A child's take on two Daytonas...

[Lew Archer]

My daughter's nine, and graciously accompanied me to the AD to pick up the new Daytona Ceramic 116500LN last Saturday, as I mentioned in the requisite "incoming" thread.

I wore my Daytona 116520, as I was curious to see how the two watches compared side by side. Both have white dials, so the visual difference is the bezel and sub-dials.

Yet, to my eye, they are different. Twins, perhaps, but fraternal, not identical...and the differences enough to make them stand apart. I love 'em both. I think the 116500LN is more visually striking--the black cerachrom bezel and the sub-dials with the black outer rings really stand out, due to the contrast between black and white. In short, it's a handsome watch, an adventure watch, but sophisticated. The 116500 is a bit more elegant. The bezel and sub-dials, polished silver, don't jump out the way they do on the new model. Instead, they shimmer. In short, it's a beautiful watch, a dress watch, but dashing.

So much for the impression of a 51 year old man. My daughter has a good and fresh eye for things. A no nonsense eye. She is only nine and untarnished by the prejudices of others. So, I held up both models and asked her which she liked better...She regarded the two watches pensively, taking her time, looking at one, then the other, holding one, then the other. At last she said, "this one"---pointing to the Daytona Ceramic 116500LN.

Ah, I thought! She chose handsome over beautiful...right? Nah.

She then held up the 116520 and said, "The silver one looks more like an old person's watch, Dad."

Ouch. So much for dressy, but dashing.

I know better than to argue with her. So, now when I wear the old Daytona, I'll be sure to carry a cane, too...