Fine adjustment for AT 3290 bracelet?

Everything about AT 3290 bracelet is amazing, the design, quality, finish, mechanism, EXCEPT the lack of fine adjustment. Apparently the only way to size the bracelet is to add or remove links. It appears to me that the smallest change I can make is with the 5 mm half-link, which is about double of that of fine adjustment on other bracelets. For a watch with this size and weight, fitting is extremely important to make it wearable throughout the day, and I'm surprised the new AT's don't have the fine adjustment to help sizing the bracelet more precisely. Is there other way to make finer adjustment possible on AT 3290 bracelet?

Couldn't agree more, mate. What's more the ref. 3768 AT Chronographs would make even better use of the fine adjust clasp, taking into view that the chronos have even more weight so would really badly need those newest clasps.

That's true. Even the stubborn Rolex has now incorporated their Glide-lock system into their dive watch range. Oris has their ingenious quick micro-adjustment on their rubber straps for years, which make their gigantic 49 mm ProDive very wearable. I noticed that the even new basic Ingenieur 3239 still doesn't have micro-adjustment. I don't know about the Dual Time Ref.3244, but the latest Lewis Hamilton limited edition has quick micro-adjustment that I think it should be in all IWC bracelets.

If IWC decided it's too much of an effort to have micro-adjustment in all of their bracelets, at the very least, they should have a quarter-link to reduce the adjustability to 2.5 mm. Does anybody know such quarter-link exist?

I'm only "expert" of the AT Chrono range, but there is an approx. 2/3 link delivered with the bracelet. If you buy a second 2/3 link you can adjust cca. 1/3 link lengths (the good question is why IWC gives only 1 of the 2/3 links with the watch...) but it is far from usable in the field:
for example I like wearing my bracelet-fitted AT Chrono on the beach. When not in the water I highly prefer wearing the watch relatively loose (like in the summer generally) because of heat and sweating, but when I go to swim (or other sport activities, both of which happens frequently) it is essential to wear the watch tight. IWC says that there is the rubber and the Velcro strap for all these things but if you replace them on the beach you have to guard-n-baby your bracelet in your car or hotel room or whereever. To stick to your example when you have your Seamaster (or more and more other watches, including e. g. the IWC Fliegerchrono ref. 3777) you don't have these problems because you can adjust the bracelet quickly and simply (6 mm at the IWC). But if you want to use your diver's bezel and as such you prefer an Aquatimer, you don't have this option - yet. But let's hope, Geneva Fair is coming... :) Maybe the ref. 3768 will make use of this excellent IWC feature. (A tad longer clasp, say with 8-10 mm limits instead of the existing 6 mm) would be welcome though... Just my 2 cents of course.
Regards,
Robert
PS: I wonder when IWC will endly supply the Aquatimer rubber straps with a folding clasp...

Thanks for pointing out. I am checking with my agent to see if there is either 1/3 or 2/3 link for the 3290. You are right about the wear of the watch in and out of water. In the water, the watch will always feel a bit loose, even though you have a perfect fit on land. I think there are two factors contribute to this. One is the wearer’s skin gets cooled hence contracts a little, and two is the reduce in friction on the skin.

For dive watches in this modern era, it’s only smart if the watches have some types of quick micro-adjustment for the wearers to do it on the fly. I feel that getting the fitting right is one of the appreciation that the brand can show to their customers. In other words, the watch should fit you, not you to fit the watch. For the brand that “engineers for men”, there certainly are much to be desired on the bracelet/strap fitting department.

Couldn't agree more. Hope our wishes will find IWC management.
Best,
Robert

I have a 3239 and fully agree that all IWC bracelets should have micro-adjustment. It's not about making the bracelet fit once (which is pretty easy to do) but about being able to adjust it anytime to fit in any circumstance. I'm quite sure that the added production cost would be marginal.

I also have a 3290 on a rubber strap for which I was thinking to add a bracelet. My experience with the 3239, however, has convinced me not to spend 1000+ euro on a bracelet without micro-adjustment. Actually, I have no intention to buy another watch on bracelet without it at all.

IWC may think they are saving money by not adding this feature but all in all I would not be surprised if they are in fact losing money on this decision. On high margin products like these, it doesn't take many lost sales to outweigh a relatively minor production cost difference.

Overall, I love the comfort and design of the IWC bracelets and have not seen others that can match them. It's just a shame they have chosen not to go all the way and add that final piece.

Thomas

IMO, Aquatimers look best on rubber straps. However, the latest Ingenieur inspired bracelet is such a beauty in which I had to have it. It’s such a pity that it doesn’t have any kind of micro-adjustment - something that I didn’t think it would be an issue, but Thomas is right, it’s not enough for today’s hefty watch to fit once. The wearers need to be able to make micro adjustment to fit their waist condition throughout the day.

A watch that fits well on cold dry days, will become a little too tight on hot sweaty days and vice versa. Since metal bracelet doesn’t have any give like rubber or leather straps, micro-adjustment is essential and I’m surprised IWC overlooked this.

I was drawn to the Sub-C by its ingenious Glide-lock bracelet, but I chose the 3290 in the end due to its unique modern design, thinking what could possibly go wrong with a high-end brand like IWC. But I guess I may not be completely right. If anyone knows of the existence of a 1/3 or 2/3 link or bracelet clasp with micro-adjustment for 3290, I would love to get one.

You are be right on the looks, the 3767 does look great on rubber strap too. But looks is one thing and wearing the watch 7/24 is another thing. There are guys who can be called simply bracelet guys - including me. Not to mention the missing folding clasp of the Aquatimer rubber straps... (Actually another odd thing that I cannot tell why is it so, while the Portugieser Chrono Yacht Club does have a folding clasp on the rubber strap. (IWC would have only to adjust the size of the folding clasp to fit the thicker and wider strap with the matching pin shape.)

Yes, the absent of rubber strap folding clasp on the ENTIRE Aquatimer line is odd. At first I thought it was just the 3290 since it’s an entry model, it happens to be the case for ALL Aquatimers. This would have easily doubled the life of IWC expensive rubber straps and make it easily to wear. It could be that the folding clasp is easier to come off accidentally under water. But Oris includes buttons-engage folding clasp with micro-adjustment on the fly in all of their watches with rubber strap that will never come off unless someone pushes both buttons to release the clasp.

The latest Aquatimer one is the most sophisticated look and case complication in the market, but its bracelet and rubber strap are far from being sophisticated.

By the way, does anyone know if the folding clasp of the Yacht Club can be used on Aquatimers’ rubber straps?

+1

Unfortunately not, because the YC clasp is 18 mm and the pin shape is different too. Unfortunately... :(

In fact, my 3290 rubber strap has 18 mm buckle. If the YC clasp is also 18 mm, I think it should fit the 3290 just fine. As for the pin, it might be interchangeable with the flat pin of the 3290. I might have to visit an AD to actually see if a modify can be made. But the thing that concerns me more is that, the default buckle of the 3290 is so very well designed to match the case. The YC clasp is designed to match the larger and more rounded 45 mm case. So, even if the YC clasp physically fits the 3290, it may compromise the overall look of the expertly designed Aquatimer.

I ment the Aquatimer rubber that cannot be upgraded with an OEM folding clasp. You might be lucky with the Ingy 40 mm though, I do not have info on this. Good luck, mate!

I’ve gotten responses from IWC via its Facebook page and they have confirmed that there is no possible way to micro-adjust the bracelet on the 3290. As for the clasp on the rubber strap, it is not possible to interchange with the Yacht Club due to the different in pin size and shape.

I asked an AD here in Thailand the same questions and they have no knowledge of either the bracelet or the clasp. This doesn’t come as a surprise since there is no dedicated IWC boutique in Thailand, only dealers who sell many brands in their shops. IWC isn’t exactly popular in Thailand, especially when compared with Rolex and TAG-Heuer. My friends even surprised that, with the same price, I chose IWC over Rolex. I don't know about others, although the Sub is the classic, but I don't like the busy looking dial and certain don't like the abundance of its present on the streets. I love the cleaner and more technical looking dial of the AT and it's hard to find anyone in this part of the world wearing this exact same watch. If I fancy a classic, the Ingy 40 mm would be my choice over the Sub, still.

Speaking of the Ingy 40 mm, Roberto, according to its online manual, it doesn’t mention anywhere about the micro-adjustment, only add/remove links to adjust the bracelet size. But I think on smaller watches with tampered bracelet, the micro-adjustment might become less of an issue compared to Aquatimers larger case with straight bracelet.