New shortened Glidelock on YM OF

[JacksonStone]

Rolex introduced a shortened Glidelock clasp this year on both the new WG YM42, as well as the RG YM40, both on the OF strap. Until now, the Glidelock has been used exclusively on diver watches since it was introduced on the Submariner and DSSD in 2008. Along with the clasp's larger size, this has led a number of Rolex wearers to say the Glidelock isn't appropriate for non-diver watches, and expressed preference for the Easylink. Others noted the greater adjustability offered by the Glidelock and said it would be a good option on other, non-diver watches, especially in a shortened form. Did Rolex listen? This latest development indicates Rolex now views the Glidelock as a useful adjustment mechanism for individuals not intending to use their watches for diving. However, the fact it is as yet limited to PM clasps on OF straps (an entirely new generation of GMTs still has the Easylink, as does the remainder of the updated YM range) raises questions about whether this will be offered on non-diver Oyster bracelets in the future.

What do you think? Do you feel the Glidelock is now a better choice for Rolex's bracelets than the Easylink? If you were against the Glidelock being on non-diver watches, does this new clasp change your mind any? Do you think this is a sign of a transition from Rolex, or are they likely to keep it relegated to divers and OF straps only?


Here's ABTW's hands-on look at the YM42 at Baselworld. Demonstration of the new Glidelock begins around 0:30.

[Xerxes77]

Thank you for sharing......
I think it’s a good improvement

[angerbot]

As someone who finds themselves between sizes at some point during the day every day I'd just about kill a man for glidelock to be on every bracelet. Even with EasyLink I often find that small is too small but my wrist isn't quite swelled enough to need the full 5mm.

[mattesq]

Originally Posted by angerbot

As someone who finds themselves between sizes at some point during the day every day I'd just about kill a man for glidelock to be on every bracelet. Even with EasyLink I often find that small is too small but my wrist isn't quite swelled enough to need the full 5mm.

This!

As an owner of a 2017 YM 40 on OF I am wondering how much Rolex is going to charge me to swap the clasp? Hopefully not too bad of a beating ...

[RTG]

Originally Posted by mattesq

This!

As an owner of a 2017 YM 40 on OF I am wondering how much Rolex is going to charge me to swap the clasp? Hopefully not too bad of a beating ...

Just $26,200 for a whole new watch ;-)

[mattesq]

Originally Posted by RTG

Just $26,200 for a whole new watch ;-)

Gee thanks!

[Finslayer83]

Originally Posted by angerbot

As someone who finds themselves between sizes at some point during the day every day I'd just about kill a man for glidelock to be on every bracelet. Even with EasyLink I often find that small is too small but my wrist isn't quite swelled enough to need the full 5mm.

this

[Brew]

Folks seem to like the feature. I'm happy with a simple clasp. I never even use the easy links on my watches.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by angerbot

As someone who finds themselves between sizes at some point during the day every day I'd just about kill a man for glidelock to be on every bracelet. Even with EasyLink I often find that small is too small but my wrist isn't quite swelled enough to need the full 5mm.

Originally Posted by Brew

Folks seem to like the feature. I'm happy with a simple clasp. I never even use the easy links on my watches.

These are the archetypal pro and con arguments for the Glidelock on non-diver watches: those who would kill to have that level of adjustability, and those who say they have no need for it. Along those lines, the people who don't need it typically point to the larger Glidelock clasp as a reason they would prefer to stay with the Easylink.

My question for the anti-Glidelock people is, now that the Glidelock is being offered in a smaller version that appears to be the same size as the Easylink, are you against it replacing the Easylink on all watches that use an Oyster clasp? If we assume for the sake of argument that cost increase would be minimal, what reason would you have for not wanting it, aside from not feeling you need it?

[Brew]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

My question for the anti-Glidelock people is, now that the Glidelock is being offered in a smaller version that appears to be the same size as the Easylink, are you against it replacing the Easylink on all watches that use an Oyster clasp? If we assume for the sake of argument that cost increase would be minimal, what reason would you have for not wanting it, aside from not feeling you need it?

I'm not anti, but assuming the clasp doesn't add maintenance cost or increase the likelihood of requiring maintenance, I don't see a downside.

[Crown & Shield]

Thanks for posting this. Are we sure it is a shorter Glidelock, though? Hard to tell from the video, and on the Rolex site they just say Glidelock... I hope it is shorter and that it will spread -at Rolex Alpine glacier speed, anyway- to other models. So that maybe we can hope to see an Explorer with Glidelock and 3232 movement at Basel 2029

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Crown & Shield

Thanks for posting this. Are we sure it is a shorter Glidelock, though? Hard to tell from the video, and on the Rolex site they just say Glidelock... I hope it is shorter and that it will spread -at Rolex Alpine glacier speed, anyway- to other models. So that maybe we can hope to see an Explorer with Glidelock and 3232 movement at Basel 2029

It certainly appears shorter to me. It's easier to view if you watch the video on Youtube and go full screen. The clasp is about the same length as an Easylink, and when the slider is nearly fully extended, I count fewer visible ridges than on the Sub's GL.

Zoomed screen grab from ABTW video, along with a down-and-dirty shot of my Sub GL with the slider set to the same position. Note how much adjustment remains on mine, compared to the YM.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

It certainly appears shorter to me. It's easier to view if you watch the video on Youtube and go full screen. The clasp is about the same length as an Easylink, and when the slider is nearly fully extended, I count fewer visible ridges than on the Sub's GL.

Zoomed screen grab from ABTW video, along with a down-and-dirty shot of my Sub GL with the slider set to the same position. Note how much adjustment remains on mine, compared to the YM.

That does look shorter. Perhaps 7 increments (maybe 8) compared to 10 on the diver glidelock? So 14mm to 16mm adjustment rather than 20mm?

Probably more useful on Oysterflex given that the range of strap sizes are not ideal for everyone’s wrist size or shape.

The issue with glidelock is that you lose the micro adjustment of the easy link clasp. But the 2mm increments are far better than 3 or 5mm

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by Devildog

That does look shorter. Perhaps 7 increments (maybe 8) compared to 10 on the diver glidelock? So 14mm to 16mm adjustment rather than 20mm?

Probably more useful on Oysterflex given that the range of strap sizes are not ideal for everyone’s wrist size or shape.

The issue with glidelock is that you lose the micro adjustment of the easy link clasp. But the 2mm increments are far better than 3 or 5mm

I just saw this, Scott. Sorry I didn't include it in my agreement of Tyler's post. I think both of you guys are spot on.

The big win for me, though, is that I can stop beating myself up for flipping the RG version three years ago. The new YM is a perfect 42mm, is in my favorite metal, WG, and now has glide lock. The RG is dead to me now and I can move on.

[RTG]

I think it is a great improvement! Glidelock offers an idiot-proof range of adjustment. I wish it was available on the Explorer II and my other favorites.

[jonnyz1245]

I think the Glidelock would be a great addition to all watches and hopes Rolex moves forward with it. Adding it to the new YM 42 is definitely a step in the right direction, whether or not this indicates Rolex is going to roll it out across other lines is anyones guess. I hope they do. I love it!

[SS Oyster]

Super smart since a bunch of us capped for that improvement this Basel. At least they got that part right. Good to see. Now they need to offer in rest if SS line ... at least with 10mm of adjustment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[smym18]

I love the glidelock and use it on my Sub daily, and would love it on other models.

JacksonStone - remember a few months back when you got into it with someone claiming it’s impossible for your wrist to change sizes throughout the day?

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by smym18

I love the glidelock and use it on my Sub daily, and would love it on other models.

JacksonStone - remember a few months back when you got into it with someone claiming it’s impossible for your wrist to change sizes throughout the day?

Oh yeah...I remember. Intermittent edema.

[TacticaLCawacoL]

Thanks for sharing.

In my opinion the Glidelock is the pinnacle of metal bracelet. And i think it is nice that Rolex makes it now in various size.

It should be offered by Rolex as an option on every model, ( except for those who only want hidden clasp ), even if it is an extra cost, i think that would be great if we could have that choice when buying a new Rolex.

[Crown & Shield]

Another huge advantage of the Glidelock is that it is more fail-proof: on the regular clasp, all the stress is borne by the small springbar that clicks into those shallow blind holes on the inside of the clasp, whereas in the Glidelock it is the grooves milled into the clasp that bear most of the longitudinal stress.

[angerbot]

In my (anecdotal) experience, the people who prefer glidelock are the people who wear their watches a bit tighter whereas folks who don't care/don't use easylink anyways tend to be fine with a looser fit. My watch dangling off the side of my wrist feels horribly uncomfortable to me and I almost always err on the side of too tight.

[joshinbrooklyn]

In addition to making adjustments throughout the day, I think the glidelock clasp solves general fitment problems for people who were previously adding extra half links or moving links from one side of the bracelet to the other.

[offrdmania]

I love it! I replaced the tin-can clasp on my 14060M with a glidelock years ago and I wouldnt have it any other way.
That glidelock micro adjustment system makes the watch so comfortable that I sometimes forget that its on my wrist.

[Cdn328is]

+1 here for glidelock EVERYWHERE please! Short version as shown in the video would be ideal! I don't need the dive suit extension, but the ability to get a perfect fit in any situation is one of the best features of the clasp.

[WatchLurv]

Glidelock is a superb functionality. After spending 12 hours on a flight and landing in tropical climate I feel the bloat, thus a glidelock just gives a little bit more comfort and blood circulation into my hand.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by WatchLurv

Glidelock is a superb functionality. After spending 12 hours on a flight and landing in tropical climate I feel the bloat, thus a glidelock just gives a little bit more comfort and blood circulation into my hand.

I've experienced the same thing. It runs counter to the notion that it's most suited to diving, and a traveler's watch like the GMT has no need for it.

[WatchLurv]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I've experienced the same thing. It runs counter to notion that it's most suited to diving, and a traveler's watch like the GMT has no need for it.

Also depends if those people who say it shouldn't be on every clasp actually travel. I find it functional. I do prefer traveling with my Sub over my Nautilus.

[HauteHorlogerie]

The oysterflex daytonas need this now... yes yes.

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by HauteHorlogerie

The oysterflex daytonas need this now... yes yes.

Just in time for RG YM on OF because that watch didn’t even have EasyLink.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk