Daytona Subdials

[Triple Crown]

Let me begin this thread by saying that I have long admired nearly all Daytona references.

A few months ago, a good friend was contemplating a white gold on OF. While discussing the prospective purchase with another WIS, he remarked that the one thing he disliked about the Daytona is the “asymmetrical” placement of the left and right subdials. When pressed, he noted that the left subdial is closer to the 10 o’clock hour marker than the 8 o’clock marker, and the right subdial closer to the 2 than the 4 o’clock marker. In other words, neither subdial is equidistant from its closest markers.

At first, I had no idea what he was talking about. But then, after looking at a picture, I understood immediately. To me, the subdials now look “off,” and I cannot un-see the “issue.”

Anyone else notice/distracted by this?

[Helmi]

It is very well known that the 3 and 9 o'clock sub-dials are not exactly centered at 3 and 9 and are shifted a little upwards towards 2 and 10 o'clock. Some people see this a design defect, in fact one good you tuber called IDGUY has discussed this in details on one of his videos and pointed it as a design defect of the modern daytona. For me it is OK and doesn't bother me the slightest. I would have preferred perfect symmetry of the dial but they have done this in order not to make the sub-dials smaller and the overall spacing on the dial would look off. To each their own but I like my Daytonas the way they are

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by Helmi

Some people see this a design defect, in fact one good you tuber called IDGUY has discussed this in details on one of his videos and pointed it as a design defect of the modern daytona.]

I've seen his channel. Not sure where his newfound authority on watches has come from. He only seems to buy dirt cheap China fake factory crap. Seiko mecaquartz layout vs mechanical chronos from a design standpoint seriously?

[Helmi]

Originally Posted by Onikage

I've seen his channel. Not sure where his newfound authority on watches has come from. He only seems to buy dirt cheap China fake factory crap. Seiko mecaquartz layout vs mechanical chronos from a design standpoint seriously?

To be frank, I don't care what he buys, I just listen to his opinion from technical design criticism point of view and I find his points valid. It seems that he is an interior designer or so that is why he cares about tiny matters that no one else notice

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by Helmi

To be frank, I don't care what he buys, I just listen to his opinion from technical design criticism point of view and I find his points valid. It seems that he is an interior designer or so that is why he cares about tiny matters that no one else notice

It doesn't have any bearing that he seemingly hasn't even handled the watches he slams in favour of their £60 'counterparts'? I don't mean to be an ass but you can't buy a 'bagelsport nautilus' and a 'didun design Royal One?' or any of this stuff - the likes of which you can find identical on aliexpress complete with the fake logo included and claim that they have fixed flaws in the original design and be taken seriously. Imo.

[Martymcflyface]

I see what you mean, but I think it actually looks more balanced with the dials where they are as opposed to being lower and equidistant to the hour markers.
If they were lower there would be a big empty space on top would look too cluttered on the bottom.

[77T]

In the past the Daytona subdials were placed differently.



Since then the 4130 movement was designed and I believe the chrono module made the change necessary.



Of course the OP’s friend has choices...AP is centered...



But the best choice might be the 63xx versions of the Daytona


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Triple Crown

Let me begin this thread by saying that I have long admired nearly all Daytona references.

A few months ago, a good friend was contemplating a white gold on OF. While discussing the prospective purchase with another WIS, he remarked that the one thing he disliked about the Daytona is the “asymmetrical” placement of the left and right subdials. When pressed, he noted that the left subdial is closer to the 10 o’clock hour marker than the 8 o’clock marker, and the right subdial closer to the 2 than the 4 o’clock marker. In other words, neither subdial is equidistant from its closest markers.

At first, I had no idea what he was talking about. But then, after looking at a picture, I understood immediately. To me, the subdials now look “off,” and I cannot un-see the “issue.”

Anyone else notice/distracted by this?

Its been like that since Rolex replaced the Zenith movement with the in house 4130 movement.

A design "feauture" of the 4130

[Triple Crown]

Perhaps Rolex will address it if/when the size of the Daytona case is increased (as some are hoping for).

[Actor07]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Its been like that since Rolex replaced the Zenith movement with the in house 4130 movement.

A design "feauture" of the 4130

And the 4131. As an aside, I like the current placement of the subdials, if the sundials are equidistant between the 10 and 8 and 2 and 4 hour markers, both subdials would be too close to the seconds subdial at 6 o'clock. If altered, you may lose the red "Daytona" on top of the seconds subdial and make the whole dial appear bottom heavy.

[watchwatcher]

I've owned several Daytona's and never noticed, or cared. Now that I see the pictures, I still don't.

[RichM]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

I've owned several Daytona's and never noticed, or cared. Now that I see the pictures, I still don't.

X2

[Calatrava r]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

I've owned several Daytona's and never noticed, or cared. Now that I see the pictures, I still don't.

I still do not see it and would not give it a concern if I did.

[Mr.Rolex1]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

I've owned several Daytona's and never noticed, or cared. Now that I see the pictures, I still don't.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

I've owned several Daytona's and never noticed, or cared. Now that I see the pictures, I still don't.

[ddubb]

TBH, I actually never really noticed this before. I’ve had a Daytona in my collection since 2015, and that asymmetry actually never really registered with me lol. It must have not bothered me - I hope it doesn’t start to bother me now that I’m conscious of it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dmb359]

the dial wouldn't be very balanced if those subdials were lower, based on the rest of the dial in these newer 116500 models. The Crown and text are lower in the older daytonas too. I prefer the crown placement on the newer models.

All 3 watches posted above look balanced to me as they are

Have my Daytona on right now, and it doesn't "bother" me in the least

[brucethemanlee]

its been like this for almost 20 years. looks normal to me.

[Chiboy]

I’ve made my peace with it. I’m just that easy!

[swish77]

Total, absolute non-issue. The subdials are symmetrical to each other and to the center subdial. That's all that matters.

That's like saying you don't like the 6263 because the chrono pushers are not the same distance from the crown. (The lower pusher is farther away.) It's a feature of the design/movement, like on modern Daytonas.

[kans86]

Originally Posted by swish77

total, absolute non-issue. The sub dials are symmetrical to each other and the center subdial. That's all that matters.

That's like saying you don't like the 6263 because the chrono pushers are not the same distance from the crown. (the lower pusher is farther away.) it's a feature of the design/movement, like on modern daytonas.

+1.

[Triple Crown]

Originally Posted by swish77

Total, absolute non-issue. The subdials are symmetrical to each other and to the center subdial. That's all that matters.

That's like saying you don't like the 6263 because the chrono pushers are not the same distance from the crown. (The lower pusher is farther away.) It's a feature of the design/movement, like on modern Daytonas.

I did not know that about the pushers on the 6263. Thanks for the knowledge!

[Gwai]

Originally Posted by swish77

That's like saying you don't like the 6263 because the chrono pushers are not the same distance from the crown. (The lower pusher is farther away.)

Instant relief! You just made me fall out of love with the 6263! I shall find sleep again. (Jus' kiddin'.)

Cheers
Marc

[enjoythemusic]

non-issue for me, too. Looks and wears great!

[Tools]

The flaw in this assumption is that, somehow, the movement should always be engineered to "look pretty" with an already designed dial layout.

For those who consider this a flawed design and cannot "unsee" such incompetence on Rolex part, I will be happy to take these abominations off your hands.

[Lucky Guy]

When you look at a door design or signage they sit at a 60/40 split as it is more pleasing to the eye
If the design is on centre it doesn’t look right as it sits low rather than proud
You just never notice it

It’s the same as your own face



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Toony]

A tell tale sign of a fake is one that is lined up with the center hands

[Grnvette65]

When the 4130 came out it was my understanding that the sub dials were purposely placed that way so it was less likely to be copied by fakes. The other option I read at that time was to place the sub dials slightly below the 3 o’clock axis. In any event I actually like the placement and gives the Daytona a very unique look.

[lord91]

Originally Posted by Triple Crown

Let me begin this thread by saying that I have long admired nearly all Daytona references.

A few months ago, a good friend was contemplating a white gold on OF. While discussing the prospective purchase with another WIS, he remarked that the one thing he disliked about the Daytona is the “asymmetrical” placement of the left and right subdials. When pressed, he noted that the left subdial is closer to the 10 o’clock hour marker than the 8 o’clock marker, and the right subdial closer to the 2 than the 4 o’clock marker. In other words, neither subdial is equidistant from its closest markers.

At first, I had no idea what he was talking about. But then, after looking at a picture, I understood immediately. To me, the subdials now look “off,” and I cannot un-see the “issue.”

Anyone else notice/distracted by this?

So what?! Who decided they're off and have to be equidistant?

[Triple Crown]

Well, for one, my friend, who opted not to buy one for that very reason. And, I suppose, AP, Breitling, Omega, Heuer, and the other manufacturers whose subdials are “equidistant” (as Rolex subdials themselves used to be).

I didn’t come on here to start a fight. I offered an observation and an opinion, and I asked a question.