Differences 16520 and 116520

[Aventura]

Hello
Could someone tell me what year the Daytona 16520 is replaced by the 116520? And what are the differences that could be seen at a glance?
Thanks.

[TimeToWatch]

The 116520 was introduced in 2000.

-New in-house Rolex 4130 movement in the 116520. Fewer parts and easier to service with a Parachrom blue hairspring, 72 hour power reserve. Eliminates the jumping seconds hand of the 16520 when you start your chronograph thanks to its new vertical clutch. Hacking seconds hand in the 116520, non-hacking in the 16520 (very annoying when setting time to the second).
-The 16520 has a modified Zenith el primero movement, the Rolex 4030, with over 50% modification in parts including a reduction in bph from 36,000 to 28,000. This helped reduce service intervals with the movement.
-The seconds hand is at the 9-o'clock position in the 16520, 6-o'clock in the 116520.
-The sub-dials of the 16520 are either off-white on the black dial model or black on the white dial model.
-The subdials of the 116520 are slightly off-centered while they are centered in the 16520.
-The 116520 has a large case size and maxi hands and hour markers.
-The 116520 bracelet has solid links and a modern Rolex clasp with easy-link extension. The 16520 has hollow links (the Mark V has solid end links, all others do not) and an old 5-digit style tuna can clasp.

Both are awesome watches, but my heart will always choose the 16520

[mtgjr]

aschneid, is that all you got?

(Haha, somebody knows their sh&t!)

[Onikage]

The lug tops are brushed on the 16520 and are more symmetrical. Polished on the 116520 and slightly thinner on the right side. Markers are thin baton type on the 16520. Subdials slightly higher on the 116520. I forget the rest...

[GB-man]

16520 is the asnwer for proper subdial placement.

[1665fan]

When you say larger case is that thickness or larger than 40mm?

[L.W.C]

Originally Posted by aschneid

The 116520 was introduced in 2000.

-New in-house Rolex 4130 movement in the 116520. Fewer parts and easier to service with a Parachrom blue hairspring, 72 hour power reserve. Eliminates the jumping seconds hand of the 16520 when you start your chronograph thanks to its new vertical clutch. Hacking seconds hand in the 116520, non-hacking in the 16520 (very annoying when setting time to the second).
-The 16520 has a modified Zenith el primero movement, the Rolex 4030, with over 50% modification in parts including a reduction in bph from 36,000 to 28,000. This helped reduce service intervals with the movement.
-The seconds hand is at the 9-o'clock position in the 16520, 6-o'clock in the 116520.
-The sub-dials of the 16520 are either off-white on the black dial model or black on the white dial model.
-The subdials of the 116520 are slightly off-centered while they are centered in the 16520.
-The 116520 has a large case size and maxi hands and hour markers.
-The 116520 bracelet has solid links and a modern Rolex clasp with easy-link extension. The 16520 has hollow links (the Mark V has solid end links, all others do not) and an old 5-digit style tuna can clasp.

Both are awesome watches, but my heart will always choose the 16520

Great info thanks for sharing!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spoonage]

There’s an additional “1” in the 116520. On a serious note I think that the experts in the above posts more than cover the differences... The 15620 won’t have an engraved Rehaut (I don’t think all 115620 have it either as I don’t know what year Rolex started the engraved Rehaut). Now if you want to get into dial variations... That’s a whole new topic.

[TimeToWatch]

Originally Posted by mtgjr

aschneid, is that all you got?

(Haha, somebody knows their sh&t!)

Haha! I've spent way too many hours combing the web for info on Daytonas.

For those who are interested, here's a relative size comparison that I snapped at the release of the DaytonaC (I believe the 116520 has the same case dimensions as the 116500). The thickness of both the 16520 and 116520/116500 should be close, it's more so the width of the case.

[Aventura]

Thanks guys.

[lovetherolex]

Originally Posted by aschneid

Haha! I've spent way too many hours combing the web for info on Daytonas.

For those who are interested, here's a relative size comparison that I snapped at the release of the DaytonaC (I believe the 116520 has the same case dimensions as the 116500). The thickness of both the 16520 and 116520/116500 should be close, it's more so the width of the case.

Is that the angle of the left one or would you say that apparent size difference is perfectly true to life?

[Tom808]

Hi

Here's a pic taken a couple weeks ago for your reference.
16520 left, 116520 middle, and 116500 right.

Tom

[TimeToWatch]

Originally Posted by lovetherolex

Is that the angle of the left one or would you say that apparent size difference is perfectly true to life?

I don't have both in front of me right now so I don't want to comment one way or the other. With that being said, the 116500 wears relatively small compared to a 6-digit Sub or GMT. It's still a smaller 40 mm watch.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Onikage

The lug tops are brushed on the 16520...

+1 That's the biggest aesthetic difference that makes me prefer the 16520.

[Chalet]

[TimeToWatch]

Originally Posted by Chalet

Very nice

[Hoangoneone7]

Here is both 16520 and 116520 in black. I personally prefer the 16520 due the sub seconds hand being at the 9 o'clock position and the creamy sub-dial


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TimeToWatch]

Originally Posted by Hoangoneone7

Here is both 16520 and 116520 in black. I personally prefer the 16520 due the sub seconds hand being at the 9 o'clock position and the creamy sub-dial


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great shot! After wearing a 16520 on a nearly daily basis, the proportions of the 116520 just look off to me. I think it's the subdials are just a tad bit too large.

[hectorbitar]

What about weight? Does 16520 feel much lighter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Amanubis]

Originally Posted by hectorbitar

What about weight? Does 16520 feel much lighter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd say it's more comfortable and a tad slimmer. The old style bracelet and clasp also helps, but this is very much a subjective topic. All in, the 16520 just feels that bit more special.


Sent from my ELS-NX9 using Tapatalk

[cts]

116520>>>>16520 all day, all night!!!

[kitsgq]

16520 all the way for me. But to each their own.



Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk