What’s so great about an integrated bracelet?

I don’t see how watches with integrated bracelets are superior in any way to those without one. I am genuinely curious—what’s the deal with integrated bracelets?? Open to learning and to being convinced!

Reply
·

Gerald Genta liked designing around them back in the 70's. And that's about it actually...

I'm probably in the minority here, but the integrated bracelet design just doesn't appeal to me at all. It just makes what would otherwise be an elegant watch look chunky and ungainly.

The only exception to this for me is a G-Shock, where the integrated band is an integral part of the shock proofing design, and thus, functional and purposeful.

I'm sure others will have many other counterpoint that are equally as valid though :-)

·

Don’t think it’s superior at all. It’s just what is trendy.

·

I think it's just a design aesthetic some people appreciate. It's like the Seconde Seconde collaborations for me, I don't get the appeal but clearly others do. Not my wallet, not my wrist: not my problem.

·

Just another flavor

·
skxcellent

Gerald Genta liked designing around them back in the 70's. And that's about it actually...

I'm probably in the minority here, but the integrated bracelet design just doesn't appeal to me at all. It just makes what would otherwise be an elegant watch look chunky and ungainly.

The only exception to this for me is a G-Shock, where the integrated band is an integral part of the shock proofing design, and thus, functional and purposeful.

I'm sure others will have many other counterpoint that are equally as valid though :-)

Integrated bracelets are supposed to be a part of the watch as a whole. If it fails to do so, it's sloppily done

·

They are meant to finish the watch; to make it look like one fluid design. And that's fair enough. But in practice, they are a pain in the arse, constrict individuality, etc.

·

It's just a trend. I think that the novelty of a metal bracelet that blends in with the case without any gaps was what drew in the attention in the 70's.

Not my style, but then no one is forcing me to buy them.

·
skxcellent

Gerald Genta liked designing around them back in the 70's. And that's about it actually...

I'm probably in the minority here, but the integrated bracelet design just doesn't appeal to me at all. It just makes what would otherwise be an elegant watch look chunky and ungainly.

The only exception to this for me is a G-Shock, where the integrated band is an integral part of the shock proofing design, and thus, functional and purposeful.

I'm sure others will have many other counterpoint that are equally as valid though :-)

I'll go one further and say that Gerald Genta is overrated. There are very few of his designs I like, I don't get the love everyone gives him. "Ooo, he's so cool, he made a simple stainless steel watch that's shaped differently and costs way more than it should! What a genius!"

·

As observed, another style. I’ll own one sometime for the sake of variety, but I don’t think there’s any advantage beyond devotion to a particular design/marque aesthetic.

·

They create a design that is continuous, so the watch head and the bracelet act as one piece, instead of 2~3 seperate pieces that are connected together. Unfortunately, because each bracelet has to be unique to the watch, this inherently means that the watch is unfriendly to long-term ownership. Online, you will find many posts of people with watches from the early 2000s—back when that style came back into fashion—, asking if they can get their bracelets fixed or replaced, with the answer often being “no” and “unless you have a leather strap customized for it”.

It’s a big reason that i was and am very against people recommending PRXes left and right and to people as their first serious watch. Unless Tissot or 3rd party manufacturers keep making straps and bracelets—or at least adapters—for it, then it’s bad pick for a newbie.