Curious 2023 Daytona Bezel Surround

[Scanspeakman]

I think the new version looks a bit more refined with the encased ceramic bezel and thinner chrono rings. I also love that Rolex got rid of the asymmetrical lugs on the steel version. Great new version.

Overall, this new Daytona shows that Rolex is moving more and more away from their tool watch heritage and ever more towards a pure luxury product like AP, VC and Patek, in order to demand higher prices. Since their sales still increase, this trend will only continue.

Scanspeakman

[brigadoonb]

Originally Posted by Tavli3

Could it simply be that for whatever reason Rolex put the metal ring on just because they think it looks better? With all the worry about the ring getting dinged and scratched I took a look at my 66 Speedy which I don’t baby and yes the ring has dings and scratches but nothing I even took notice of till now and there’s certainly no damage to the insert where even the worst ding is. So maybe we’re over thinking this a bit??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. I think they wanted it to look a bit more “refined” or “jewelry”-ish. I don’t think it has to do with anything tied to durability holding the bezel in. I just think it’s for aesthetics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DBCooper07]

It looks awesome. I agree the steel rim might cause more problems then fixes. Personally I'm not worried. I'll never own one until the zombie apocalypse comes. All the uber rich people die off and I'll just pick it off their wondering zombie corpse.

[garyk]

Originally Posted by inadeje

So Rolex has encased the ceramic bezel in what looks like a protective ring. Clearly the protective ring is metal, so I’m assuming the same metal as the case. I have a couple of reservations about this new design.

The surrounds on a ceramic bezeled GMT, Sub or Yachtmaster are substantial and sturdy, whereas the new Daytona surround seems flimsy, and dare I say, precariously exposed? If like me you’ve owned pre-ceramic Daytona’s you’ll know how mangled the bezels get in next to no time. The emergence of the ceramic bezel completely solved that problem, but now Rolex has taken a step backwards?

Steel is softer than ceramic so a knock could cause the steel ring to fracture the ceramic.

Is it that we forum members haven’t been informed and Rolex has been dealing with many fractured Daytona bezels? If not, can anyone think of a reason why Rolex would introduce this design? It seems like a step backwards, but I may be missing something?

Finally, no reports on the case thickness but it looks thicker on photos and more slab sided, almost like a Tudor case.

Hopefully others will chime in with opinions and thoughts.

I agree with you. I know it’s an easy fix but who wants to have to. No thanks!!

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Before the ceramic bezels of the 116500 came along, I don't remember hearing people moaning all the time about how the outside edges of the bezels on their Daytonas (or Speedmasters for that matter) were these incredible scratch and dent magnets. Honestly guys, what are you putting your watches through??? IMO anything that will scratch that tiny raised bezel edge will 9 times out of 10 also scratch the side of the case as well. I just feel this is all a huge storm in a teacup.

10 years ago the watch wearing community was less focussed on scratches and dents because watches were fro telling the time, not a tradable commodity. They were watches not jewellery. I wore a 6239 Daytona as a daily throughout the 90s looking at it as nothing more than a nice watch.

I'm not saying everyone sees it that way but it changes perception.

Mystro has a great point for those who don't want their watches marked and scratched.

Look at any well used pre ceramic Daytona and the bezels are often in quite poor condition.

When I picked up my 116509 the other day I did so in the knowledge that I will have to replace the bezel at some point. The PM metal bezels just don't stand the test of time. Its practically a service replacement part.

My 116515 cerachome bezel didn't have a mark on it. As that, and the crystal, is what you see as a wearer, even with a PM case covered in fine hairlines (unavoidable) when you see the pristine bezel it makes a difference.

The problem that will be intensified with the PM references with the ceramic insert is that any reasonable contact with a hard object is going to sandwich the relatively soft thin bank of gold or platinum between the contact object and what is effectively immovable ceramic. So the incredibly thin PM band is going to have to dissipate the entire impact force and it will either crack/chip off or compress into a very visible dent.

The existing all ceramic bezel would dissipate any impact forces through the entire bezel.

Its simple physics.

Won't be as bad on the steel, but we all know how soft 904L is in real world applications.

At least it appears curved rather than square edged to hopefully deflect most contact.

[ROLEX*]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zeuloa]

Originally Posted by 904VT

I’m wondering if more a cost saving measure than visual upgrade.

On the gold with ceramic bezel and the platinum model it means adding more gold/platinum. Add to that re-tooling costs as someone mentioned.

Ceramic is not expensive anymore, you can get $150 watch with a ceramic bezel.

Additionally, why would Rolex want to cut costs in this manner? Demand is huge, they can raise the price another 50% on the SS and demand probably wouldn’t even move.

IMO it’s more of a design, and perhaps protection for the ceramic bezel as maybe they’ve had cracking claims (only they know). Really don’t think it’s a cost cutting measure.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Before the ceramic bezels of the 116500 came along, I don't remember hearing people moaning all the time about how the outside edges of the bezels on their Daytonas (or Speedmasters for that matter) were these incredible scratch and dent magnets. Honestly guys, what are you putting your watches through??? IMO anything that will scratch that tiny raised bezel edge will 9 times out of 10 also scratch the side of the case as well. I just feel this is all a huge storm in a teacup.

I also can't help thinking that the idea that the metal bezel ring is "cost saving measure" is just daft. Rolex are an IMMENSELY wealthy company - I heard once from a very reputable source in Switzerland that Rolex could close the doors on watchmaking tomorrow and still make vast profits from their real estate alone - so there's absolutely no way something so minor as need a few cubic millimetres of ceramic on one specific model is necessary for them to keep the wolf from the door! Let's not forget, a change like this requires design, tooling and process changes, which is arguably more expensive than a few cubic mm of ceramic they would've bought at cost. Let's be sensible here folks.

It seems pretty clear to me that it was simply an aesthetic design decision to differentiate it from the model that went before, to give a slightly different visual presence, and to echo design cues from certain previous models.

I agree with you.

FWIW, I’ve been wearing a reference with a similar bezel ring surrounding a ceramic bezel, and see no signs of wear.

Aesthetically, I prefer this look but I suppose everyone has their reasons for taking a stand

[904VT]

Originally Posted by zeuloa

On the gold with ceramic bezel and the platinum model it means adding more gold/platinum. Add to that re-tooling costs as someone mentioned.

Ceramic is not expensive anymore, you can get $150 watch with a ceramic bezel.

Additionally, why would Rolex want to cut costs in this manner? Demand is huge, they can raise the price another 50% on the SS and demand probably wouldn’t even move.

IMO it’s more of a design, and perhaps protection for the ceramic bezel as maybe they’ve had cracking claims (only they know). Really don’t think it’s a cost cutting measure.

It was a single piece of ceramic and not an insert. You’re right about PM, though PM ceramic are already light on PM bc on Oysterflex. Outside the Platona of course. Though there they made up for the increases PM by decreasing with new transparent case back. Easier to replace an inlay too. All signs for me point to cost cutting.

[lamnyc]

does anyone knows if the ceramic bezel in the insert is thinner or the same?

[HubbleNox]

Personally I think this is a step backwards with 2023 Daytonas. I'm not a fan of the bezel 'guard', or the smaller rings on the dial. Clear back on the platona is cool, but kind of leaning towards Rolex cost cutting as the driving factors here.

[PenDelicate]

I really like the new Daytona updates.
They're so small and incremental, yet differentiate the new model from the previous.
So glad the changes weren't more drastic.
They perfectly Rolexed it.

[marc2828]

I have a silly question...when Rolex services the watch, do they often remove the bezel? If so, I imagine it is way easier to "pry" off the metal backed ceramic bezel rather than a solid ceramic bezel. If so, I bet Rolex Service cracks a lot of bezels in the shop upon removal. Just a thought.

[amphr1]

I wonder if the metal edge makes the watch looks thicker than it used to.

But no one can deny the open caseback is awesome. Kinda think they should reserve that for only the most expensive model and not trickle down to all models.

[Cru Jones]

Refined and elegant, it looks like it’s been designed and not just a black ring of ceramic slapped on top of the case.

As for the worries about damage, how many Subs and GMTs have had issues with their metal rings surrounding their inserts? ;-)

[amphr1]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Refined and elegant, it looks like it’s been designed and not just a black ring of ceramic slapped on top of the case.

As for the worries about damage, how many Subs and GMTs have had issues with their metal rings surrounding their inserts? ;-)

To be fair, a coin edge hides a LOT of scratches

[Palakiko]

Until Rolex comes out with black and white rationale. Why they did it? We’ll continue to speculate and wonder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Calatrava r]

It would seem to me if the steel ring were damaged enough to harm the ceramic bezel, the bezel would have been damaged anyway without the ring in the same mishap. I like the added contrast the ring adds to the overall look.

[asiparks]

I like it, makes the bezel look more finished.
As far as protection, whilst it isn't going to really add any or cure the non-problem of consumer cracked bezels, it might simplify assembly or reduce assembly line breakages if the ceramic bezel is now an" insert" and has 3 of its four sides encased in steel.

Or maybe they just wanted a change and thought it looked nice.

[pvl86]

Its cribbed from omega.

Sent from my SM-S908W using Tapatalk

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by pvl86

Its cribbed from omega.

Sent from my SM-S908W using Tapatalk

For sure. A nod to their own vintage heritage which was a "me too" after omega

[Golfbone]

I don't think they "copped it " from Omega. They used to have this metal surrounding the bezel a long time ago until they dropped it with Ceramic.

[AzHadEnuf]

Not sure how hard you guys are wearing your watches but for reference the metal bezel ring on mine is over 50 years old with over 40 years of daily wear. I actually like the ring on the new release.

[jitdc]

I do think the ring adds a complete look to the bezel. Not sure if it’s better or more preferable over just the ceramic though. I’ll have to see it person but I’m still a fan of the Daytona. As long as the case updates have not changed the amazing fit then I’m ok with the bezel change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Geaux Tigers]

Some good points…I can’t wait I to see it in person as other have implied I’d guess they are trying to get the Dayton to “wear larger” than current. It wears smaller than any other watch I own for its size.

I also agree the new design would seem to be easier to manufacture…but I have no idea if that’s accurate.

My favorite is the platinum version! Love the visbale movement!