Money no object Rolex Daytona Challenge

[JRell]

Latest or earliest are the best.

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by subtona

Agree with your points about the zenith, my last attempt at keeping a Daytona in the collection was the watch you describe. Last year of production p serial zenith movement from 2000. It lasted a year in the collection. Aesthetically It’s a great watch in every detail but useless for telling the time and as a chronograph due to poor legibility from lack of contrast. After 4 Daytonas in and out of the collection I now have a speedy 321 which definitively resolves the legibility issues of a Daytona. You can read the time on a speedy from across the room, legibility is incredible…. But as a member above said, nothing is perfect… the speedy is not expected to last in my small collection because it gives up many of the other qualities that we get with a Daytona.

Thanks, some excellent points raised there. I do agree that the achilles heel and potential sole pitfall of the zenith is the rapid-fire legibility. It isn’t a quick glance watch, requiring a split second longer than the most legible chronograph’s like the 321 (in my case the broad arrow). As we get further into collecting, at least for me, I have started to notice and profoundly appreciate subtle nuances.

The side-by-side image displays perfectly one that really strikes me between these 4. It’s drawing a horizontal line from the central axis on both 116520 and 116500 and noticing the bizarre offset of the top two subdial axis. Then, what I can only describe as “scattered” subdial surrounds which seem too far apart and too high when compared to the eye-pleasing perfection of the zenith.

Intricacies, intricacies

[subtona]

Originally Posted by inadeje

Thanks, some excellent points raised there. I do agree that the achilles heel and potential sole pitfall of the zenith is the rapid-fire legibility. It isn’t a quick glance watch, requiring a split second longer than the most legible chronograph’s like the 321 (in my case the broad arrow). As we get further into collecting, at least for me, I have started to notice and profoundly appreciate subtle nuances.

The side-by-side image displays perfectly one that really strikes me between these 4. It’s drawing a horizontal line from the central axis on both 116520 and 116500 and noticing the bizarre offset of the top two subdial axis. Then, what I can only describe as “scattered” subdial surrounds which seem too far apart and too high when compared to the eye-pleasing perfection of the zenith.

Intricacies, intricacies

Indeed it can be a very polarizing detail once it is noticed.

I much prefer the zenith layout but appreciate the durability of the ceramic bezel (I prefer the steel bezel with the white dial and black ceramic bezel w black dial )


The subdials of modern Daytonas have moved south just like the patek chronos. I don’t like it on pateks offerings either.

[clubrcr]

Big Red by far.

I have the 116500LN, and would trade it for the older model. Why can't Rolex make a stainless steel watch with a silver dial / black subdials with today's modern conveniences. I know that the white gold Daytona has silver dial / black subdials, but having had a white gold Daytona, I am not convinced that is an every day watch. It scratches too easy.

[1665fan]

16520

[Mr Ben]

I’d go oldest or newest - I’d get as close to original for first choice or the latest and greatest as second choice. On balance I’ll go 1970’s because I prefer the full subdials, the history and heritage and it’ll be a birth year one for me!

[HMHM]

It's a real toss up between the 6263/6265 and the 500 for me. I like the look the black dial 6263/6265 'Big Red' a lot and that was the deciding factor in me getting the black 500LN in the end over the white.

The 4 digits dial looks cleaner and is a true "panda" as opposed to the 500LN (white or black) but the build quality is certainly lacking compared to modern day standards. The 500 has a great wearability, not too light or too heavy. The ceramic bezel would certainly withstand more wear and tear from daily use. Servicing is another aspect with the 4 digits as Rolex (disappointingly) refused to service vintage watches while 500LNs would no doubt be serviceable over the next 2 decades or so.

I'm waiting for prices of black dial 116520 to go down further (without box and papers) then I will consider getting one. Hopefully further price correction this year will aid that quest.

[dafuture]

White 116520 for me. My friend has one and I’ve always admired it. Close second would be a black 116500LN.

[OrangeSport]

The only one I would consider is the 4 digit

The rest are simply awful

[GMTmatt]

Either of the left two with the brushed cases.

[seriously_watch_this]

#1. Great looker, classic design - love the solid sub-dials. Super easy legibility.

[KY..]

The 62xx is the original and is the most important and typically the most desired.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by inadeje

You can choose just one of these four. It’s a family members gift to you (so you can’t sell it, ever) and you must wear it.

Which would you choose?

Why?

Probably white dial 116520. Has been a grail for me since the 90s, so it's hard to shake that. I think the vintage and modern ceramic references do look better though.

[adawil2002]

6263 is the most aesthetically pleasing of all the Daytona Rolexes to me.

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by adawil2002

6263 is the most aesthetically pleasing of all the Daytona Rolexes to me.

Yes, and that particular version in your photo is stunning.

[Etschell]

the zenith because it has the best movement of all of them.

[TheWatchmen]

As a 116500 owner, I would pick the 6263 out of those no question.

[KeithP]

62xx. Best looking and most legible.

[inadeje]

Since the 4 digit 62XX is currently winning this Daytona Shootout here’s a few variants of the Paul Newman to wet your collective appetites

[Driver8]

1970’s for me. Just look at those nice SYMMETRICAL lugs!

[logo]

Originally Posted by Driver8

1970’s for me. Just look at those nice SYMMETRICAL lugs!

Better not look at the pushers! The Daytona is a watch that has forever had pretty heavy asymmetry.

[logo]

Originally Posted by logo

Better not look at the pushers! The Daytona is a watch that has forever had pretty heavy asymmetry.

A good picture showing the bottom pusher is further from the crown than the top pusher on a 6263 Daytona (and is the same on all 4 digit Daytonas due to the movement).

Top pusher is aligned between the 10-11min mark (so 4.5min from the crown), bottom aligned between 20-21min mark (so 5.5min from the crown). This is a 20% difference, and noticeable. But in trade, you get aligned subdials, symmetric lugs and an uncluttered dial.

[JoeJoeBobo]

If money were no object I would be to busy living a great life to bother with forum watch polls…just sayin.

[Solo118]

Originally Posted by adawil2002

6263 is the most aesthetically pleasing of all the Daytona Rolexes to me.

Most beautiful watch I have ever seen. This would be IT for me. My one and only grail.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by logo

Better not look at the pushers! The Daytona is a watch that has forever had pretty heavy asymmetry.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by logo

Better not look at the pushers! The Daytona is a watch that has forever had pretty heavy asymmetry.

That’s a very fair point actually!

[karleone]

I have a black 116500 that I am daily wearing and my all time favorite watch. If I could swap it for a nice 6263 I wood do it 100% and daily wear it.

[Marcaine]

1,4,2,3 in that order

[LFFL]

62xx, and it's not even close