to the 69200 endlink design and it threw everything off in terms of backward compatibility. Older bracelets can fit but a bit of creative Lego work is required.

Using the 2mm Explorer bars probably won't work with the 97200 as a result. I still believe your only bet is using the 1.5mm BLRO bars.

I used a 78200 on my TT CHNR for about a month with no ill-effect. The original 1.5mm springbars had to be used. There was a small amount of play in the endlinks but it was minimal at best when worn on the wrist. The CHNR and BLRO cases are identical.

Thanks for the valuable information
That's what I feared, which is why I first wanted to confirm an offset exists between the holes in the lugs and those in the endlinks.
I am very concerned that this is signaling that Rolex does not intend to put back an Oyster bracelet on the 126710 anytime soon (unless the Oyster version has lugholes placed differently, or requires a specific endlink)...

[037]

Rolex could go back to an Oyster option on the new cases. The 126711 and 126715 CHNR endlinks have the updated through-hole locations and 1.5mm springbars. All Rolex needs to do is make a fully stainless version of the 79201 (TT CHNR) bracelet. It would likely be a 79200 reference.

[Crown & Shield]

That would work if they come out with an Oyster for the BLNR or BLRO. But say they want to make the Oyster bracelet specific to a yet to be released bezel, Coke, for example. Given their paranoia about people mixing parts, I am pretty sure they would try to prevent that Oyster bracelet being compatible on the versions with Jubilee.

[037]

Nah, they'll use the new 126710/126711 case if a Coke on Oyster is made. I'd be surprised otherwise. The CHNR Oyster almost guarantees that prediction since it's already been updated accordingly to the new cases.

[Crown & Shield]

Oh, sure, same case but maybe they'll just place the lugholes slightly differently on the Oyster version so that people do not switch a Jubilee on the Coke or an Oyster on the Pepsi.

[037]

I doubt it. Historically, they haven't created unique cases within a reference family. If the 126711CHNR, 126710BLRO and 126710BLNR all use the same mid-case then a Coke will, too.

Rolex made the update with the 12671x case and that's that. They won't make another case part number just for an Oyster. The CHNR proves it.

Bookmark this post and we'll revisit it next Basel if an Oyster model is released, even if it's an LN bezel.

[Crown & Shield]

Well, didn't they do different mid cases for models that have leather straps, like the Sky-Dweller and the Daytona? Anyway, I hope you are right -both about the bracelet and about next year's Baselworld-

[037]

True but those are PM versus stainless examples and different from what I'm suggesting here. We have yet to see a stainless case differ within a modern reference line, assuming the same case numbers. Rolex does have two different yellow gold Daytona cases but they also differ in bezel and bracelet configurations, plus the reference numbers are technically different.

Anyway, I'm confident an updated stainless Oyster for the GMT (ie: 79200 with PCLs) will be backwards compatible with the 126710 references. They just have to make them first.

[Redbox]

The 126711CHNR original spring bars have a pivot diameter of 1mm. I have tried to buy replacements. All have come with .8mm pivot ends.

Anyone know where you can get 20mm, 1.8mm spring bars with 1mm pivot end?

[037]

Originally Posted by Redbox

The 126711CHNR original spring bars have a pivot diameter of 1mm. I have tried to buy replacements. All have come with .8mm pivot ends.

Anyone know where you can get 20mm, 1.8mm spring bars with 1mm pivot end?

Are you sure you're measuring those correctly? My CHNR springbars were the same as the 126710BLRO at 20mm with 1.50mm diameter and 1.20mm pivots.

[Hodge31]

good call on this one!

[Rick Deckard]

Originally Posted by acr

Didn't someone install a 78200 bracelet (oyster GMT) on a 126710?

Yes, that was me. Let me find the thread with all the measurements.

[PepsiBezel]

I used the original 126710 spring bars to attach an oyster bracelet from my 114060. It worked fine and fit well, as best I could tell.