Modern gmt clasp v 16710

[mr_gray]

Hi
I'm thinking of getting a 16710. To date I've only owned a 114060 and a hulk. I love the glide lock but have never owned a non glide lock metal bracelet watch. Obviously I'll be foregoing some convenience but is it that big a deal? Insights from owners would be appreciated. Does it matter that much?

Cheers

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by mr_gray

Does it matter that much? Cheers

To me Yes, it matters a lot. But that's just me.

[mr_gray]

Originally Posted by FTX I

To me Yes, it matters a lot. But that's just me.

Any experience with the older style clasp?

[Rockrolex]

I've got an all black 16710. It's my favorite watch. It gets about 95% of my wrist time.

[Twiten]

No. The difference is the most overhyped issue ever. I have both. The new clasp is an improvement undoubtedly , but its not life changing. It would not sway my decision , much as the redesigned door handle did't sway my decision to buy my new BMW. Seriously , this is so overstated in my opinion.(As are SEL , better yes , marginal though , YES)

[mr_gray]

Originally Posted by Twitken

No. The difference is the most overhyped issue ever. I have both. The new clasp is an improvement undoubtedly , but its not life changing. It would not sway my decision , much as the redesigned door handle did't sway my decision to buy my new BMW. Seriously , this is so overstated in my opinion.(As are SEL , better yes , marginal though , YES)

Thanks. That's highly enabling and that was what I am after.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by mr_gray

Any experience with the older style clasp?

There's no problem with the old clasp, old bracelet or new GMT clasp. Considering the old bracelet, my problem is not with the clasp but with the number of permanent links that are a problem for someone with small wrists. The new GMT clasp is very nice but I cant buy all the watches I want so I need to choose between one or the other, and then the better product - the one with glidelock clasp - will always win. On the other hand, I'm thinking about getting a 5 digit Sub or even GMT, but to wear with a nice leather strap. Cheers

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by Twitken

No. The difference is the most overhyped issue ever. I have both. The new clasp is an improvement undoubtedly , but its not life changing. It would not sway my decision , much as the redesigned door handle did't sway my decision to buy my new BMW. Seriously , this is so overstated in my opinion.(As are SEL , better yes , marginal though , YES)

110% correct.

To forego the 16710 simply because of the clasp would, in my opinion, be a mistake.

[mr_gray]

I really appreciate the feedback guys. Thanks.

[joe100]

The old clasp is functional. The new one has a lot of moving parts and more failure points. I'd have the old one, but that's the engineer in me talking

[Furbo]

Try putting it on before buying, older models are much lighter, there are many differences beside clasp.

[Jocke]

IMHO is the original clasp shorter, lighter and more comfortable. How often have you need for a adjustment of the bracelet?
If you say very often, go for a GlideLock. Otherwise keep it as it is.

[mike]

Originally Posted by Jocke

IMHO is the original clasp shorter, lighter and more comfortable. How often have you need for a adjustment of the bracelet?
If you say very often, go for a GlideLock. Otherwise keep it as it is.

Excellent point Jocke. Once it's adjusted you're good to go.

I've worn the old style for years. The glidelock is certainly nice, but the old style works great.

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by joe100

The old clasp is functional. The new one has a lot of moving parts and more failure points. I'd have the old one, but that's the engineer in me talking

I'd say it is the realist in you talking as well!

[bbressler]

The old clasps are fine, but if you're used to the modern ones it might bug you a bit not having that perfect fit all the time. I wouldn't let that stop you from getting a 16710...it's an awesome watch! Here's my post from the other week about trying my Explorer clasp on my 16710

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=360812

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by FTX I

On the other hand, I'm thinking about getting a 5 digit Sub or even GMT, but to wear with a nice leather strap. Cheers

A similar thought has crossed my mind. I'd love a 1675 on a nice leather strap. Vintage Rolex watches look right at home on leather straps.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

A similar thought has crossed my mind. I'd love a 1675 on a nice leather strap. Vintage Rolex watches look right at home on leather straps.

If I find one with good price I'll add to my humble team, but it's not an easy job. I wish I had a chance to visit HK..

