- Posts
- 104
- Likes
- 538
Spikedlee
·Hey guys. So following up on a previous thread I made about how much I hated the stock Seamaster 300M bracelet due to the lack of taper and the bulky clasp, I found myself really enjoying some aftermarket Milanese bracelets on the watch:
I have two versions of these Milanese bands. One is a 1.9mm thick version, and one is a 2.9mm thick version which is the same thickness as the Bond NTTD Milanese band.
Here is the difference in thickness between the two:
Both bands have their merits. The thinner Milanese is sleek, lighter weight, and very comfortable. The thicker Milanese looks tough, more in alignment to the thickness of the watch case, and durable. The issue with the thicker band is it has a lot of heft to it. It actually weighs much more than my Rolex Daytona.
But take weight aside, the bigger issue with both of these bands was the lack of taper. At 20mm. they both are straight end pieces from lug to clasp. There is a lack of comfort because of that width that I still felt needed to be corrected. And ultimately I wanted something a bit lighter in between the two.
The ideal Milanese band would start at 20mm at the lugs and taper down to about 16mm which is roughly the taper of the Omega Speedmaster Ed White bracelet. It would also be a bit thicker than the 1.9mm, but not as thick as the 2.9mm. So lets say 2.5mm. And the clasp would need to be thin. For those of you who own the 007 NTTD, you know what I am talking about. The bracelet does have a taper from 20mm to 18mm at the clasp, but the clasp is massive; preventing the bracelet from properly wrapping around thin wrists and just not being able to sit properly under a dress shirt.
Introducing my solution. A 20mm tapered to 16mm Milanese band, at 2.5mm thick with a thinner clasp:
It's lighter, more comfortable, allows for perfect flexibility of the wrist, and completes a full wrap around the wrist with no overhang, clasp bulk, or excess thickness. My only complaint is that this bracelet lacks the quick release buttons of the prior models and also requires a tool to adjust sizing versus doing it on the fly like the prior two.
I will be working on developing a solution for that problem but wanted to share my insights to all of you.
I have two versions of these Milanese bands. One is a 1.9mm thick version, and one is a 2.9mm thick version which is the same thickness as the Bond NTTD Milanese band.
Here is the difference in thickness between the two:
Both bands have their merits. The thinner Milanese is sleek, lighter weight, and very comfortable. The thicker Milanese looks tough, more in alignment to the thickness of the watch case, and durable. The issue with the thicker band is it has a lot of heft to it. It actually weighs much more than my Rolex Daytona.
But take weight aside, the bigger issue with both of these bands was the lack of taper. At 20mm. they both are straight end pieces from lug to clasp. There is a lack of comfort because of that width that I still felt needed to be corrected. And ultimately I wanted something a bit lighter in between the two.
The ideal Milanese band would start at 20mm at the lugs and taper down to about 16mm which is roughly the taper of the Omega Speedmaster Ed White bracelet. It would also be a bit thicker than the 1.9mm, but not as thick as the 2.9mm. So lets say 2.5mm. And the clasp would need to be thin. For those of you who own the 007 NTTD, you know what I am talking about. The bracelet does have a taper from 20mm to 18mm at the clasp, but the clasp is massive; preventing the bracelet from properly wrapping around thin wrists and just not being able to sit properly under a dress shirt.
Introducing my solution. A 20mm tapered to 16mm Milanese band, at 2.5mm thick with a thinner clasp:
It's lighter, more comfortable, allows for perfect flexibility of the wrist, and completes a full wrap around the wrist with no overhang, clasp bulk, or excess thickness. My only complaint is that this bracelet lacks the quick release buttons of the prior models and also requires a tool to adjust sizing versus doing it on the fly like the prior two.
I will be working on developing a solution for that problem but wanted to share my insights to all of you.
Edited:
