- Posts
- 764
- Likes
- 1,427
sathomasga
·I don't think they're as well known as Tudor's fabric straps or Omega's NATOs, but Seiko's Seichu straps seem to have a pretty good reputation, and they've been discussed here before. At almost $300 USD when ordered through a Seiko authorized dealer, they're pretty pricey though. An alternative is the Kumi Weave Strap from Luff Watch Straps, priced at $26 USD. Perhaps some members would be interested in a comparison.
With apologies for the amateur photos (Seiko always on the right), it's clear that the Luff strap is heavily inspired by Seiko (a strap homage?). Although the photos don't really show it, the Luff strap has a bit more sheen than the Seiko, and it's not quite as soft. That's the opposite of what I would expect as the Luff strap is cotton while Seiko uses polyester. The Seiko strap is also notably thicker. It's so thick, in fact, that fitting the folded tail back through keeper can be quite difficult.
There are some design differences evident as well.
I find both straps to be quite soft and comfortable on the wrist and—to me—an improvement over stiffer nylon and polyamide straps. The Seiko feels nicer due to its extra thickness and extra softness. Ultimately, though, I prefer the Luff strap because of its single pass design. Even a single pass of the Seiko strap is pretty thick, and the double pass design really raises the watch above the wrist. With most NATO straps, I just cut off the secondary strap to create a single-pass strap, but I can't bring myself to take a pair of scissors to a $300 strap. (At least not yet.)
Final photo of the Luff strap in action (watch is a custom build).
With apologies for the amateur photos (Seiko always on the right), it's clear that the Luff strap is heavily inspired by Seiko (a strap homage?). Although the photos don't really show it, the Luff strap has a bit more sheen than the Seiko, and it's not quite as soft. That's the opposite of what I would expect as the Luff strap is cotton while Seiko uses polyester. The Seiko strap is also notably thicker. It's so thick, in fact, that fitting the folded tail back through keeper can be quite difficult.
There are some design differences evident as well.
- The Luff strap is a single pass instead of a traditional NATO double pass.
- The Seiko's floating keeper is the one closest to the buckle; The Luff is the opposite configuration, with the floating keeper furthest from the buckle. The Luff strap's configuration makes it much easier to fold the tail back into the keeper, as that keeper can be temporarily slid down towards the buckle to provide room for manipulating the strap.
- Luff buckle is signed. Seiko buckle is unsigned, but the keeper on the secondary strap is signed.
- Seiko keepers are more rounded.
I find both straps to be quite soft and comfortable on the wrist and—to me—an improvement over stiffer nylon and polyamide straps. The Seiko feels nicer due to its extra thickness and extra softness. Ultimately, though, I prefer the Luff strap because of its single pass design. Even a single pass of the Seiko strap is pretty thick, and the double pass design really raises the watch above the wrist. With most NATO straps, I just cut off the secondary strap to create a single-pass strap, but I can't bring myself to take a pair of scissors to a $300 strap. (At least not yet.)
Final photo of the Luff strap in action (watch is a custom build).
Edited:
