Explorer x Daytona

[ROLEX*]

I know it is Apple to Orange comparison for my current dilemma

However, putting the price point aside, which one will you vote for between white Explorer II 16570 vs black Daytona 116520?

Are useful functionalities play a part in your decisions?

[Cru Jones]

Daytona 116520…. Really easy one here.

[jb335]

Daytona.

Easiest TRF question ever…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bazil]

I’d say Daytona, my search is over and I’ve found the right Daytona but I tried on plenty in my pursuit .. 116520 is lovely on and oozes class ..

[padi56]

Not a fan of the modern Daytona got to be the most hyped Rolex watch ever, yes it has a great movement but not a fan,so although not a huge fan of the Explorer that would be my choice.

[Bazil]

I’m not sure you’ve ever mentioned it before Padi
But when you say modern Daytona, 116520 is nearly 25 years old, that’s not modern to me ..
Ok, Rolex released the Daytona in the 1960’s , but I’d say ceramic bezel is more a modern Daytona .. I’m sure you and plenty more will disagree .. but something of 25 years not modern in my eyes …

[warrior]

White Explorer easy. Way more unique looking. I have never liked the Daytona…to me, the Daytona looks like any other chronograph from ANY brand. Aesthetically, it’s the most “ blend into the crowd” model of any Rolex IMO.

[Hadiy]

I just voted the white Explorer II 16570

[Easy E]

Explorer is so much more legible. That gets my vote

[6161HH]

My vote would be neither as I have absolutely no need for the chronograph function of the Daytona, and I have only marginally less use of the GMT function of the Explorer II. Also I really dislike the pressed metal clasp of all of the 5 digit Rolexes. However if I were required to choose between the two, I suppose it would be the Daytona.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Bazil

I’m not sure you’ve ever mentioned it before Padi
But when you say modern Daytona, 116520 is nearly 25 years old, that’s not modern to me ..
Ok, Rolex released the Daytona in the 1960’s , but I’d say ceramic bezel is more a modern Daytona .. I’m sure you and plenty more will disagree .. but something of 25 years not modern in my eyes …

Well when it comes down to watches anything made in the last 35 years is modern for me, but prefer the Zenith Daytona mainly because of dial lay out, not a fan of any ceramic inserts prefer aluminium like on my 6263 . When the Zenith ones first came out I had one for trial but sent it back as it did not speak to me on the wrist.

[Bazil]

Fair enough ..

[Jackie Daytona]

I’ll be in the minority here. I’m going Explorer II nice watch and just a great all rounder with the date and GMT function and the brushed finished on the majority of it I believe makes it a bit more livable daily.

[worldofoyster]

gonna give it to the daytona this round

[Kevin of Larchmont]

I find Daytonas to be illegible and I don’t like red accents on watches or clothing however faced with this binary choice I’d rather have the watch with a color I don’t like than a watch I can’t read.

[ROLEX*]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

I find Daytonas to be illegible and I don’t like red accents on watches or clothing however faced with this binary choice I’d rather have the watch with a color I don’t like than a watch I can’t read.

I am sorry for the binary question. Given the choice outside these two, what would you choose?

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by ROLEX*

I am sorry for the binary question. Given the choice outside these two, what would you choose?

Sorry, thought it was clear. Not the Daytona.

[Bazil]

Originally Posted by ROLEX*

I am sorry for the binary question. Given the choice outside these two, what would you choose?

The real question is what do you like and prefer, and is it only really limited to these two ?
I like both personally and as said I love Daytonas so would pick that ..
But spending that kind of money, opens door to Sub or GMT ..
Or is this all only hypothetical ?

[0nly5iv3Digits]

Having owned Daytona's, I'll just say... they're "underwhelming"... very flash; difficult to read; not reasonable value for money imo...

On the plus side, the daytona does sit nicely on the wrist. Also, Daytona is Daytona... so it'll get noticed (a plus if you're into that).

16570 Polar is a standout in Rolex's catalog. Owned nearly every modern/neovintage sports model... Polar is still the best overall in my eyes.

I might be inclined to go for a Zenith 16520 in black (or white), however. The 5 digits are special.

[wgdaytona]

Daytona SPANKS Explorer.

[ArtNouveau]

Easy. I’ve had four SS Daytonas from the three previous generations, never even considered an Explorer II.

[travisb]

Daytona between those two.

[karleone]

Daytona all the way! Not a fair comparison

[1William]

If you set aside value and ability to get one from an AD the Polar Explorer II is the one for me. The Daytona's, I have owned them all from the last two generations, is too small, too difficult to read and worthless with the screw down pushers for functionality. The hype is real for them and it maybe the ultimate flex watch from Rolex. The Polar Explorer II is a great size, for me, and is readable and a lot of fun.

[Ferrari308]

Love the date function and legibility of the Polar, but not more than the Daytona.


PDG

[themacman]

Originally Posted by karleone

Daytona all the way! Not a fair comparison

Agree. It is not a fair fight!

[Verdi]

Polar Explorer 2 all the way! Not a fair comparison.

I've never met anyone that uses the chorno function on the Daytona. It is my understanding that being a hard to get model makes many people desire one. It's like a badge of honour.
I much prefer the polar 40mm Explorer 2. It is really unique and great all around watch. Easier to read and the date complication is useful to me.

[Jonny8]

Big Exp II fan but would go for the Daytona as they are definitely growing on me.

[forg]

Daytona wins every time

[JRique]

Daytona has a crazy "new money" tag on it, ceramic more then the older version, I would go Exp for sure, its much more under the radar watch, who knows knows.