ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

BOA · 20 May 2011, 01:21 PM

I have a D serial white ss Daytona and just bought a scrambled serial black ss, and tonight I was comparing them and noticed a few differences, the rehaut engraving for one, and the clasp, which came as no surprise because I'd already read about it here on the forum. But what surprised me is that the bracelet links on the white older model are slightly thicker than on the newer black one. I say "slight," but it's noticeable.

My early 90s explorers have the thicker links as well, but they are much older and not solid links like the Daytonas. My new Milgauss GV has the same thinner links as the black Daytona. I hadn't heard there was an oyster bracelet redesign, but I liked the links being thicker. The older, thicker ones really look better, especially by comparison. I wouldn't have thought Rolex would do that and it almost seems like they're giving us less at the same time as asking for more money, I highly doubt this new bracelet has greater integrity, so what's it all about, Alfie? I searched the forum and didn't find any posts on the subject, so I thought I'd ask. Thanks in advance.

Danand · 20 May 2011, 01:24 PM

Maybe the bracelet would be too heavy in the solid design with the same thickness?

Rollie2011 · 20 May 2011, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danand

Maybe the bracelet would be too heavy in the solid design with the same thickness?

That would be my guess as well

BOA · 20 May 2011, 01:29 PM

The D serial white Daytona has solid links. Except for the clasp upgrade, I just thought they would have the same bracelet, but they don't.

STEELINOX · 20 May 2011, 01:33 PM

They are keeping the metal used in them the same amount = solid links means lower thickness of the links to compensate resulting in the current bracelets; kinda effeminate looking if ya aks me

BOA · 20 May 2011, 01:51 PM

Both bracelets have fully solid links. They're not like the old submariner bracelets at all. So it isn't about the metal content as far as I can tell looking at them, unless some of it was shifted to the clasp, and now that I look at it, there does seem to be more going on in the clasp of the black one. So you're saying that's where the extra metal taken from the links is going? I guess that could explain it. Kinda strange though if you ask me.

Tools · 20 May 2011, 01:55 PM

All of the new bracelets have 3 permanent links on a side, the early bracelets have 4 permanent links... So, now to get down to the 16mm size of the screw links, the taper takes place over a shorter distance (3 links vs 4)..

STEELINOX · 20 May 2011, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOA

Both bracelets have fully solid links. They're not like the old submariner bracelets at all. So it isn't about the metal content as far as I can tell looking at them, unless some of it was shifted to the clasp, and now that I look at it, there does seem to be more going on in the clasp of the black one. So you're saying that's where the extra metal taken from the links is going? I guess that could explain it. Kinda strange though if you ask me.

Its all about raw materials, what you use, that keeps their costs in line...

They've minimally executed new design casings and have minimally changed material content in the bracelets as well...

BOA · 20 May 2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tools

All of the new bracelets have 3 permanent links on a side, the early bracelets have 4 permanent links... So, now to get down to the 16mm size of the screw links, the taper takes place over a shorter distance (3 links vs 4)..

There are four links without screws on each side of both Daytonas. Same on the Milgauss. Same on the old Explorer.

Jake B · 20 May 2011, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOA

Both bracelets have fully solid links. They're not like the old submariner bracelets at all. So it isn't about the metal content as far as I can tell looking at them, unless some of it was shifted to the clasp, and now that I look at it, there does seem to be more going on in the clasp of the black one. So you're saying that's where the extra metal taken from the links is going? I guess that could explain it. Kinda strange though if you ask me.

I guess the only way to confirm or debunk that would be to weigh them.

BOA · 20 May 2011, 02:32 PM

I could actually take them to my AD and do that, Jake. I'd also be curious to hear how they would explain the differences.

BOA · 21 May 2011, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tools

All of the new bracelets have 3 permanent links on a side, the early bracelets have 4 permanent links... So, now to get down to the 16mm size of the screw links, the taper takes place over a shorter distance (3 links vs 4)..

Turns out as I happened to think of checking it tonight that my green ceramic submariner does have only 3 permanent links as you say, but again, the new Milgauss and the new Daytona have 4 links, so they have done it both ways. I'm guessing they have made all the links on the bracelets the same new size so as to be able to use them interchangeably on all models.

Thanks again for your comments.

jnkay · 21 May 2011, 01:14 PM

I think the thinner bracelets undermine the tool watch nature of some of the models, and are more appropriate on dress watches. I was downright pisssed at Rolex for doing this, as I think Rolex is being cheap, just as it was for decades with hollow links. Maybe it is some new aesthetic or was a done for weight and balance, but I don't think the thicker bracelet would have made that much of a weight difference. I still think it was profit. That said, two such watches later and I'm over it.

