Rolex bracelets

[BruceS]

Just for fun and illustrative purposes, here are pics of some Rolex vs Omega bracelet wear pics. As they say, a picture says a 1000 words.

Omega clasp wear - this watch is was just under a year old at photo time


Bracelet wear on the same watch


Bracelet on my Bond Seamaster wore it hard for about 2 years and it sat the next 3


Clasp on the same watch


Clasp of 7 year old Sub


Clasp of K serial Sub taken earlier this year


Of course the finish of the metal makes some difference, but there is a difference as can be seen in the pics. My watches are probably a typical representation. Make your own mind up about what conclusions can be drawn if any.

[worktolivelife]

evening bruce,

all things being equal i think its down to the finish! rather than "quality" I wouldn't like to see a Daytona bracelet thats seen a long and adventurous life!!!!!!!, i also think that the finish also influences just how you use a watch, Id be the first to admit my daytona gets more respect than the SD, for no other reason than i know that the brushed finish won't look like sh!t after even moderate wear which the Daytonas mirror finished surfaces I'M SURE WOULD!!!!

steve

Jockes Daytona clasp "It Must Be When It Was NEW"

[BruceS]

Yeah I agree. Rolex must still be teaching their ADs to say that it's the quality of the steel. Hell I would believe it from what I've seen, except that even most Rolex forums think it's BS.

Man that Daytona clasp is gorgeous

[dman]

I know for me personally the oyster bracelet is all and more than I could want and need. I did do the same thing that Jocke did above, that is put a daytona clasp on a YM, but that was a want, certainly not a need.

[worktolivelife]

Originally Posted by dman

I know for me personally the oyster bracelet is all and more than I could want and need. I did do the same thing that Jocke did above, that is put a daytona clasp on a YM, but that was a want, certainly not a need.

hi darren,

nearly picked up a SS/PLAT YM earlier in the year if the AD had been prepared to put a daytona clasp on it in the deal , it does make a difference and gives it a quality feel IMO, while we're on bracelets the one on my breitling is built to shackle convicts but because of the polished finish you feel sub conscious or not you need to baby it! I must admit though I do like a bit of bling!!!!

steve

[dman]

Originally Posted by worktolivelife

hi darren,

nearly picked up a SS/PLAT YM earlier in the year if the AD had been prepared to put a daytona clasp on it in the deal , it does make a difference and gives it a quality feel IMO, while we're on bracelets the one on my breitling is built to shackle convicts but because of the polished finish you feel sub conscious or not you need to baby it! I must admit though I do like a bit of bling!!!!

steve

I don't baby mine and there are scratches on it, but it is tough as nails. Even with the polished center links.

OFF TOPIC: what happened with the Breitling or AT? Been wondering for days now.

[worktolivelife]

Originally Posted by dman

I don't baby mine and there are scratches on it, but it is tough as nails. Even with the polished center links.

OFF TOPIC: what happened with the Breitling or AT? Been wondering for days now.

Steven has to wait and see what "Santa" brings like all good little boys

[BruceS]

LOL I can hardly wait to see what's in the box! I'm a big fan of Breitling bracelets too Steve, expecially the pilot bracelet. They are great pieces of work and comfortable too. Never been keen on the Omega bracelets, even the Speedy ones. I've replaced every one I've owned with a strap 'cause I can't get them to fit right.

The nice thing for me about Rolex bracelets, is that because they are so light, I can wear them loose and not have them slipping around so much. With the heavier Omegas I always feel like I have to have them tighter, but then that's uncomfortable. Too bad because they are super well built bracelets.

I got along well with the one on my Breguet and also the IWC 3706. Those were nice!!

[maverick]

I have solid links on my YM, hollow on my others and some SEL and some non-SEL. When wearing them they all feel good and I have never had the clasp on any pop open unexpectedly. I usually pay more attention to other things than the bracelet but it seems to be an genuine issue with some. =) maverick

[JJ Irani]

With 16 Rollies under my belt over all these years, the only "problem" I ever had was with my very first TT DJ which I did use for 10 years. It was on a Jubilee bracelet which had stretched, but that really wasn't a problem after all....never broke...all bracelets extremely dependable and comfortable - no hair pulling whatsoever.....and you know what kinda "sweater" I have on, ya tossers!!

[baseballduck]

When I tried the GMT II on in Charleston it felt like the whole watch was built like a tank. Sure I was in a Rolex induced shock, but I did pay some attention to the details. The bracelet to me felt light but very solid at the same time. I liked it.

Tyler

[JJ Irani]

Barring the "heft" factor, I don't think that the solid links would in any way strengthen the bracelet. The hollow links are equally strong which fact, of course, has been proven over the decades that Rolex has been around.

The TT bracelets, however, do have an additional steel "sleeve" within to reduce friction on the 18 K gold and reinforce the bracelet links.

JJ

[maverick]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Barring the "heft" factor, I don't think that the solid links would in any way strengthen the bracelet. The hollow links are equally strong which fact, of course, has been proven over the decades that Rolex has been around.

The TT bracelets, however, do have an additional steel "sleeve" within to reduce friction on the 18 K gold and reinforce the bracelet links.

