or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...) - Page 2124  

post #31846 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The 14060M did not have SELs on its bracelet, while the 16610 from about the year 2000/2001 does have and SEL bracelet.  I grew up with Rolex watches not having SELs, so I'm not offended by the non-SEL bracelets, although I do prefer the cleaner more solid feel of the SEL even on the old style hollow bracelets.  The new bracelets are completely different in terms of all center links are now solid (on the old 16610 and 14060M all center links were hollow.  In addition, the adjustment in the clasps and diver's extension is different too.  
There is a tremendous jump in the quality of the current bracelets vs. the old, but then again the newer ones (unless you go vintage collectible) cost significantly more.[...]
It's more of a design than a quality difference to me.

The current Submariner's sliding adjustment in 2 mm increments kicks ass all over the place, but I have no preference between the old and new bracelets as far as actually wearing goes. Aside from the closure system, the main difference is just a bit of weight. The hollow- and solid-link versions are equally strong, equally durable, and they look exactly the same other than the clasp. I wouldn't say that anything has changed when it comes to the quality of manufacture. Compare a brand-new example of each, and they're both perfectly machined. I have the original 35-year-old bracelet for one of my GMTs; the clasp is still fine and closes with a nice positive snap, so it's tough to complain about the quality of that bit, either.

If kept clean (to clear out grit that vastly accelerates wear) and not worn loose, either type of bracelet can easily outlast the owner.

Yes but tell us how you really feel!
post #31847 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

Yes but tell us how you really feel!
I feel that I like both of 'em? dontknow.gif

Just wanted to say that the older style of bracelet is A-OK. too.
post #31848 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

Yes but tell us how you really feel!
I feel that I like both of 'em? dontknow.gif

Just wanted to say that the older style of bracelet is A-OK. too.

I'm just teasing! IMHO you're in the top 1% of posters who actually elaborate quite well on aspects they prefer and don't care much about. 💪
post #31849 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post


It's more of a design than a quality difference to me.

The current Submariner's sliding adjustment in 2 mm increments kicks ass all over the place, but I have no preference between the old and new bracelets as far as actually wearing goes. Aside from the closure system, the main difference is just a bit of weight. The hollow- and solid-link versions are equally strong, equally durable, and they look exactly the same other than the clasp. I wouldn't say that anything has changed when it comes to the quality of manufacture. Compare a brand-new example of each, and they're both perfectly machined. I have the original 35-year-old bracelet for one of my GMTs; the clasp is still fine and closes with a nice positive snap, so it's tough to complain about the quality of that bit, either.

If kept clean (to clear out grit that vastly accelerates wear) and not worn loose, either type of bracelet can easily outlast the owner.

My friend, I think you are reading a little too far into what I said.  I said "There is a tremendous jump in the quality of the current bracelets vs. the old."  That is not to say that the old bracelet can't hold up to a variety of activities and be an integral part of a watch worn daily for many decades.  Your view of my statement would be the same as if I said, "The latest Ferrari, has a significant increase in horsepower over its predecessor"...and then interpreting that to mean that I have suggest its predecessor had an inadequate amount of power, when the truth is Ferrari is simply being competitive with other performance brands.  The same is true of Rolex, its bracelets and clasps evolved, because they had to in order to be competitive with other brands, most of which were using solid links in all of their bracelets and had machined clasps rather than stamped steel pieces.   

 

I would beg to differ that its a quality difference as much as a design difference.  You and I could bicker over what a design difference means...the they are still using an Oyster or Jubilee bracelet on the bulk of their mens watches.  However, they have evolved to include solid center links and a revised clasp system.  Is that purely a design difference...or is it a design difference that results in an increase in quality, or at least a perceived increase in quality to the average buyer?

 

I can recall people on other forums questioning how Rolex at its price point, higher than Breitling in many cases, or IWC, could justify its pricing as the clasps were stamped steel and the center links of the bracelets were hollow.  Even a friend who owned a few Breitlings, a Zenith, and an Omega questioned this (although he later bought a 16570 with SEL bracelet and hollow center links.  BTW he loves that watch).  My response was that I had owned Rolex watches and used them as daily wearers for more than 2 decades without any issues involving the bracelets or the clasps.   They were able to withstand anything I could dish out!  In addition, I pointed out that for several years until Rolex bought Gay Freres (bracelet company, ending them supplying bracelets to other brands), Rolex, AP, PP, Heuer and others may have used different bracelet designs, but all used the same basic folding blade clasps.  AP and PP only changed that to a machined inner part for their clasps around the very early 1990s (that would be nearly 20 years for the RO).   As said earlier, Rolex eventually made changes to remain competitive in the market place. 

 

While I do prefer the SEL bracelets simply for their looks, the old "Clam shell" style end pieces served me very well.  I've owned several Rolex watches with the clam shell end pieces and I still have a 16520 Daytona with clam shell style end pieces and I adore it.

 

While I find the Oyster bracelet from a functional or durability standpoint didn't necessarily need the change to solid bracelet links, the old hollow Jubilee bracelets, really needed this change.  They often seemed to suffer from far more significant bracelet stretch over time than their Oyster siblings.  

 

In the end my comment wasn't to belittle the older style bracelets (several of my own watches have them). It was simply to describe my opinion of changes such as solid center links, a machined clasp, and a new adjustment system.   :cheers:

post #31850 of 48312
1964 Seiko World Time.

Just back from a movement service and sporting a new sharkskin band.

50 years old. +/- 8 seconds per day.


post #31851 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farhad19620 View Post

A strange thing with watches, I have lost thousands of pounds on watches that I have bought and sold over the years but on this one I have been offered three times the amount I bought it for but still do not want to part with it!

photo 0BE25084-A748-4810-B9B8-3D06EA01F83B_zpskjmdxiu8.jpg


Very beautiful...fantastics

post #31852 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
My friend, I think you are reading a little too far into what I said.  I said "There is a tremendous jump in the quality of the current bracelets vs. the old."  That is not to say that the old bracelet can't hold up to a variety of activities and be an integral part of a watch worn daily for many decades.  Your view of my statement would be the same as if I said, "The latest Ferrari, has a significant increase in horsepower over its predecessor"...and then interpreting that to mean that I have suggest its predecessor had an inadequate amount of power, when the truth is Ferrari is simply being competitive with other performance brands.  The same is true of Rolex, its bracelets and clasps evolved, because they had to in order to be competitive with other brands, most of which were using solid links in all of their bracelets and had machined clasps rather than stamped steel pieces.   

I would beg to differ that its a quality difference as much as a design difference.  You and I could bicker over what a design difference means...the they are still using an Oyster or Jubilee bracelet on the bulk of their mens watches.  However, they have evolved to include solid center links and a revised clasp system.  Is that purely a design difference...or is it a design difference that results in an increase in quality, or at least a perceived increase in quality to the average buyer?

I can recall people on other forums questioning how Rolex at its price point, higher than Breitling in many cases, or IWC, could justify its pricing as the clasps were stamped steel and the center links of the bracelets were hollow.  Even a friend who owned a few Breitlings, a Zenith, and an Omega questioned this (although he later bought a 16570 with SEL bracelet and hollow center links.  BTW he loves that watch).  My response was that I had owned Rolex watches and used them as daily wearers for more than 2 decades without any issues involving the bracelets or the clasps.   They were able to withstand anything I could dish out!  In addition, I pointed out that for several years until Rolex bought Gay Freres (bracelet company, ending them supplying bracelets to other brands), Rolex, AP, PP, Heuer and others may have used different bracelet designs, but all used the same basic folding blade clasps.  AP and PP only changed that to a machined inner part for their clasps around the very early 1990s (that would be nearly 20 years for the RO).   As said earlier, Rolex eventually made changes to remain competitive in the market place. 

While I do prefer the SEL bracelets simply for their looks, the old "Clam shell" style end pieces served me very well.  I've owned several Rolex watches with the clam shell end pieces and I still have a 16520 Daytona with clam shell style end pieces and I adore it.

While I find the Oyster bracelet from a functional or durability standpoint didn't necessarily need the change to solid bracelet links, the old hollow Jubilee bracelets, really needed this change.  They often seemed to suffer from far more significant bracelet stretch over time than their Oyster siblings.  
In the end my comment wasn't to belittle the older style bracelets (several of my own watches have them). It was simply to describe my opinion of changes such as solid center links, a machined clasp, and a new adjustment system.   cheers.gif
I hear ya, and I agree completely. I didn't interpret your post as belittling the older bracelets; the main thing I wanted to communicate to the prospective buyer is that either type is great on the wrist so the older bracelets are definitely worth considering. Hope you don't mind if I nerd out a bit on this...

The new clasp is fantastic. It certainly results in an increase in quality perception, and there's no doubt that it was due for an update. Stamped bracelets work great, but they've had their day.

All things being equal, I'll definitely take the new bracelet, but on the Explorer for example, I'd much rather wear the classic 36 mm version, stamped clasp and all, than the current disproportionate 39 mm one.

Now for the nerding-out part. The term "stretch" is a misnomer. Hollow vs. solid makes no difference since they elongate by material loss due to abrasion. They're in tension so extra metal in the middle is irrelevant, and you can easily check that by measuring a completely worn-out link vs a new one; the exterior length will be identical.

