Opinion: What Makes a Great Bracelet?

We talk about them all the time, but they’re often the component of a watch that is least examined. The bracelet, whether attached to a sports watch, a dress watch, or something in between, can make or break how a watch actually wears on the wrist, and impact the overall look of a watch dramatically. And when it comes to bracelets, collectors and enthusiasts are never short on strong opinions – we all have things we love and hate, and it goes way beyond whether you prefer an Oyster or a Jubilee. 

Today, members of the Worn & Wound team weigh in on the question: what makes a great bracelet? Be sure to let us know what you think in the comments below. 

Zach Kazan 

The question of “What makes a great bracelet?” is deceptive in its complexity. There are a variety of factors you might consider and weight as you evaluate a bracelet. Comfort and appearance, of course, are chief among them. But there’s also the idea of durability, and adjustability, and the overall cohesion of the bracelet design with other elements of the watch. I’d argue, for example, that the classic Seamaster bracelet is nice looking on its own, but perhaps not suited to the watch it’s paired with. 

The fact is, I prefer wearing my watches on bracelets, particularly when they are conceived that way. A Rolex sports watch on a strap, for instance, is something I’ll never fully get behind. At a time when integrated bracelet sports watches are at the height of their popularity, there’s no shortage of bracelets to consider that are quite literally designed for exactly one watch. My favorite example of this, and a bracelet that I haven’t been able to stop thinking about since trying it on, is H. Moser’s Streamliner bracelet. For me, this one rises above being a simple and functional bracelet (which it is) and is more akin to a small sculpture in the same way the most artfully designed cases can be. 

A whole lot has been written about the organic quality of the bracelet, and it’s almost reptilian appearance both when static and when in motion. This bracelet, when sized just right, achieves a level of comfort in its drape that’s hard to top thanks to the perfect precision in the manufacturing and articulation of those narrow links. But what I really love about it is the way Moser has taken the 50 year old idea of the integrated bracelet sports watch and ran with it, creating something truly unique. Newer takes on this style of watch are frequently lazy in their bracelet design, freely mimicking the iconic style of the Royal Oak. But Moser seems to have started from scratch, radically rethinking the form to dramatic effect. The end result is a bracelet that’s perfectly suited to the Streamliner concept, and plays an integral role in the horological statement these watches make. 

Zach Weiss 

I’m pretty sure this is a trick question, as there’s no such thing as a great bracelet. Ok, I’m done trolling, but to be honest, I’ve only begun wearing watches on bracelets within the last couple of years and thus can appreciate what makes for a good bracelet. There are two things I don’t like about bracelets in general. The first is that they can be too unforgiving. Thick, heavy bracelets with no give are not comfortable. They’re not ergonomic. Leather and synthetic straps flex and move with you, they can even be breathable. Overbuilt, high-tolerance bracelets fight you.

This, at least, there are some workarounds for, which leads me to most of what I think makes for a good bracelet. First, some flex. If the bracelet can’t twist at all, then it’s not going to move with you, and thus cut into your skin. Those “jangly” vintage bracelets are more enjoyable to wear for a reason. Not being too thick helps as well. Look, I get that bracelets can be like wrist armor, so there is something appealing about a 4 or 5mm thick link, but in the end that adds to weight and fatigue. Bracelets should be as thin as possible with respect to the proportions of the watch. 

Another nice attribute is full or nearly full articulation. Like flex, this generally means that the bracelet will follow the contours of your wrist better. If you can’t tell, comfort really is the biggest issue for me. This leads me to the most important detail, micro-adjustment. This is a true must-have, and no, I don’t mean those extra holes on the clasp you fiddle with at home to get a closer fit. I mean at least a full link of on-the-fly adjustability during the day. This has been the single largest factor in my new appreciation of bracelets. Being able to quickly readjust the size of the bracelet throughout the day makes all the difference, and dare I say that any new bracelet from a luxury brand has no excuse but to offer this feature.

The second thing, which is far more subjective, is that I don’t usually think they look great. They are often very similar and don’t seem to correspond to the design of the watch itself. But, moreover, they fill in the space between the lugs, making it appear solid. I find this space often adds to the definition of the case, which in turn can be emphasized by a nice leather strap. What about drop-lug bracelets, you might ask? Well, I just find them awkward most of the time. Sorry.

Blake Buettner

I don’t generally think of myself as a bracelet guy, but on reflection that’s not necessarily true. Swapping straps is a fun way to alter the identity of a watch and impart some of your own personality in the process, but a great bracelet becomes a part of that watch’s DNA. Truth be told, I find the vast majority of bracelets I encounter to be entirely forgettable, which forces me to envision the watch with other options to get a sense of my feelings for it. But when they hit, they create an entirely different aspect through which I judge a watch. 

There are two equally important elements that make for a great bracelet: aesthetics, and engineering. When these come together in the right way, I have a hard time separating the watch from the bracelet. Examples that immediately come to mind include the Rolex oyster bracelet, the Omega Speedmaster with the 3861 caliber, and IWC’s new 3289 Ingenieur, each share a similar quality that’s difficult to convey in words, but they all feel exceptional on the wrist not just when slipping on, but in everyday practical usage. 

This comes down to things like their articulation, thickness, heft, adjustability, etc, which many bracelets can nail in some ways, but when they all come together perfectly it feels like a natural extension of the watch. It also largely comes down to personal preference, obviously as far as aesthetics are concerned, but also in terms of the taper and finishing techniques employed. Balancing all these things is a challenge, especially at reasonable price points. And that brings me to my last observation.

Manufacturing a great bracelet is no small task, and that’s generally why many of the examples cited here are not inexpensive. It can be done at lower price points, but they are few and far between in my experience. If a watch feels a bit expensive at first glance, there’s a good chance the bracelet is the reason. This should be factored into your own value calculation in the same way the movement is. If it’s a watch you plan on wearing often, that premium just might be worth it. 

Tanner Tran

I believe behind every great watch is a great bracelet. To take it a step further: a well-done bracelet can be more satisfying than a good watch. Even non-watch folk seem to know this. A phrase I often hear is “I don’t know what I like, but I want [X] band or bracelet”. Empirically these seem not only integral to the aesthetics but also the experience of a watch as a whole.

As long as I can remember, I’ve been a bracelet guy. Most days you’ll find me wearing an Oyster or Jubilee from the mid-century to the modern era, and the reasons are quite simple and boil down to two principles: (1) they complement the look of the watch without being overpowering and (2) are comfortable to wear throughout the whole day.

I don’t believe in reinventing the wheel, and I’ll take a perfectly ordinary bracelet that satisfies criteria #2 above. Less is more. Some bracelets are as famous as their watches (we can all name a few), but the ones I appreciate most are just your average Joes quietly doing God’s work by matching the overall vibe and function, fitting in with the lugs, and providing that nice taper that does wonders both for looks and wearability. Now that’s a bracelet that can go the distance.

Chris Antzoulis

I subscribe to the old watch enthusiast proverb, I believe it’s in the book of Gerald chapter 1 verse 2: “Buyeth the watch on the damn bracelet.” While I am a mild strap-hoarder and love pairing watches to funky colored straps, I believe it’s always paramount to own the bracelet whenever possible. To me there are three things that make a great bracelet: adjustability, finishing, and most importantly thoughtful design.

When it comes to adjustability I will be brief. Quick release spring bars should come on every watch that doesn’t have fixed lugs. It’s 2023, and I’m not a doctor. I shouldn’t have to get in there with tweezers like a surgeon, or pray to the gods that I don’t cause a spring bar to go careening into oblivion. I can even let on-the-fly adjustment go, not every watch needs a bulky clasp with a slip and slide in it. 

Next up, the finishing. In my limited experience, bracelet finishing seems to mostly be an issue when it comes to some microbrands. I won’t name names, but I’ve seen some watches where the finish on the bracelet doesn’t match the case of the watch. To me this is unacceptable at any price point because of precedent set by brands like Brew, Zelos, Formex, Christopher Ward, Monta…etc. You can quite literally find watches at any price point with incredible finishing and consideration on both the case and the bracelet. All this trickles down from thoughtful design.

Now, when I say “thoughtful design,” I mean that it should be apparent that the bracelet was considered from the very beginning as being part of the whole. Usually when you hear someone touching on this subject they are talking about integrated bracelet watches, but I would argue that there are plenty of watches whose bracelets were considered. Say what you want about Rolex, but in many instances they are king for a reason. Their bracelets are perfect and always in keeping with the watch they’re on. Sure, you can go ahead and argue whether or not the GMT Master II (Batman or Batgirl) is better on the Oyster or the Jubilee, but both are executed to the highest standard (and the right answer is ALWAYS Jubilee). Beyond the crown, the Cartier Santos Dumont, the new Omega Speedmaster Professionals, the Zenith Defy Revival, and the Tudor BB58 Bronze that introduced the T-fit clasp, are all watches whose bracelets have been crafted to perfectly suit the watch that they’re on. You don’t have to like all of those watches, but you should admire the time that went into considering the style of the watch and the bracelet that would complement it and make it feel like one cohesive work of art.

At the end of the day, cough up the extra cash to snag that bracelet as it was likely designed to be a part of the watch. Unless you’re buying an Omega Seamaster Diver 300…then buy it on the rubber and grab the mesh bracelet. It’s not 1994.