Why doesn’t Rolex….

[trout_thumper21]

Put a small glide-lock clasp on every timepiece they make? Even a clasp with 3-4 positions would be a big upgrade from the easy link and could seemingly be done without making the clasp much larger if at all

[Seddyspaghetti]

Because they don’t feel like it.

[trout_thumper21]

Originally Posted by Seddyspaghetti

Because they don’t feel like it.

Great insight, you are special. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise

[doboy007]

Originally Posted by trout_thumper21

Great insight, you are special. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise

You asked and he answered best he could. How would anyone know why other than someone at Rolex? Don’t get cheeky.

[Seddyspaghetti]

Originally Posted by trout_thumper21

Great insight, you are special. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise

Silly questions get silly answers

[BLACKHORSE 6]

Wow. That escalated quickly.

[TimeAZ]

A valid question. Maybe they purposefully limit the feature so that the more entry-level options (such as OP) do not internally compete with more premium offerings. I can't imagine the manufacturing cost is a factor, since the sub has it but GMT does not... nearly same case profile in that comparison.

The other thing I would love to see is the adoption of a mini-glidelock across the entire oysterflex lineup. How come the YM OF has it, but the Daytonas do not??? Makes zero sense. It would be extremely useful for the OF to have 8 mm of incremental adjustment.

[BLACKHORSE 6]

Rolex is likely looking for a way to differentiate their dive watches from other watch types in their line up. The glide lock is on the diving watches because it serves the purpose of making it easy to wear over a wet suit. As the datejust or explorer or Daytona isn’t a dive watch, there’s no need for them to have that type of adjustment to the bracelet. The glide lock is part of what makes the Rolex dive watches special.

But who knows why Rolex does anything? They seem to know what they’re doing.

[prnceofpersia23]

Originally Posted by TimeAZ

The other thing I would love to see is the adoption of a mini-glidelock across the entire oysterflex lineup. How come the YM OF has it, but the Daytonas do not??? Makes zero sense. It would be extremely useful for the OF to have 8 mm of incremental adjustment.

Hear hear!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[KeobNepo]

Originally Posted by BLACKHORSE 6

Rolex is likely looking for a way to differentiate their dive watches from other watch types in their line up. The glide lock is on the diving watches because it serves the purpose of making it easy to wear over a wet suit. As the datejust or explorer or Daytona isn’t a dive watch, there’s no need for them to have that type of adjustment to the bracelet. The glide lock is part of what makes the Rolex dive watches special.

But who knows why Rolex does anything? They seem to know what they’re doing.

Yes, this indeed. The functions om the particular watch serve the purpose of it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nairn1980]

Originally Posted by Seddyspaghetti

Because they don’t feel like it.

This exactly……. Actually not a stupid answer.

[JSolution]

Variance .. give people more reason to pick one over another … and some people prefer easy link including myself.

[928ktgold]

Originally Posted by JSolution

Variance .. give people more reason to pick one over another … and some people prefer easy link including myself.

Me too

[teck21]

I’ve heard that it is because their dive watches are designed to be worn over a wetsuit, and also on the bare wrist when not diving.

Don’t dive so I wouldn’t know if this makes sense.

Oh wait, someone mentioned it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Harry-57]

The Glidelock started life as a diving extension, and a very good one. I understand that a smaller version is now available on some models.

I had a Breitling and I have a Seiko that have a mini Glidelock type clasp adjustment. Very neat and convenient, particularly as my wrists tend to expand and contract.

I think Rolex will make it more widely available but there is no imperative to do so. It's a feature that they can roll out whenever they want to. Right now, they don't need to. It wouldn't increase their sales. The first answer may have been short but it was basically accurate.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Seddyspaghetti

Because they don’t feel like it.

believe it or not this is actually the correct answer...

the other acceptable answer is "because Rolex"

[Brew]

Unnecessary for me. I don’t even use the easy link.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Boaters]

Some folks don't like the length of the glidelock and are hoping that Rolex would make a smaller addition. I don't see that happening but one never knows.

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by Boaters

Some folks don't like the length of the glidelock and are hoping that Rolex would make a smaller addition. I don't see that happening but one never knows.

I thought they do?

I'm probably just getting more confused in my old age.

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by trout_thumper21

Put a small glide-lock clasp on every timepiece they make? Even a clasp with 3-4 positions would be a big upgrade from the easy link and could seemingly be done without making the clasp much larger if at all

Originally Posted by trout_thumper21

Great insight, you are special. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise

Why should Rolex do this?

[IamJacky]

Originally Posted by blackhorse 6

rolex is likely looking for a way to differentiate their dive watches from other watch types in their line up. The glide lock is on the diving watches because it serves the purpose of making it easy to wear over a wet suit. As the datejust or explorer or daytona isn’t a dive watch, there’s no need for them to have that type of adjustment to the bracelet. The glide lock is part of what makes the rolex dive watches special.

But who knows why rolex does anything? They seem to know what they’re doing.

+1

[OG1982]

That’s the beauty of having a diverse catalogue full of different metals, dials, bezel options and bracelets. We all get to pick the combinations we like best.

[Cru Jones]

Can they do a “small glide lock clasp”? If not, put a Sub’s clasp on a ladies’ Date-Just?

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Harry-57

I thought they do?

I'm probably just getting more confused in my old age.

They do Harry and some of the posters here might not know what the OP is referring to

OP, I agree and think it would be a welcomed upgrade on the professional references

[dannyp]

As mentioned already, it was developed for divers and it helps in marketing the dive watches. As such, it also serves an entirely different purpose from Easylink - accommodating a wetsuit underneath vs slight changes in wearers wrist circumference due to weather - in the eyes of Rolex R&D. R&D departments rarely see things the same as the general public. The spring bar settings on the other models do a fine enough job of getting a good fit for most, though perhaps a switch to four vs three would be helpful.

When it comes to watch robustness, I am also an advocate of the idea: Why have additional moving parts when you don't have to.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by dannyp

As mentioned already, it was developed for divers and it helps in marketing the dive watches. As such, it also serves an entirely different purpose from Easylink - accommodating a wetsuit underneath vs slight changes in wearers wrist circumference due to weather - in the eyes of Rolex R&D. R&D departments rarely see things the same as the general public. The spring bar settings on the other models do a fine enough job of getting a good fit for most, though perhaps a switch to four vs three would be helpful.

When it comes to watch robustness, I am also an advocate of the idea: Why have additional moving parts when you don't have to.

My guess is that the mini glidelock was not developed for this purpose but rather “normal wrist expansion” similar to the easylink

[Benjiex]

Why Rolex is not cheap. :)

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by TimeAZ

The other thing I would love to see is the adoption of a mini-glidelock across the entire oysterflex lineup. How come the YM OF has it, but the Daytonas do not??? Makes zero sense. It would be extremely useful for the OF to have 8 mm of incremental adjustment.

I'm guessing clasp length has something to do with it? The YM 40 is a "bigger 40" than the Daytona and probably looks more proportional with a Sub-derived clasp. Not sure whether the GL actually requires a longer clasp or if it's merely a matter of reusing existing component designs, but of note, only YM 40 and 42 have it, the smaller 37 does not.

[zengineer]

The answer to 'why don't they" is impossible for any of us to answer. Do I wish they would...yes. I really doubt they will.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[warrior]

Posters’ responses to the OP question got more informative as the thread has gone along, and the OP probably has a better idea now.

Originally Posted by doboy007

You asked and he answered best he could. How would anyone know why other than someone at Rolex? Don’t get cheeky.