The Rolex Submariner glidelock clasp gets a lot of love on the forums and I mean A LOT of love (especially over on TRF)

But I never see anyone make a fuss about Omegas equivalent - why is that?

(damn! it gets so little mention I don't even know what the proper name for it is, so I will just refer to it as a slide extension)

I don't know how many Omega models come with this but the slide extension on my Seamaster 300 Master Co-axial is every bit as convenient as the glidelock and actually more comfortable! - the glidelock is quite long and narrow even when in the fully closed position compared to the Omega version which is short and wide and sits closer to the wrist.

As an owner of both the Rolex Submariner and the Omega SM300MC I am talking from experience.

Don't get me wrong, the glidelock is very very good and extremely well made and engineered, I just don't understand why the Omega version doesn't get the same amount of discussion time or general love & recognition.

Once you've experienced the convenience of being able to let your bracelet out, even a few millimetres, as your wrist expands in hot weather, any other watch you may own that just has a standard clasp becomes far less desirable to wear especially in the summer months. They really do spoil you!

Please don't confuse this with the 5mm fliplock extension as found on a Seamaster 300 Diver, that's something completely different and isn't a practical as either the glidelock or the slide extension on the 300MC.

Anyways,here are a couple of comparison shots between the Rolex glidelock and the Omega slide extension.

 

I have the MC and agree it works well. My biggest issue is an aesthetic one. The clasp does not match as well with the bracelet as the glide lock does with its respective bracelet. Functionally for what I need it's fantastic. I occasionally dive with my seamaster but I then prefer to use a NATO . They are using this same clasp design with several of their bracelets.

 

Brilliant Thread!...thanks for posting the comparison shots and first hand experience. Having owned a 300 Diver, I would say that the double push-button function is also a feature that makes the clasp far superior to the flick-lock function of the Rolex. I just love having the option of being able to close the clasp silently by holding the buttons down, or enjoy a "snap" if you wish by closing it without holding down the buttons. And upon opening, no need dig underneath with your fingernails.

 

As a new owner of an adjustable Seamaster clasp (fitted to my Speedy Pro) I agree that the reason the Rolex clasp gets so much love is that, even though it's longer, it's quite sleek and well-integrated with the bracelet.

 

I have no experience with the Rolex Glidelock clasp, but the adjustable clasp that came with my 8900 P.O. is phenomenal. First bracelet I've owned with any kind of quick adjustable clasp and I've already used it more in the month that i've owned it than I ever imagined I would. It's hard to transition over to another watch without an adjustable clasp now that I have gotten used to this one. Easily one of my favorite features of this watch.

 

Exactly my point - and we need more people like you to tell the world what a wonderful invention Omega's adjustable slide clasp is - why should the Rolex boys get all the glory! [emoji106] [emoji23]

 

I'd be more than glad to do my part as an Omega brand ambassador! [emoji23]

 

Hahaha...as would we all I'm sure... lol