Vintage GMT or Daytona as ONLY Rolex?

[myk7000]

If you could only have one Rolex (a special one to commemorate the birth of your child), would you go for an old GMT or old Daytona? Thinking no newer than the 16520 Zenith or 16710 GMT. Considering as far back as 1675 and 6239s.

Would love your guys' advice on what I should go for as that only Rolex? Probably a budget of $50/60K.

[TeddyBallGame]

While I don't have any experience with 4 digit Rolex, I do own a 16520 Daytona, a 16710 GMT and their modern 6 digit counterparts. I'm not sure I'd categorize the 16520 & 16710 as vintage quite yet, but they definitely have a vintage look and feel with modern reliability (not that 4 digit models aren't reliable). I don't baby or wear them any different from my 6 digit watches. Even taking them in the water swimming without any concern. For me, I personally would be a little nervous doing the same thing with a lot of 4 digit models.

In regards to the GMT, I feel the 4 and 5 digit models look pretty similar to each other, minus some small differences. So if the vintage look is what you're after, I would be more inclined to go 5 digit. With the Daytona on the other hand, there is a much bigger difference between a 4 and a 5 digit. Both in form factor/aesthetics and movement (manual vs automatic) making the 4 digits look more vintage.

How often do you plan on wearing it, daily or sparingly? Something else to think about might be the future availability parts if it's going to be a daily wear. At some point, those 4 digit models might be harder to find parts if Rolex decides to not support them anymore.

Personally, if I had to pick one Rolex from my collection to keep it would be my 16520 Daytona!

[shaunylw]

With that budget you can very easily get a NOS zenith for less than half, or an unbelievable 1675 gilt dial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Daytona king]

Originally Posted by myk7000

If you could only have one Rolex (a special one to commemorate the birth of your child), would you go for an old GMT or old Daytona? Thinking no newer than the 16520 Zenith or 16710 GMT. Considering as far back as 1675 and 6239s.

Would love your guys' advice on what I should go for as that only Rolex? Probably a budget of $50/60K.

For your budget and to commemorate the birth of your child I would honestly not look at vintage. I’m sure by the time they are old enough to wear it I would be concerned on how difficult it would be to get it serviced. As well as the high price.

Thinking outside of the box if you had $50-$60k to spend I would get a meteorite GMT Pepsi. If you can stretch your budget another $20k-$30k I would get a meteorite Daytona. 6 digit not 5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ade]

Originally Posted by myk7000

If you could only have one Rolex (a special one to commemorate the birth of your child), would you go for an old GMT or old Daytona? Thinking no newer than the 16520 Zenith or 16710 GMT. Considering as far back as 1675 and 6239s.

Would love your guys' advice on what I should go for as that only Rolex? Probably a budget of $50/60K.

I’ve had 4 digit Subs, 5 digit Daytonas and GMTs, and 6 digit Sub/GMT/Daytonas. They have come and gone. But the ones that stayed and feel most iconic/quintessential in terms of representing the Rolex brand are the 5 digit GMT (16710), 5 digit Sea Dweller (16600), and 6 digit Sub and Daytonas.

I ruled against the 5513 as they are fragile and flimsy in comparison to what Rolex are today. 5 digits - especially with solid end links - feel significantly sturdier and more becoming of what we know/expect of a premium watch.

I also ruled out the pre-ceramic Daytonas because the polished bezel is a genuine nightmare, and the 116500/126500 series are utterly beautiful and comfortable.

If I had to choose one to celebrate, it would be a Panda 116500 or Black 126500. They are more special than any of the 5 digits. Amongst the 5 digits, I think it is a tie between the 16710 and 16600, but the 16710 is more iconic perhaps…

[Bazil]

I would definitely have a Daytona .. zenith 116520 massive shout, white dial …

[brandrea]

Im not familiar enough with vintage prices to know if your budget will work, but whatever you do (especially with 4 digit references), make sure you know what you’re buying.

[travisb]

The 16520 Zenith Daytona holds a special place in my collection so I'm biased there. A pristine full set 1675 or 16750 would be very tempting.

[myk7000]

Originally Posted by TeddyBallGame

While I don't have any experience with 4 digit Rolex, I do own a 16520 Daytona, a 16710 GMT and their modern 6 digit counterparts. I'm not sure I'd categorize the 16520 & 16710 as vintage quite yet, but they definitely have a vintage look and feel with modern reliability (not that 4 digit models aren't reliable). I don't baby or wear them any different from my 6 digit watches. Even taking them in the water swimming without any concern. For me, I personally would be a little nervous doing the same thing with a lot of 4 digit models.

In regards to the GMT, I feel the 4 and 5 digit models look pretty similar to each other, minus some small differences. So if the vintage look is what you're after, I would be more inclined to go 5 digit. With the Daytona on the other hand, there is a much bigger difference between a 4 and a 5 digit. Both in form factor/aesthetics and movement (manual vs automatic) making the 4 digits look more vintage.

How often do you plan on wearing it, daily or sparingly? Something else to think about might be the future availability parts if it's going to be a daily wear. At some point, those 4 digit models might be harder to find parts if Rolex decides to not support them anymore.

Personally, if I had to pick one Rolex from my collection to keep it would be my 16520 Daytona!

My hope is to wear it quite often in a rotation, perhaps a couple times a week. It’s a good point that durability matters in that instance, so leaning 5 digit, to remain somewhat vintage, but also hold up to daily wear, might be the way… The 16520 is certainly a contender.