JJ

I guess it is only right they are not priced by weight. LOL It's not like you are buying fruit or vegetables.=) maverick

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by maverick

I guess it is only right they are not priced by weight. LOL It's not like you are buying fruit or vegetables.=) maverick

If watches were priced by weight, can you just imagine what some of those heavyweight Breitlings would cost?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

If watches were priced by weight, can you just imagine what some of those heavyweight Breitlings would cost?

Agree JJ but weight don't always buy you strength.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by padi56

Agree JJ but weight don't always buy you strength.

That's exactly what I tried to explain in my earlier post, Padi. Rolex have had hollow centre links for years on their Oyster bracelets and still do. SDs and Subs have gone through hell and high water, their bracelets being subjected to the worst possible conditions....and still held up through it all!! The links are very strong.

[BruceS]

That was one of the points of this thread JJ along with my comments in the other thread that prompted this. I'm sick of reading that Rolex has substandard bracelets because that's just pure BS!! In fact, depending on how you judge them, and I choose to judge by comfort and longevity, Rolex may be among the best! If you want shiney, heavy, jewelry bracelets go buy UN or something, but see how long they look good if you actually do anything other than sit at a desk.

[Air King Date]

Worktolivelife's pic on page 1 of this thread is a very interesting and nicely done shot.
Cheers!

[dman]

Originally Posted by worktolivelife

Steven has to wait and see what "Santa" brings like all good little boys

Alright Steve!! You can't fondle it, but it might make you feel better to share all the details with us!

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by BruceS

That was one of the points of this thread JJ along with my comments in the other thread that prompted this. I'm sick of reading that Rolex has substandard bracelets because that's just pure BS!! In fact, depending on how you judge them, and I choose to judge by comfort and longevity, Rolex may be among the best! If you want shiney, heavy, jewelry bracelets go buy UN or something, but see how long they look good if you actually do anything other than sit at a desk.

Agreed, Bruce...and all it takes is a quick wash with soap and water, and the bracelet looks once more like new!!

The one point I think everyone has missed here is this. Rolex uses a higher grade of SS on their bracelets, the 904L. The only watch manufacturer (I believe) who uses it. That could go a long way in helping to explain Bruce's idea that Rolex bracelets and clasps are better in the long run than heavier, more solid feeling ones. I'll take a 'light' Rolex 916 bracelet over a heavier 316L grade Omega bracelet any day.

[JIM-]

Originally Posted by Atomic

The one point I think everyone has missed here is this. Rolex uses a higher grade of SS on their bracelets, the 904L. The only watch manufacturer (I believe) who uses it. That could go a long way in helping to explain Bruce's idea that Rolex bracelets and clasps are better in the long run than heavier, more solid feeling ones. I'll take a 'light' Rolex 916 bracelet over a heavier 316L grade Omega bracelet any day.

Good point Johnny. The Rolex bracelet while lighter then most will take a heck of a beating its the higher grade steel that makes this possible. I think over time Rolex will have all solid bracelets on every line, its seems thats what people want.

[BruceS]

Originally Posted by Atomic

The one point I think everyone has missed here is this. Rolex uses a higher grade of SS on their bracelets, the 904L. The only watch manufacturer (I believe) who uses it. That could go a long way in helping to explain Bruce's idea that Rolex bracelets and clasps are better in the long run than heavier, more solid feeling ones. I'll take a 'light' Rolex 916 bracelet over a heavier 316L grade Omega bracelet any day.

Well......the ADs always point that out, and it would seem to explain it on the surface, but even most Rolex forums have dismissed it as irrelavent. Apparently the steel Rolex uses is more corrosion resistent, and the arguement goes, so what if I ain't stickin' my wrist in corrosive material There seems to be no evidence that the steel is in fact stronger, although the ADs will tell you that Rolex has special tools to work it because of the steel type. Who knows.

Originally Posted by BruceS

Well......the ADs always point that out, and it would seem to explain it on the surface, but even most Rolex forums have dismissed it as irrelavent. Apparently the steel Rolex uses is more corrosion resistent, and the arguement goes, so what if I ain't stickin' my wrist in corrosive material There seems to be no evidence that the steel is in fact stronger, although the ADs will tell you that Rolex has special tools to work it because of the steel type. Who knows.

I know, I know... but I have done some reading on the differences between 316 and 904 and while the biggest advantage is resistance to corrosion, the next biggest is hardness.

The 904 grade SS is a harder compound than 316 and therefore more difficult to manufacture because it doesn't bend as easily as the 316. I would extrapolate that 'hardness' of the metal to mean it is likely more resistant to heavy scratching... the type that makes an Omega braclet look beat up after a year, when a similarly worn Rolex bracelet looks much better.

[BruceS]

Originally Posted by Atomic

I know, I know... but I have done some reading on the differences between 316 and 904 and while the biggest advantage is resistance to corrosion, the next biggest is hardness.

The 904 grade SS is a harder compound than 316 and therefore more difficult to manufacture because it doesn't bend as easily as the 316. I would extrapolate that 'hardness' of the metal to mean it is likely more resistant to heavy scratching... the type that makes an Omega braclet look beat up after a year, when a similarly worn Rolex bracelet looks much better.

Empirical evidence would certainly seem to suggest you're correct John. My wife's 10 year old DJ looks better than most 1 year old Omegas or Breitlings. I tend to believe the ADs.

Originally Posted by Atomic

I know, I know... but I have done some reading on the differences between 316 and 904 and while the biggest advantage is resistance to corrosion, the next biggest is hardness.

The 904 grade SS is a harder compound than 316 and therefore more difficult to manufacture because it doesn't bend as easily as the 316. I would extrapolate that 'hardness' of the metal to mean it is likely more resistant to heavy scratching... the type that makes an Omega braclet look beat up after a year, when a similarly worn Rolex bracelet looks much better.

Okay - I'll put my engineering hat on and give you some information and opinion.......

1/ There are differences between 316L and 904L. However, when you look up specifications for the various materials, keep in mind that what you will find on the internet (for example) are general properties only. Unless you know the specific supplier that each company is getting their steel from, you won't know the specific properties of the steel they are using (ASTM, SAE and other grades are only guidelines). Even then it can vary from heat to heat, so for instance in structural applications where strength is important, I will always ask for mill certificates for the steel I specify.....

2/ Keeping #1 in mind, if you look at typical applcations, the 904L grade is used in more aggressive chemical applications where high corrosion is an issue. But that's not the only difference. General spcifications for 904L will call out a slightly higher Rockwell B hardness, but the difference is really minimal. The point that Bruce made with his pictures is more to do with finish than anything, in my opinion. 904L is more difficult to work with than 316L, but there are always ways around cold working issues......

3/ 904L does have a slightly higher tensile strength and higher yield strength than 316L, but again with the numbers we are talking about that difference is not really a practical advantage in everyday situations. Any bracelet does not require a great deal of structural integrity in everyday use, as with most watches your hand will get ripped off before the bracelet breaks if you arm is caught in machinery or something.......

4/ Please don't confuse higher strength with higher wear resistance - these are not always directly related.....many factors are involved in wear properties. I mention this because when most people refer to "bracelet stretch" they are actually referring to wear, not stretch. In most cases heavy loads are not put on bracelets that cause them to stretch. What people call stretch is not elongation of the metal as it yields under load, but wear at the joints of the bracelet. Strength is less important in this instance compared to hardness, for example.

In conclusion, technically there are advantages in the 904L steel, but practically they are minor at best.

[BruceS]

Great explaination Al, and that's the conclusion I've read on the other Rolex forums. I reckon it does just come down to finish then.

Originally Posted by Avalon

Okay - I'll put my engineering hat on and give you some information and opinion.......

1/ There are differences between 316L and 904L. However, when you look up specifications for the various materials, keep in mind that what you will find on the internet (for example) are general properties only. Unless you know the specific supplier that each company is getting their steel from, you won't know the specific properties of the steel they are using (ASTM, SAE and other grades are only guidelines). Even then it can vary from heat to heat, so for instance in structural applications where strength is important, I will always ask for mill certificates for the steel I specify.....

2/ Keeping #1 in mind, if you look at typical applcations, the 904L grade is used in more aggressive chemical applications where high corrosion is an issue. But that's not the only difference. General spcifications for 904L will call out a slightly higher Rockwell B hardness, but the difference is really minimal. The point that Bruce made with his pictures is more to do with finish than anything, in my opinion. 904L is more difficult to work with than 316L, but there are always ways around cold working issues......

3/ 904L does have a slightly higher tensile strength and higher yield strength than 316L, but again with the numbers we are talking about that difference is not really a practical advantage in everyday situations. Any bracelet does not require a great deal of structural integrity in everyday use, as with most watches your hand will get ripped off before the bracelet breaks if you arm is caught in machinery or something.......

4/ Please don't confuse higher strength with higher wear resistance - these are not always directly related.....many factors are involved in wear properties. I mention this because when most people refer to "bracelet stretch" they are actually referring to wear, not stretch. In most cases heavy loads are not put on bracelets that cause them to stretch. What people call stretch is not elongation of the metal as it yields under load, but wear at the joints of the bracelet. Strength is less important in this instance compared to hardness, for example.

In conclusion, technically there are advantages in the 904L steel, but practically they are minor at best.

Show off.

But on the issue of 'stretch' is the wear at the joints subject to just wearing it, or dirt in the pivot points, or a combination? I know my oyster, while still tight and sound, isn't as 'tight' as it was when the watch was new.

Originally Posted by Atomic

Show off.

But on the issue of 'stretch' is the wear at the joints subject to just wearing it, or dirt in the pivot points, or a combination? I know my oyster, while still tight and sound, isn't as 'tight' as it was when the watch was new.

Not showing off, just looking at things objectively......

Wear is going to happen regardless of dirt in the joints - however, the dirt will accelerate the wear for sure. Regular cleaning of the bracelet will help this.

Originally Posted by Avalon

Regular cleaning of the bracelet will help this.

Will regular cleaning affect my COSC performance?