ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

tomchicago · 22 June 2011, 09:32 PM

sub-c owners: do you find the clasp on the sub-c to be quite thick? i tried one on over the weekend and was surprised at how thick the clasp is, especially on the non-buckle side. wondering if the one i tried on was aberrant.

jj irani rest in peace

Fiery · 22 June 2011, 10:17 PM

It's definitely thick, but not too thick. The GlideLock is a useful feature that IMHO worth such compromises.

Clasp comparison between Sub-C and Breitling Colt II.

tomchicago · 23 June 2011, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiery

It's definitely thick, but not too thick. The GlideLock is a useful feature that IMHO worth such compromises.

Clasp comparison between Sub-C and Breitling Colt II.

great comparison thank you. can anyone post similar photo with sub-c and the 14060?

secretagentbloke · 22 June 2011, 11:38 PM

It balances out quite nicely with the thickness of the case imo

22 June 2011, 09:32 PM	#1
tomchicago Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Chicago Watch: 16710BLRO, 214270. Posts: 2,717	sub-c clasp size sub-c owners: do you find the clasp on the sub-c to be quite thick? i tried one on over the weekend and was surprised at how thick the clasp is, especially on the non-buckle side. wondering if the one i tried on was aberrant. jj irani rest in peace

22 June 2011, 10:17 PM	#2
Fiery "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Europe Watch: Sub-C 116610LN Posts: 2,649	It's definitely thick, but not too thick. The GlideLock is a useful feature that IMHO worth such compromises. Clasp comparison between Sub-C and Breitling Colt II.

22 June 2011, 11:38 PM	#4
secretagentbloke "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Great Britain Watch: er, too many !!! Posts: 86	It balances out quite nicely with the thickness of the case imo

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