BOA · 21 May 2011, 01:27 PM

I couldn't agree more. I have to say that on the whole, they feel good, and I might not have noticed the difference without a side by side comparison, but still...

Jake B · 21 May 2011, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOA

I could actually take them to my AD and do that, Jake. I'd also be curious to hear how they would explain the differences.

Cool..It really would be interesting to see. Could always pick up a digital scale at Lee Valley or a baking store.

BOA · 21 May 2011, 01:34 PM

I expect a call within in a few days that a repair is ready for pick up, so I'll do it then and let you know, Jake. Thanks for the ideas on getting a digital scale. I might do that at some point.

Tools · 21 May 2011, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOA

There are four links without screws on each side of both Daytonas. Same on the Milgauss. Same on the old Explorer.

Yes, I was generalizing... On the "3 link" bracelets, you still need an additional screw link that is attached to the clasp, so 4 links total. On the "4 link" bracelets like the Daytona, the last link will screw onto the clasp, so 4 links total.

Even the DSSD is now a "3 link" bracelet with the extreme taper to get down to the 16mm screw-link size over those 3 links; you still need a 4th screw link to be able to attach to the clasp..(as opposed to 5 links on the "old Explorer"; 4 link bracelet half plus the link on the clasp.)

Ricco · 21 May 2011, 01:59 PM

Solid feel much much better...

BOA · 27 May 2011, 08:42 AM

Ok, I just got back from the AD where I took both Daytonas to be weighed. First off, some statements of fact:

1) Modern Sub bracelets now have 3 permanent links (they used to have 4).

2) Modern Daytona bracelets still have 4 permanent links as do Milgauss bracelets.

3) The modern oyster bracelets are thinner.

The first thing my AD said was that Rolex may be using the stronger steel for the bracelets. He said he would check into that to confirm it, and then he weighed them.

Results:

White Daytona with older, thicker bracelet was just a bit over 140 grams.
Black Daytona with new, thinner bracelet was just a bit over 144 grams.

Assuming the watches without bracelets would be the same weight, the new bracelet, thinner but with a new clasp, is 4 grams heavier.

Just thought everyone would like to know how the weigh-in went. It surprised me.

ingoodtime · 27 May 2011, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

Its all about raw materials, what you use, that keeps their costs in line...

They've minimally executed new design casings and have minimally changed material content in the bracelets as well...

[QUOTE=STEELINOX;2509526]Its all about raw materials, what you use, that keeps their costs in line... Huh? Costs in line? Their selling price is plenty high and constantly increasing worldwide. For the price, people should not have to Feel like the manufacturer is skimping on materials...I don't think they are skimping but obviously someone does.

CashGap · 27 May 2011, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOA

First off, some statements of fact:

1) Modern Sub bracelets now have 3 permanent links (they used to have 4).

2) Modern Daytona bracelets still have 4 permanent links as do Milgauss bracelets.

3) The modern oyster bracelets are thinner.

My recent GMT II also has four, FYI, so you can add that to #2.

BOA · 27 May 2011, 01:16 PM

Good to know, thanks. I wonder what's up with the subs that Rolex switched to three links on those but apparently not others.

skyedog · 27 May 2011, 01:53 PM

can you post some photos?

BOA · 27 May 2011, 03:13 PM

Side views of oyster bracelets, older and new... anyone have any handy to save me the trouble? If not, I can try in the next few days. Just hoping there's some already out there to show the differences. Thanks in advance.

20 May 2011, 01:21 PM	#1
BOA "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Bruce Location: Chicago, IL Watch: Meteorite DD Posts: 2,410	What's up with the Thinner Bracelets? I have a D serial white ss Daytona and just bought a scrambled serial black ss, and tonight I was comparing them and noticed a few differences, the rehaut engraving for one, and the clasp, which came as no surprise because I'd already read about it here on the forum. But what surprised me is that the bracelet links on the white older model are slightly thicker than on the newer black one. I say "slight," but it's noticeable. My early 90s explorers have the thicker links as well, but they are much older and not solid links like the Daytonas. My new Milgauss GV has the same thinner links as the black Daytona. I hadn't heard there was an oyster bracelet redesign, but I liked the links being thicker. The older, thicker ones really look better, especially by comparison. I wouldn't have thought Rolex would do that and it almost seems like they're giving us less at the same time as asking for more money, I highly doubt this new bracelet has greater integrity, so what's it all about, Alfie? I searched the forum and didn't find any posts on the subject, so I thought I'd ask. Thanks in advance.

