Bracelet-centric collectors: how much does the clasp design influence your purchasing decisions?

[SeikoForum]

Granted, most vintage watch bracelets follow the standard stamped 2 piece design, but even then, the way the brand logo is stamped, the position of the clasp lip, overall clasp length, and the weight and comfort of the clasp all play a role in the overall fit and aesthetics of the bracelet.

How much does the clasp specifically influence your purchasing decisions? For example, despite its raving reviews, I am adverse to Rolex’s modern machined glidelock clasp. I do not appreciate the heavy weight and long length of the clasp. I find that as a result of these 2 detriments, the modern Rolex diver range is extremely uncomfortable for me. I vastly prefer to older style stamped clasp of the 5-digit models. As a result, I have voted with my wallet, and my collection reflects this preference.

For dress watches, I require that the brand logo be stamped into the other clasp and be clearly visible when my wrist is turned over to the clasp side.

What about you? For other bracelet-focused collectors out there, what are your preferences and clasp requirements? What makes or breaks a clasp design for you?

 

[neeble]

All of my bracelet watches date from around the same period and the clasps are all extremely similar (Seiko, IWC, Omega, Girard Perregaux). They all work the same way and all have the brand logo stamped in relief at the end of the clasp that you open. The Omega ones are a tiny bit longer perhaps, the Girard Perregaux a tiny bit shorter, but I'd be hard-pushed to tell the difference with my eyes closed. I like that the King Seiko ones have "KS" stamped in them rather than just "Seiko".

I don't like those double folding / hidden clasps that a lot of modern watches seem to have, they seem unnecessarily fiddly.