I'd like companies to go one step further and just sell the head. Give me a price break and keep your janky bracelet and/or made to a price point strap for average size and below wrists. It's the internet age. I shouldn't need an AD, and if I don't need one of those, I certainly don't need the questionable detail choices/sizing of the default bracelet or strap.

I know the standard advice here is "get the bracelet up front." I am inclined to disagree, because, as you noticed, that is often a pile of linked together crap.

However, I wasn't like this until I encountered the upside-down, mystery leather, deployant clasp handicapped, Seiko Alpinist. It was the first strap I ever ditched after one attempt at use, and which left me wondering how few more than one dollar had it contributed to the MSRP.

It's a new century. Give the end buyer total power over whether they even want the afterthought that is too many stock bracelets/straps.

 

My Rado Golden Horse and Over-Pole both use pin and collars on the bracelet, so at least some of the Swatch Groups offerings below Omega use it. Rado also is about the lowest Swatch Group brand where I hear folks single out the bracelets for their quality.

Having resized all types of bracelets, I suspect, besides cost savings at the lower end of Swatch Group where every bit they can save helps keep then in their desired cost window, the ease of resizing split pins plays a part, given how much the lower-end SG watches are sold in department stores. Not just for DIY’ers, but also for the Dillards employee who is asked to resize the Hamilton bracelet. Lot easier to push the pin out and in rather than worrying about a stiff/lost collar or stripping the loc-tite’d screw head.

Completely agree on just being able to buy the watch without strap, too. Have never worn the stock strap on many of mine.

 

Cost and ease of use most likely.

 

Mido ocean star, part of the swatch group below Longines uses screws.
Cant say about the rest of the Mido line.

bracelets, resizing it, since from when i can remember was a once and done thing... you went to the store, bought what you wanted and they resized it for you there. its was simply utilitarian how it was held together. not so anymore.

 

Mido uses both split pins and screw bars depending on the model.

 

Just cost, that's all, to get it down to a retail price. (Same price as the version with calf leather strap and adjustable clasp; usually the bracelet version is a good deal more expensive.)

Cheap cotter pins don't belong on a three-grand watch in my opinion, but then I'm out of step. The market seems unbothered if the brand is in vogue, which it is here (Longines is killing it lately, Longines is a great a value a proposition, and so on).

 

They don’t bother me at all.

just like the vaunted “on the fly” microadjust so many users can’t shut up over, more complicated and expensive “features” that don’t improve my experience owning the watch have no value for me.

 

You may not own a watch for long enough to know, but the use of cotter pins absolutely will shorten the life of the bracelet.

Imagine if Longines provided an electroplated brass case, like an old Timex, and finished that with a mix of brush and polish instead. In the short term it wouldn't impede your "experience" of owning the watch at all. You might not even be able to tell the difference. But like a mineral crystal vs sapphire, would you still accept it?

 

It's an easy corner to cut and most people buying in this price range don't care.

 

I have never had a cotter pin fail. I have had screws back out though. I like pin and collar since it's secure and durable. I only like screws when the screws and the pins holding the link together are separate like on the new Seamasters. I don't like screw bars because in my experience it's easier for those to work their way loose.

 

It absolutely matters. It's like having a case made of chrome-plated brass, or using mineral crystal, or using misshapen hands, or snap-on casebacks, or using unmodified base ETA movements - these are all poor quality features that were gradually abandoned since the 90s. I witnessed as watch fans discussed these bad features, brands listened and improved on them. So it's annoying when I watch youtube reviews where the cotter pins aren't even mentioned - people remark how great the bracelets are and leave out the most important part: the strength and longevity of it - any one of those cotter pins in each link could fail after a few years. Will Swatch Group improve this feature if no-one talks about it?

Inexpensive cotter pins that wear the links out prematurely is not generally a problem for this forum. Longines in on-trend, owners tend not to wear one watch for years and years so likely will never get to the point that the pins corrode or fail, and later they tend to get flipped anyway.

However. Claim that a TAG uses cotter pins in Gen Pop (they don't; they invariably use sleeves) and you will get 12 pages on how disgraceful and s*** TAG is.

 

In over 6 yrs of collecting, this is the first I've heard of this issue. I've had a few watches with cotter pins and they worked fine and were easy to resize. This seems to me a gross exaggeration of the problems with this design, a figment of someone's imagination. If you don't like them, don't buy them or buy them intending to replace the bracelet.

 

hmm... guy with 6 years of experience tries to dismiss guy with 30 years experience.

The only pin I have had fail ever is the cotter pin, doing exactly what I described would happen: split in half (while removing the pin for sizing, on a watch about 8 years old). They have also worn out links and become loose fitting, exactly as I have described. Once you have one break in half on you, you will think like I do - because the way they just break can happen to any cotter pin - it's not just a fluke but a function of mechanical wear and tear. The diameter of a cotter pin is about the same as the pin used in a "pin and collar/sleeve", but since the cotter pin is split in half - it is only half as strong.

Furthermove, using only your finger-tips, you can cause the scissoring effect on the cotter pin and can easily imagine that these micro-movements over time will in fact cause the cotter pin to snap in half at some point. You cannot bend a pin from a "pin and sleeve" at the ends with your finger tips (you might be able to bend the pin in half, but this does not accurately similate the forces of the bracelet link, which would only apply a shear stress at the holes).

As for Tags using split pins - some of them did use them, like the Formula Ones:

Watches are not about their functionality any more. We don't need them any more. They are about memories because they can be with you everywhere you go and remind you of those events and remind a person's loved ones of them. The big reason why mechanical watches are so loved is because of that romanticism of longevity, that they are an heirloom and last your whole life.

I have over 50 watches, and I would be the perfect candidate for the "why should I care since I don't wear any one watch often enough to wear out" customer. But I didn't build my collection blindly buying whatever was the shiniest. I specifically went after watches that were manufactured with love and effort. I wouldn't touch an Invicta even though it was offered to me for free. Bracelets in particular are a symbol of strength, and it does NOT sit well in my mind having a bracelet fitted with 10 or so cotter pins, which are the sh!ttiest pins known to man - they were never designed to last a lifetime.

I have recently started studying about high-end boots. I was shocked and surprised to find out most brands with stitching around the base of the shoe are using fake stitching. Clearly some stitching looks and is fake, but most brands use real-looking stitching that is still fake. One has to look for a "goodyear welt", which is real stitching of the leather upper to the sole. Popular brands like Timberland and Doc Martens mostly use the fake stitching. Now that I know more about boots, I am now looking for boots with goodyear welts. Why? Because my eyes have been opened.

My favorite boot channel:

it's the same with watches. Now that one is educated, and knows what is a good feature, and what is a bad feature - then that knowledge should prompt the educated to look for those better features. The fact is cotter pins HAVE BEEN ABANDONED by EVERYONE except the very cheapest and nastiest brands (like Invicta). Swatch group brands are the ONLY reputable brands that use them. ONLY. If every other company that takes pride in their products cares enough to improve on them, then why don't you care about industry developments - that's the question you should ask. It would be as if every shoe brand in the world uses goodyear welts except Doc Martens and you come on here saying "my 6 years experience tells me it doesn't matter". Sure - everyone has the freedom to settle for mediocrity, I'm not going to spend your money for you.

Call a spade a spade. In my 30 years, I've seen people like you defend those sh!tty cheap features that slowly all went away (sheet metal clasps anyone?); but none of them now bemoan the current quality standards and cry for the gool ol days. It's called cognitive dissonance - you'll justify the crappy features of the product you currently have as a coping mechanism, but if Longines upgraded all their watches to screw pins would you be wishing for those cotter pins to come back?

 

Meh. Watches are just stuff. If and when stuff breaks, I'll get it fixed.

 

My Oris 7401's bracelet link has worn out holes so the cotter pin can't be used in it. Explain to me how the bracelet links can be fixed. Parts are unobtainable, so good luck.

 

Interesting, but I would not call the “failure” described by OP a “failure”. If the pin split while removing, it’s just a consumable piece that needs to be replaced. a “failure” would be if the pin broke while you were wearing the watch, the watch fell off, and the watch suffered damage. But if the pin kept the bracelet together until it broke during removal, that’s not a failure.

I Would feel the same if a screw head stripped out during removal and had to be replaced….but it seems like OP wouldn’t say the screw “failed” in that situation.

does a movement “fail” if a critical part gets worn out after some number of years in the ordinary course of usage and needs to be replaced? I don’t think so, and I think this is an unreasonable standard to hold any part to.

 

Interesting, but I would not call the “failure” described by OP a “failure”. If the pin split while removing, it’s just a consumable piece that needs to be replaced. a “failure” would be if the pin broke while you were wearing the watch, the watch fell off, and the watch suffered damage. But if the pin kept the bracelet together until it broke during removal, that’s not a failure.

I Would feel the same if a screw head stripped out during removal and had to be replaced….but it seems like OP wouldn’t say the screw “failed” in that situation.

does a movement “fail” if a critical part gets worn out after some number of years in the ordinary course of usage and needs to be replaced? I don’t think so, and I think this is an unreasonable standard to hold any part to.

A good point you've brought up, but 3 counter-points:
1. Cotter pins have been abandoned by all the quality brands. The real question is why have Swatch Group not also abandoned it for its brands below Omega? I don't think there's a good reason, other than its easy for mall "watchmakers" to size bracelets. In my mind, if there is a viable alternative to a problem, then it is pure laziness not to adopt that alternative. I have only ever had cotter pins and springbars fail. The springbar failure was on a springbar of questionable quality - I think they might have been brass instead of stainless steel.
2. It's not just the cotter pin that can break, but the link holes wear out (cotter pins are friction fit against the holes), causing cotter pins to be useless in them. When the link is worn out, it's useless and difficult to replace.
3. The question about replaceable parts isn't a huge issue while parts can be replaced. For the most part, most ETA movement parts are replaceable even after decades, but this is not the case with bracelets.

 

You need to dial the angst way down...it's only watches.

 

Is this not a Longines forum, for only talking about watches? So no-one's allowed to complain about Longines deficiencies? Any time Longines comes out with something crappy, the lot of you just say "stop whining" and live with it?

 

So why are you here then counter-arguing if it's just a watch. Heck, the whole idea of forums is just a ridiculous idea - allowing a bunch of people to waste hours of their life talking about watches. You must have been brilliant at your school.

But because you can't figure out the problem, let me explain for the third time: if someone likes a watch bracelet's design, but that bracelet happens to have cotter pins, after a few years of constant wear the bracelet will wear out making those cotter pins loose if they haven't yet broken in half. Then after a few more years, the brand stops making spare parts for that model. Heck I even gave you an Oris model as an example. Clearly you don't have a solution for that problem, unless your solution is to use a different bracelet which just agrees with my whole argument that cotter pins are crap: if you have to replace the whole bracelet with a different one, then IT'S CRAP!

 

after a few years of constant wear the bracelet will wear out making those cotter pins loose if they haven't yet broken in half.

Has anyone else ever seen this happen? I've owned a lot of cheap watch bracelets over the years and this has never been a problem for me.

 

I prefer the pin and collar solution.

Easier to resize, no risk of stripping screw heads or scratching the bracelet trying to loosen stubborn screws, no messing about with Loctite.

 

Has anyone else ever seen this happen? I've owned a lot of cheap watch bracelets over the years and this has never been a problem for me.

Nor me.

I have had bracelet links fail, even on some quite pricey watches (Omega, Breguet, etc), though never with any particularly severe consequences. Screws and pins of any kind can wear and fail with the twisting and ingress of sand, dirt and so on. I tend to view all bracelets as destined to fail at some point, including the screw heads of bracelets that include them.

I will say that, having just picked up the Spirit 37 on a bracelet, that Longines seem to be putting more effort into overall quality and comfort than I recall. No opinion really on the cotter vs screws debate.

Yeah I’m having a hard time accepting the premise that split pins will wreck a bracelet.

 

My point was this.

So what if it does wear out?? Google "metal watch bracelet". There's only about 13 bazillion different metal watch bracelets that are available to purchase. So when I say "figure it out"...... It is literally THAT simple. As in.....figure out what you want and then go buy it. This is childs play, not Boolean Algebra for goodness sake.

 

I guess I just have to take everyone’s word for it that split pins will wear out a bracelet. There’s no counter argument presented and the experts one one side appear fully convinced 🤷🏻‍♂️

It’s interesting dragging stamped clasps into the debate. Not everyone considers them “better.” I personally dislike the heavy gauge clasps being used on lots of watches. They’re bulky and uncomfortable. Give me a less obtrusive clasp any day. But everyone takes it for granted that a big billet clasp is superior and there’s no tradeoff, so that’s what we get from high end watches and now the clasp on a lot of dive watches is bigger than the case 🤦🏻‍♂️

more complicated and expensive isn’t always better.

 

I've had split pins become loose enough that I can easily push out by hand, but they've never actually fallen out on their own.

Omega screw system I find overcomplicated. Rolex screw system is the best I've experienced by far both in ease and security.

 

Omega screw system I find overcomplicated. Rolex screw system is the best I've experienced by far both in ease and security.

You feel a pin and two screws is reduntant and therefore overly complicated.

I feel a pin and two screws is redundant and therefore more secure.

Not that I’ve had either fail on me ever.

Only bracelet fail I’ve experienced is collar and pin where the AD idiot adjusting the bracelet lost a collar and didn’t bother to replace it.

I learned to do my own bracelets because of that guy.

 

. . . . and the award for the most arcane watch bracelet nitpick goes to . . .

 

LOL. It's a real life Seinfeld episode.

 

I have had a few bracelet screws back out on their own. This was not on cheaper brands.

I Loctite all bracelet screws now. Pins do not worry me. Keep your bracelet clean and lubed.

 

The pins don't bother me at all. I size the bracelet once and forget about it forever.
I do like the Omega system for strength and security but the screws are so tiny it's a little tough since my fingers a large.

 

I'm super mixed on this, my first big purchase was a B&R GMT watch and I of course was so excited about purchasing it I didn't get it sized perfectly. I didn't have the correct screwdriver and ordered a horofix t-blade screwdriver, got it and didn't include the right size so I had to get another set of more blades. I just bought a 2023 Longines conquest from the same AD and did the same thing, not sized perfectly. I was really surprised to find out that while one end of the screw looks slotted for a t-blade its actually a split pin that was easily pushed out.

I think for $2000 I paid it should have a screw pin, but I also think in general screw pins are not as convenient.