No more "tuna can" clasps

[Tridor]

I feel like a Luddite. I like the tuna can clasp. I like "old school" Rolex. I like lugholes. I don't like all the new bling, I don't like the Sky Dweller, and I don't like the direction that Rolex is taking. I'm very happy I have my Tridor DD and my 16700. I am very disappointed in the new line, and while the new clasp may be an "improvement," it doesn't mean it's "better." Just my $0.02.

[Dr. Robert]

Originally Posted by Tridor

I feel like a Luddite. I like the tuna can clasp. I like "old school" Rolex. I like lugholes. I don't like all the new bling, I don't like the Sky Dweller, and I don't like the direction that Rolex is taking. I'm very happy I have my Tridor DD and my 16700. I am very disappointed in the new line, and while the new clasp may be an "improvement," it doesn't mean it's "better." Just my $0.02.

I like this guy.

[nick c]

i like tuna

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by nick c

i like tuna

Tuna last long time ! - no sirry welded parts to fx and make me cweye !

[SPARTAN2161]

Originally Posted by ecsub44

But it WORKS, WORKS, WORKS!

I'll wait 40+ years to weigh in on my opinion on the "quality" of the new clasp. Just because something feels/seems of high quality surely doesn't mean that it IS of high quality.

I'm perfectly content without my date, with my cheap clasp, and my lugholes.

Bah humbug!

x2

[Dr. Robert]

Originally Posted by ecsub44

But it WORKS, WORKS, WORKS!

I'll wait 40+ years to weigh in on my opinion on the "quality" of the new clasp. Just because something feels/seems of high quality surely doesn't mean that it IS of high quality.

I'm perfectly content without my date, with my cheap clasp, and my lugholes.

Bah humbug!

Bah humbug, I like this guy too.

[Singslinger]

Fully agree.

[gwozhog]

After reading this I took mine out to the back yard and poured gas on it and set it on fire. Only problem was after the flame went out it still looked good as new. OOps. What a piece of crap.

[GradyPhilpott]

It's a done deal.

It's history.

Tomorrow dawns a new age!

[DCgator]

Originally Posted by George Ab

I'm throwing my Sea-Dweller and GMT II in the garbage immediately. What a piece of junk!

Me too! :D

[Psmith]

Imho, the old clasps belong on vintage pieces and were out of place on modern watches, let alone the more recent releases. I'm pleased to see the new clasps on the YM and SUB ND C this year.

[xjeeunitx]

Funny thing is... I guessed this was going to happen and it actually did. :)

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by gradyphilpott

to me, stamped clasps are as functional as milled clasps and lighter, too.

When they are in the deployed mode, they are indistinguishable.

However, the change was inevitable, so it's good that it's done and we can focus on other more important issues.

x2

[drockadam]

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

I agree 100% with the OP. The Glidelock has spoiled me and rendered my old 16613 nearly unwearable!

I'll wear your 16613 for you...

[stusrt]

I hated the cheap clasp on my GMT-II -
the watch was $4,500 (remember those days?) - and I was always worried about bending it -
I didn't like that my Omegas and Breitlings were so much better made (at least the bracelet and clasps)

when I got the new GMT, the clasp seemed like a leap 20 years ahead.

[Annan]

Originally Posted by George Ab

I'm throwing my Sea-Dweller and GMT II in the garbage immediately. What a piece of junk!

Feel free to use my garbage can!

[le_baroudeur]

It's like comparing a porsche 911 3.2 with a new cayenne: Great Engineery is simplicity, durability, aesthetics and efficiency... Not technology.
I will take the old clasp, and the 3.2 everyday, but perhaps one day those who chose the heavier, bulky and more complex one will understand.

[padi56]

While the new clasp are classed as a improvement over the older clasp that has worked quite well for 50 odd years.And myself cannot recollect of any failures, its was quite a simple functional design with few movement parts.While the new clasp is quite a bit more technical in its construction,only time will tell if its reliable.But if it does fail or go wrong a hell of a lot more cash needed to replace it same could be said for the ceramic inserts.Afraid today being more complex heavier etc, is not always better, even if cosmetically it seems better to some.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by le_baroudeur

It's like comparing a porsche 911 3.2 with a new cayenne: Great Engineery is simplicity, durability, aesthetics and efficiency...

Perfect analogy!
dP

[lyktestolpe]

It's time the new clasp gets a chance to become a classic, as the old one is (:

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by padi56

While the new clasp are classed as a improvement over the older clasp that has worked quite well for 50 odd years.And myself cannot recollect of any failures, its was quite a simple functional design with few movement parts.While the new clasp is quite a bit more technical in its construction,only time will tell if its reliable.But if it does fail or go wrong a hell of a lot more cash needed to replace it same could be said for the ceramic inserts.Afraid today being more complex heavier etc, is not always better, even if cosmetically it seems better to some.

But in this day and age, its also about what "feels better" and this means both mentally/physically and to a lesser extent bottom line wise.

Todays ROLEX consumer needs to "get his money$ worth" for a watch commanding near $7 large and a machined bracelet/ceramic bezel seems to fill the bill...

Todays marketing manager seems to have conned the higher ups that a machined clasp section and a couple handfuls of parts can not only be more substantive and gives the owner a little something "easier" to manipulate to get that "instant gratification" of fit to the wrist all while commanding astro - freakin - nomical prices for what it is - makes a home run for ROLEX - oh and the buyer to

Nice work by them fellas in marketing, they prolly look like this too

[Roley]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

It looks like the last of the "tuna can" stamped metal clasps have gone as both the YM & Sub are updated.
Personally I thouhgt they looked pretty cheap and dated, so I'll say "good riddance"

I'm with you on this one....So long to the tuna can.....

[Atomant]

What's wong with the tuna can clasps? I wear mine with pride.

[joe100]

The more moving parts you have, the more likely it is to break. I'll take what works

[capote]

Tun can clasps, like diamonds, are forever

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

Todays ROLEX consumer needs to "get his money$ worth" for a watch commanding near $7 large and a machined bracelet/ceramic bezel seems to fill the bill...

I also don't understand the rationale of thinking that these changes will mean that Rolex owners will get their money's worth, or more for their money.

The difference between the 14060M bracelet and the 116610 bracelet is on the order of $800 MSRP.

That's not getting more value for the money. That's paying more for something else, for better or worse.

My 14060M cost me $6300 MSRP late last year and the 114060 will clock in at just north of $7500, or perhaps slightly less.

Now, I'm not saying that the new watch is over-priced given the new case, bracelet, movement, and bezel insert, but don't say that it's about time that Rolex owners started getting their money's worth.

The cost of these mostly cosmetic changes is quite high and although most of us can comfortably own the Rolex watches that we have, most of us also have limits.

I got on the bandwagon at precisely the right time in my life and the life-cycle of Rolex watch models, so I can stop now and be quite happy.

When the chorus of posts bemoaning the next price increase and that Rolex is pricing a lot of fans out of the market, I'll just smile and treasure my little collection.

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I also don't understand the rationale of thinking that these changes will mean that Rolex owners will get their money's worth, or more for their money.

The difference between the 14060M bracelet and the 116610 bracelet is on the order of $800 MSRP.

That's not getting more value for the money. That's paying more for something else, for better or worse.

My 14060M cost me $6300 MSRP late last year and the 114060 will clock in at just north of $7500, or perhaps slightly less.

Now, I'm not saying that the new watch is over-priced given the new case, bracelet, movement, and bezel insert, but don't say that it's about time that Rolex owners started getting their money's worth.

The cost of these mostly cosmetic changes is quite high and although most of us can comfortably own the Rolex watches that we have, most of us also have limits.

I got on the bandwagon at precisely the right time in my life and the life-cycle of Rolex watch models, so I can stop now and be quite happy.

When the chorus of posts bemoaning the next price increase and that Rolex is pricing a lot of fans out of the market, I'll just smile and treasure my little collection.

[springbar]

The wonderful old clasp was strong, simple, and altogether fit-for-purpose, but it does seem out-of-place on the newer watches.

It's funny how stamped parts are derided as cheap when in fact stampings are more expensive to tool up for and are generally stronger and lighter.

[subtona]

i will miss them as much as the lugholes.

they are cheaper to replace and i believe more reliable.

don't like those new fangled clasps one bit.

enjoy, whatever makes your boat float, thats just my


as a matter of fact im putting on my 14060m (2 line) right now

old clasp vs new ... log your experiences.
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=208452

[Xenophon]

I'm not saying they weren't functional. I did hundreds of dives wearing my Sub & Sea-Dweller (I did have the SD extension link bend irrepairably once though). I just think they look cheap on a £4000+ watch.