Anyway, they're all strong where it counts; the weak point is the pin (not the link), and Rolex uses fat, solid screw pins. It's remarkable how many other bracelets are heavier and bulkier (and look like they'd be stronger), but are inherently much weaker due to using wimpy split pins held in by friction.


PS: Jubilees definitely tend to look shagged-out faster. They're flexier, have more wear points, are more common in much the faster-wearing bi-metal option, and I see a lot worn way too loose. That, coupled with the fact that people actually keep them long enough for wear to become an issue, is what earns them their reputation for being stretch-prone.

The newer solid-link Jubilees will stand up better to neglect simply because they're less prone to getting dirt in between the links. On the other hand, a well-maintained example of either style worn snugly on the wrist will last ages. An ultrasonic bath every year or so helps a lot.

Keeping any bracelet free of grit and not letting it flop around on the wrist is essential if you want it to last.
post #31853 of 48312

*Nerd download*

 

*Delighted feeling*

 

I love this thread.

post #31854 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post
 

*Nerd download*

 

*Delighted feeling*

 

I love this thread.

 

Sam here.  This bracelet talk reminds me of my cycling friends discussing different chains for their bikes.

post #31855 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by culverwood View Post

I have to say great choice.

We'll I bought it and am very happy with the way it looks, I have to say it hasn't been keeping good time. I am travelling a lot this week but it is still gaining by up to 5 minutes a day which obviously isn't right. That said, in the last few days, it seems to have settled down. Is this possible with a new watch? I seem to remember that my Panerai took a while to settle down.
post #31856 of 48312
And here's a quick wrist shot:

jyra4ybe.jpg
post #31857 of 48312
I assume the bottom one is the ref 3992?
post #31858 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbarwick View Post

Sam here.  This bracelet talk reminds me of my cycling friends discussing different chains for their bikes.
Ya know, they're exactly the same as far as "stretch" goes and the same term is even used in cycling. An image of a chain getting pulled slightly longer during a low-gear uphill grind is intuitive, but just like watch bracelets, it's wearing away of material that really causes it:



post #31859 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post

I hear ya, and I agree completely. I didn't interpret your post as belittling the older bracelets; the main thing I wanted to communicate to the prospective buyer is that either type is great on the wrist ....

Now for the nerding-out part. The term "stretch" is a misnomer.

PS: Jubilees definitely tend to look shagged-out faster. They're flexier, have more wear points, are more common in much the faster-wearing bi-metal option, and I see a lot worn way too loose. That, coupled with the fact that people actually keep them long enough for wear to become an issue, is what earns them their reputation for being stretch-prone.

Keeping any bracelet free of grit and not letting it flop around on the wrist is essential if you want it to last.

Yes, sounds like we are on the same page.  As for using the term "Stretch" relative to the bracelet, I was using it in the generic sense, as I believe most people would understand that term.  However, I am aware its actually just wear points affected by dirt/grit between links/pins, and bracelets that are left too large, but that the bracelets do not actually get longer. 

 

I've owned several older style Oyster bracelets and never had any problems with them.   I've never let grit/grime build up, and the bracelets were properly sized, so I've never experienced any noticeable level of stretch even after more than a decade of regular use.  More commonly I've seen very bad examples of stretch on older Jubilee bracelets. I've seen a few old Jubilees were so bad that if you held the watch case with the crown pointing to the sky and left the bracelet  dangling, the clasp was pretty close to being perpendicular to the watch case.   Although, that was a very extreme example.  

post #31860 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Yes, sounds like we are on the same page.  As for using the term "Stretch" relative to the bracelet, I was using it in the generic sense, as I believe most people would understand that term.   Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
However, I am aware its actually just wear points affected by dirt/grit between links/pins, and bracelets that are left too large, but that the bracelets do not actually get longer. 

I've owned several older style Oyster bracelets and never had any problems with them.   I've never let grit/grime build up, and the bracelets were properly sized, so I've never experienced any noticeable level of stretch even after more than a decade of regular use.  More commonly I've seen very bad examples of stretch on older Jubilee bracelets. I've seen a few old Jubilees were so bad that if you held the watch case with the crown pointing to the sky and left the bracelet  dangling, the clasp was pretty close to being perpendicular to the watch case.   Although, that was a very extreme example.  
Absolutely; I meant to address the general audience with the remarks about wear and elongation. "Stretch" is a perfectly fine and common term to describe it. The only real issue is that it can make the problem seem inevitable, when it's in fact very preventable.

As you've experienced, it doesn't take much to keep them from grinding apart. Unfortunately, some do end up severely neglected anyway. Here's an example...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)