Ed White 321 vs Daytona: Which is the more special watch for a lifetime?

[raclaims]

I own both...for me the Daytona wins as a "one" watch.

that said, the Omega is great, more legible, nice looking movement, no silly screw down pushers...but to me the Daytona "feels" more special on the wrist.

What I really do in the end personally, is I wear white gold daytonas and the 321 when I need something legible and under the radar...so both get lots of wear...the steel daytonas don't get worn often. So take all that for what it is lol

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by Ketler

No one's mentioned the fact that nether of these watches is very easy to get...

Both are easy to get, just need to spend more $$ (quite a bit more) to secure the Daytona… :-)

[bullies]

Which Daytona? Platinum, 100th anniversary, rainbow, Saru?

[INC]

Originally Posted by JC316

https://www.swisswatchexpo.com/TheWa...er-resistance/

You know, it's not a miracle, that Rolex watches have a 100M/10ATM water resistance and not only 50M/5ATM for the non diver watches.

Just for another reference, please check the manual of the Casio Oceanus line:

https://support.casio.com/global/en/...Ytoueppee.html

And check the "Windsurfing" option at the 5ATM. Now please think about it, why Casio doesn't recommend this sport with a watch like this. The static depth means nothing, mostly if the dynamic pressure will count, just like when you fall into the water during surfin'.

Therefore it's not the best idea to swim with an 5ATM watch, even if the user manual says, that's all right. In my opinion and in the real life, Rolex has right.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by INC

https://www.swisswatchexpo.com/TheWa...er-resistance/

You know, it's not a miracle, that Rolex watches have a 100M/10ATM water resistance and not only 50M/5ATM for the non diver watches.

Just for another reference, please check the manual of the Casio Oceanus line:

https://support.casio.com/global/en/...Ytoueppee.html

And check the "Windsurfing" option at the 5ATM. Now please think about it, why Casio doesn't recommend this sport with a watch like this. The static depth means nothing, mostly if the dynamic pressure will count, just like when you fall into the water during surfin'.

Therefore it's not the best idea to swim with an 5ATM watch, even if the user manual says, that's all right. In my opinion and in the real life, Rolex has right.

Sorry, the 'dynamic pressure' thing is a complete myth invented on watch forums.

[GW44]

There is no right answer here.

I’ve got both steel Daytonas but am waiting for my 321 and appreciate they are both very different propositions that you cannot really compare.

[yorkzilla]

I like both and was fortunate to acquire them. I find myself wearing my 321 more than my 116520.

[robertengel]

The 321 is indeed much more special just by virtue of numbers made, BUT, I have one huge gripe with mine. The crown looks nice but it's such a pain in the bottom to wind, it doesn't have enough grip or protrusion from the case to do it comfortably. Im surprised nobody talks about this, it's something you have to deal with every two days.

[Tqmb79]

321 for me. No question. It’s limited and has more history and looks better IMO

[watchik]

321 for me any day


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[nickorette]

Originally Posted by nyc2la

One of each!

Hear! hear!

[joli160]

The 321 for the beautiful finished movement and even though they milk the theme but it is the moon watch.

[watchwatcher]

Well, certainly any watch costing 20k or more is special. Only on TRF would an attempt be made to delineate which one is "more special."

But as long as I'm here... I guess I would lean toward the Daytona, because I've had, and never really bonded with, other Speedmasters, so I just don't think the Ed White would be different enough from the other ones to give off that "special" vibe.

I could be wrong about that, but I'm not spending 20k to find out.

[INC]

Originally Posted by Scholar

Sorry, the 'dynamic pressure' thing is a complete myth invented on watch forums.

There is nothing mythical about this, it is simple physics, which every watchmaker knows.

Imagine this: Can you hold an adult-weight bowling ball in your hand? Yes? And two? Great! Now imagine someone throwing a child-sized bowling ball at your head. Now, if you think that holding and catching something are not the same thing, then you already know the difference between static pressure and dynamic pressure, and what's more, you already now know one of the basic laws of physics.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by robertengel

The 321 is indeed much more special just by virtue of numbers made, BUT, I have one huge gripe with mine. The crown looks nice but it's such a pain in the bottom to wind, it doesn't have enough grip or protrusion from the case to do it comfortably. Im surprised nobody talks about this, it's something you have to deal with every two days.

I find the 321 the easiest manual wind watch I’ve owned.

Instead of gripping the crown as you describe try this (if you’re right handed).

Hold the watch in your hand so that your right index finger is positioned under the crown. Use the finger on the underside of the crown, to “pull” the crown toward you as you wind. I know I’m not making that super clear, but hopefully you get the idea. Essentially, you use the top of your index finger and run it back and further over the crown.

I don’t use my thumb whatsoever to wind the watch.

Once you get the hang if it, you’ll experience the sheer joy of winding that beautiful 321 movement.

[WatchTimes]

Chrono is the one watch I pick Omega over Rolex.
Every other watch Id go Rolex
For some reason despite having several Daytonas over the years I have never bonded with them and always end up flipping it.
I got a 3861 Speedy a few months ago and love it (it's the only non Rolex that is a regular in my rotation). I know its not the 321 but still Speedy wins when it comes to chrono for me.

[zi464]

Special - ED 321
To buy - Daytona

[zi464]

Originally Posted by WatchTimes

Chrono is the one watch I pick Omega over Rolex.
Every other watch Id go Rolex
For some reason despite having several Daytonas over the years I have never bonded with them and always end up flipping it.
I got a 3861 Speedy a few months ago and love it (it's the only non Rolex that is a regular in my rotation). I know its not the 321 but still Speedy wins when it comes to chrono for me.

Speedy is timeless compare to Daytona IMO.
Unless we are talking about 6239 and 6263 then I will vote for Daytona.
Have a 1861 Speedy and love it .

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by INC

There is nothing mythical about this, it is simple physics, which every watchmaker knows.

Sorry, you're wrong. This is a delusion and lack of understanding peddled by people on watch forums.

Here's the physics:

Originally Posted by TheSanDiegan, post: 50730625, member: 31268

So for the purpose of this hyperbolic hypothetical, we're going to assume that all you Mallquamen can move your arms through the water at a velocity of 32mph.

32 miles equals 51,500 meters, and a velocity of 32 mph equates to 14.3 m/s. The formula to calculate dynamic pressure is simple:

P = (1/2)(fluid density)(velocity)

So assuming fresh water (density = 1000kg/m^3), the dynamic pressure can be calculated as follows:

P = (500kg/m^3)(14m/s), which resolves to 14.8 psi, which is equivalent to 1.02 bar, or 1.02 atm ≈ 10m.

Therefore, even if you could move your hand through water at the same velocity of a professional boxer punching in the ring, you would only add 10m worth of dynamic pressure to whatever static pressure of the environment in which you are submerged.

Looking instead to fulfill your pearl diving fantasies off the diving board in your salt water pool? Even if you're a little on the "fluffy" side - say a good 220 lbs (100kg) and you find the ability to launch yourself a full 10 feet (3m) in the air, your velocity upon entering the water will only be 7.67 m/s, just over half the above example, resulting in a dynamic pressure of just 4.39 psi ≈ .3 bar.

So relax. In reality, the amount of dynamic pressure you are adding to the static pressure of your environment is negligible.

Hopefully, this little exercise puts to rest speculation about the mythical, magical bullet of dynamic pressure.

[brandrea]

If Omega rates it to 50 meters and I can clean it with soap and water, that’s good enough for me.

I reality water resistance is one of the least things I care about in my watches in general

[SS Oyster]

Both are extremely special watches. 321 reproduction with terrific “looking” movement, but doubt it would hold up like a 4130, and you have to wind it.

I own both white and black 116500s and am on the Omega waitlist for a 321. If I could only have one, it would be a black 116500.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gearjockey]

Originally Posted by robertengel

The 321 is indeed much more special just by virtue of numbers made, BUT, I have one huge gripe with mine. The crown looks nice but it's such a pain in the bottom to wind, it doesn't have enough grip or protrusion from the case to do it comfortably. Im surprised nobody talks about this, it's something you have to deal with every two days.

A known issue since 1964.

[1995akcoop]

The Ed White looks like a TAG Heuer…Daytona all day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Golden Ellipse]

Originally Posted by INC

There is nothing mythical about this, it is simple physics, which every watchmaker knows.

Imagine this: Can you hold an adult-weight bowling ball in your hand? Yes? And two? Great! Now imagine someone throwing a child-sized bowling ball at your head. Now, if you think that holding and catching something are not the same thing, then you already know the difference between static pressure and dynamic pressure, and what's more, you already now know one of the basic laws of physics.

Myth: https://www.watchuseek.com/threads/w...eality.239664/

[INC]

So you're saying that inventing oysters was stupid and that Rolex is selling something for a lot of money that it doesn't really need?

You know, I read both messages and noticed the following:

- primarily both articles confirm the existence of dynamic pressure. From here on, the question can be only its effect, but not its existence.
- secondly, the calculations give different results and, for example, they do not even deal with details such as how such a pressure change affects a seal and the fit between the gasket and housing - although this would be the point, this is the question.
- The cited difference of ~10-20m is a brutal difference, if we take it into account, for example, in relation between a 3 ATM and a 5 ATM watch.

Turning the question upside down; if you really believe in these fictitious calculations, then it would follow that there is no need for water resistance better than 3 ATM, because no one will swim down so deep during swimming! Moreover, this would be even be a not needed knowledge, as the 30M it is well within the margin of the "calculated errors". So if these calculations would be right, then the biggest scam in the world would be 5 ATM water resistance, since then there would be no need for at all. Oh yes, and of course it would also follows, that everyone could swim fearlessly with their 3 ATM watch.

In short: I think it's debatable what a 5 ATM watch is capable of. But I think, we don't want to open a debate about why no one should swim with a 3 ATM watch, do we? And if we do not, then why we should continue such a dispute about the 5 ATM watches? Some of these watches will tolerate swimming, some of these are not. Only one thing is for sure, that these were not invented to swim in them. That said, it's could be true that when these watches are brand new, they could all probably take a swim. But well, what will happen in about one to three years, when the seals will no longer be brand new?

Therefore my opinion is simple, and it's belonging to me: I swim in a 100 M/10 ATM watch, based on the manufacturers suggestion and have no intention to even drop an 5 ATM watch into the water as I can't be sure, that it will not harm the movement. But it's just me

[statsman12345]

EW321 all day long!

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Gearjockey

A known issue since 1964.

Not if you know how to wind it

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by INC

So you're saying that inventing oysters was stupid and that Rolex is selling something for a lot of money that it doesn't really need?

You know, I read both messages and noticed the following:

- primarily both articles confirm the existence of dynamic pressure. From here on, the question can be only its effect, but not its existence.
- secondly, the calculations give different results and, for example, they do not even deal with details such as how such a pressure change affects a seal and the fit between the gasket and housing - although this would be the point, this is the question.
- The cited difference of ~10-20m is a brutal difference, if we take it into account, for example, in relation between a 3 ATM and a 5 ATM watch.

Turning the question upside down; if you really believe in these fictitious calculations, then it would follow that there is no need for water resistance better than 3 ATM, because no one will swim down so deep during swimming! Moreover, this would be even be a not needed knowledge, as the 30M it is well within the margin of the "calculated errors". So if these calculations would be right, then the biggest scam in the world would be 5 ATM water resistance, since then there would be no need for at all. Oh yes, and of course it would also follows, that everyone could swim fearlessly with their 3 ATM watch.

In short: I think it's debatable what a 5 ATM watch is capable of. But I think, we don't want to open a debate about why no one should swim with a 3 ATM watch, do we? And if we do not, then why we should continue such a dispute about the 5 ATM watches? Some of these watches will tolerate swimming, some of these are not. Only one thing is for sure, that these were not invented to swim in them. That said, it's could be true that when these watches are brand new, they could all probably take a swim. But well, what will happen in about one to three years, when the seals will no longer be brand new?

Therefore my opinion is simple, and it's belonging to me: I swim in a 100 M/10 ATM watch, based on the manufacturers suggestion and have no intention to even drop an 5 ATM watch into the water as I can't be sure, that it will not harm the movement. But it's just me

You do realize that a lot of the four-digit Rolex models were only 50m, right? Even Omega themselves say 30m and 50m is ok for swimming when new:


Now, the seals of a manual wind watch can degrade faster, but that’s another issue.

[subtona]

1 is legible.
1 is for swimming.
Neither were keepers.

My 2cents

[Lew_Ashby]

Not that this should impact your decision in anyway shape or form, but I live in Los Angeles, and just wanted to make this statement of fact: There is an Island, in the Los Angeles harbour, named after Lieutenant Colonel Edward White. The island’s location is 33.75291° N, 118.15943° W.

Additionally there are islands, in the Los Angeles harbour, named after Roger Chaffee and “Gus” Grissom as well.