[jujin]

I traded my 116710 for a 16710 and I thought I would miss the clasp a lot more than I actually do. The old tuna can clasp is time tested and does not fail. The clasp has a lower profile and doesn't bang around on desks as often either. The newer bracelet may seem more technologically advanced but to me that just means more opportunity to fail in the long run. The old clasp is simple and works... I also thought I would have a hard time without the easy link feature but it hasn't been an issue. Overall I actually prefer the lighter weight and lower profile of the old bracelet and clasp.

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by jujin

I traded my 116710 for a 16710 and I thought I would miss the clasp a lot more than I actually do. The old tuna can clasp is time tested and does not fail. The clasp has a lower profile and doesn't bang around on desks as often either. The newer bracelet may seem more technologically advanced but to me that just means more opportunity to fail in the long run. The old clasp is simple and works... I also thought I would have a hard time without the easy link feature but it hasn't been an issue. Overall I actually prefer the lighter weight and lower profile of the old bracelet and clasp.

All good points.

Newer is not necessarily better. To me, Rolex will always be associated with the old clasps because it is what I saw and was familiar with while admiring the watches in my younger years. The old clasps have a simplistic charm to them that the newer models seemingly lack.

[Kyu]

Originally Posted by mr_gray

but is it that big a deal? Insights from owners would be appreciated. Does it matter that much?

Cheers

For me matters also, which is why sub till this date is still my fav compared to the rest of my collection

Its not really a big deal but I'm spoiled by the comfort of my sub, u'll see me fiddle around and touch my watch often if I'm not wearing my sub

But that's just me, my buddies don't notice it and don't care much for it.

Its not that discomforting at all, I just really prefer that perfect fit sub's give me

[AK797]

Glidelock is one of best things Rolex has done in ages. On a GMT the clasps are not so important.

[GradyPhilpott]

I have the Easy-Link on my GMT and while I do marvel at its clever design, it's not the be all and end all of watch clasps.

Ever since watch companies started coming out with the milled clasps, the Easy-Link pretty much outshines those and I also like the way the clasp locks and releases.

However, the old clasps are just as good and reliable as they've always been and I'm not about to dump the rest of my collection because of the clasps.

I've been wearing the GMT for a couple of weeks now, so it will be interesting when I make the inevitable change back to the 114270 or the 14060M, but I don't expect there to be any problems with perception or comfort.

[Explorador]

If your wrist is within boundaries of what's considered normal, the old style should satisfy you. Less metal around my wrist adds to me more to the comfort factor then the glide lock adjustments. Less weight is a permanent bonus, easier adjustment a "sometimes" bonus.

Enjoy the hunt!!

[applebook]

The old clasp is unacceptable even for a $500 watch. It's lighter, but so is piece of cloth if weight is so important to you.

It says something about the quality of your bracelet when $100 generic replacements are better built!

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by applebook

The old clasp is unacceptable even for a $500 watch. It's lighter, but so is piece of cloth if weight is so important to you.

If that's your opinion, that's your right to express it, but you're dead wrong that the clasp is unacceptable, except, of course, by you and whomever has that same subjective opinion, and your comparison to cloth is silly.

The old clasps did their job for a period of over 60 years, with precious few failures and even then, they were usually caused by wear and tear and could be easily and inexpensively replaced.

After the whole world shifted to milled clasps, Rolex had no choice but to make the shift and while they do look better and they do have some advantages, I don't see that they do what a clasp is supposed to do any better.

Originally Posted by applebook

It says something about the quality of your bracelet when $100 generic replacements are better built!

A citation would be helpful.

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by The Libertine

To forego the 16710 simply because of the clasp would, in my opinion, be a mistake.

My opinion too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mew]

The new clasps feel better but it comes at the cost of added weight. Functionally, i dont think there is much difference, the old clasps wears better too imo

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by FTX I

If I find one with good price I'll add to my humble team, but it's not an easy job. I wish I had a chance to visit HK..

It can be hard to find the right vintage piece, but if you're not in a rush, you just need to wait until the right piece comes along.