20 May 2011, 01:33 PM	#5
STEELINOX 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Sink-O! Location: a praire in AZ Watch: ROLEX-less atm... Posts: 14,021	They are keeping the metal used in them the same amount = solid links means lower thickness of the links to compensate resulting in the current bracelets; kinda effeminate looking if ya aks me __________________ *Positive Waves Baby* Lug Hole Loyalist / Chamfer Line Inspector INFORTHE WIN SUB-MAH-REEEN-ER ~ !

20 May 2011, 01:55 PM	#7
Tools TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,514	All of the new bracelets have 3 permanent links on a side, the early bracelets have 4 permanent links... So, now to get down to the 16mm size of the screw links, the taper takes place over a shorter distance (3 links vs 4).. __________________ (Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member

20 May 2011, 01:24 PM	#2
Danand "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Real Name: Jonathan Location: Ottawa Watch: 116610LN Posts: 1,246	Maybe the bracelet would be too heavy in the solid design with the same thickness?

20 May 2011, 01:29 PM	#4
BOA "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Bruce Location: Chicago, IL Watch: Meteorite DD Posts: 2,410	The D serial white Daytona has solid links. Except for the clasp upgrade, I just thought they would have the same bracelet, but they don't.

20 May 2011, 01:51 PM	#6
BOA "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Bruce Location: Chicago, IL Watch: Meteorite DD Posts: 2,410	Both bracelets have fully solid links. They're not like the old submariner bracelets at all. So it isn't about the metal content as far as I can tell looking at them, unless some of it was shifted to the clasp, and now that I look at it, there does seem to be more going on in the clasp of the black one. So you're saying that's where the extra metal taken from the links is going? I guess that could explain it. Kinda strange though if you ask me.

20 May 2011, 02:32 PM	#11
BOA "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Bruce Location: Chicago, IL Watch: Meteorite DD Posts: 2,410	I could actually take them to my AD and do that, Jake. I'd also be curious to hear how they would explain the differences.

21 May 2011, 01:14 PM	#13
jnkay "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: South Florida, US Watch: du jour Posts: 1,815	I think the thinner bracelets undermine the tool watch nature of some of the models, and are more appropriate on dress watches. I was downright pisssed at Rolex for doing this, as I think Rolex is being cheap, just as it was for decades with hollow links. Maybe it is some new aesthetic or was a done for weight and balance, but I don't think the thicker bracelet would have made that much of a weight difference. I still think it was profit. That said, two such watches later and I'm over it.

21 May 2011, 01:27 PM	#14
BOA "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Bruce Location: Chicago, IL Watch: Meteorite DD Posts: 2,410	I couldn't agree more. I have to say that on the whole, they feel good, and I might not have noticed the difference without a side by side comparison, but still...

21 May 2011, 01:34 PM	#16
BOA "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Bruce Location: Chicago, IL Watch: Meteorite DD Posts: 2,410	I expect a call within in a few days that a repair is ready for pick up, so I'll do it then and let you know, Jake. Thanks for the ideas on getting a digital scale. I might do that at some point.

21 May 2011, 01:59 PM	#18
Ricco Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Jakarta Posts: 333	Solid feel much much better...

27 May 2011, 08:42 AM	#19
BOA "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Bruce Location: Chicago, IL Watch: Meteorite DD Posts: 2,410	Ok, I just got back from the AD where I took both Daytonas to be weighed. First off, some statements of fact: 1) Modern Sub bracelets now have 3 permanent links (they used to have 4). 2) Modern Daytona bracelets still have 4 permanent links as do Milgauss bracelets. 3) The modern oyster bracelets are thinner. The first thing my AD said was that Rolex may be using the stronger steel for the bracelets. He said he would check into that to confirm it, and then he weighed them. Results: White Daytona with older, thicker bracelet was just a bit over 140 grams. Black Daytona with new, thinner bracelet was just a bit over 144 grams. Assuming the watches without bracelets would be the same weight, the new bracelet, thinner but with a new clasp, is 4 grams heavier. Just thought everyone would like to know how the weigh-in went. It surprised me.

27 May 2011, 01:16 PM	#22
BOA "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Bruce Location: Chicago, IL Watch: Meteorite DD Posts: 2,410	Good to know, thanks. I wonder what's up with the subs that Rolex switched to three links on those but apparently not others.

27 May 2011, 01:53 PM	#23
skyedog "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Real Name: Joey Location: around the Bay Watch: ing TRF Posts: 1,942	can you post some photos?

27 May 2011, 03:13 PM	#24
BOA "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Bruce Location: Chicago, IL Watch: Meteorite DD Posts: 2,410	Side views of oyster bracelets, older and new... anyone have any handy to save me the trouble? If not, I can try in the next few days. Just hoping there's some already out there to show the differences. Thanks in advance.

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