[SLWoodster]

If it’s my only Rolex. Vintage. It would be 4 digit Daytona with black bezel, prefer screw down pushers.

4 digits are also extremely durable. Nobody would go swimming with it though bc of the sheer difficulty of replacing dial, hands if something were to go wrong.

If it’s to commemorate birth of child I would get the modern one with the kid’s birth year. This option is way below your budget.

[Mystro]

I like the Sub in the early 70’s.

[Actor07]

Tough call, both the GMT and Daytona are iconic watches. My favorites are the 16710 GMT II (SEL, holes) and the 16520 Daytona (Zenith movement). A close third is the 14060 Sub (Two Liner)

[rmagoo57]

Originally Posted by myk7000

If you could only have one Rolex (a special one to commemorate the birth of your child), would you go for an old GMT or old Daytona? Thinking no newer than the 16520 Zenith or 16710 GMT. Considering as far back as 1675 and 6239s.

Would love your guys' advice on what I should go for as that only Rolex? Probably a budget of $50/60K.

I would get the newest 16520/16710 watch I could find since you plan on keeping it forever. You can get both in NOS condition for your budget.

[myk7000]

Does the 6265, which was the last of the manual Daytonas, hold a candle to the 16520 in terms of durability and practical use?

[ltmgeller]

GMT for me

[georgekart]

Originally Posted by myk7000

If you could only have one Rolex (a special one to commemorate the birth of your child), would you go for an old GMT or old Daytona? Thinking no newer than the 16520 Zenith or 16710 GMT. Considering as far back as 1675 and 6239s.

Would love your guys' advice on what I should go for as that only Rolex? Probably a budget of $50/60K.

If you wanna go vintage, I'd probably go for full gold GMT. 1675 or 16758 or some of the more modern ones is your pick. Maybe one on a Jubilee. That being said, if you want it to commemorate your childs birth how about modern, same year as he is born (which I assume is this year). Get a new Daytona. Or a Day-Date.

[Jackie Daytona]

I would go with the newer reference.

Although vintage is super cool IMO they don’t make for the most practical daily or only watch. They are indeed robust, but parts/service considerations may be much harder to stay up to date with. Plus them potential for damage is a bit higher.

I love and have had my 16750 for quite a long time, but I feel that by the time it’s time to pass to my kids it really won’t be very practical to wear. Additionally in if they end up not being really into watches then a newer one they can at least wear a bit more regularly and may be a good bit less burdensome to care for.

[Pw92676]

Originally Posted by SLWoodster

If it’s to commemorate birth of child I would get the modern one with the kid’s birth year. This option is way below your budget.

I would do this. At your budget, can get both grey and still have leftover.

[Stan Cooper]

I would get a c. 2001 16710 GMT with solid end links as a "one and only" since that happens to be my only Rolex (not counting the WW1 Rolex trench watch which I only wear on November 11 every year).

Having the two time zone complication and a date window are much more valuable to me than the Daytona's chronograph function.

[garyk]

I had a Sub date in 1979, the one with the thick crystal. Was a really great watch I had but sadly let it get away...So Submariner always gets my vote :)

[jb335]

I prefer vintage Daytona over vintage GMT, or over anything vintage Rolex for that matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HMHM]

Depends on condition and authenticity. A good condition GMT > poor condition Daytona.
A full set GMT with all period correct parts > well polished Daytona with mixed parts.
If all things equivalent (full set, period correct parts, equal condition), then Daytona > GMT (but expect a price premium for Good condition Daytona over GMT). So the question comes down to how much you willing to spend vs what are the things you are willing to overlook based on your budget…

[Sipper]

Brings up a question - Does model number or age make a watch vintage? Is a 1989 16710 vintage, but a 2000 not? Or, would vintage only a four digit be vintage?

[NigeG]

What you going to do if you get another child? Blow another $50-60k on a trinket?

Buy a new six digit GMT so you can gift it to them when the kid reaches 18 or 21. Nice back story to their birth year watch. With a budget like that getting one should not be difficult


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[daysky1]

For me it would be the GMT. And again I'm only speaking for me I like things a little more complicated the GMT has a lot more of that going on than the Daytona. Well I do appreciate the Daytona as a stopwatch it doesn't have a date which if it did have I may just chooses the Daytona. And as I understand it with the GMT there's a lot more functionality besides just one extra time zone I don't know exactly what all of that is but it's quite a bit compared to what's available with the Daytona. And the final thing that I want to say is I don't know how many people actually use a stopwatch feature on the Daytona versus those people that use the GMT for feature. But at least the GMT has a date and the dial looks cool but so does the Daytona except for the day go figure whichever one speaks to you by that one.

[GGGMT]

GMT. Of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hkspwrsche]

Based on what you said, I would look at the early 16750 with matte dial but quick set date. Best of everything in my mind.

[myk7000]

I appreciate the points about a new watch but I just have a hard time appreciating many of the modern Rolex catalog. I’m thinking the short list is a 16750 matte dial like the above or a 16520 zenith.

I had the 6265 and 1675 in mind as well but I do think your guys’ concern about their practicality is well founded.

[BNA/LION]

Daytona white face.

[Hkspwrsche]

Originally Posted by myk7000

I appreciate the points about a new watch but I just have a hard time appreciating many of the modern Rolex catalog. I’m thinking the short list is a 16750 matte dial like the above or a 16520 zenith.

I had the 6265 and 1675 in mind as well but I do think your guys’ concern about their practicality is well founded.

Both great choices!

I got lucky and bought mine from the original owner who purchased it via layaway while in the airforce.