DaytonaC or Aquanaut?

[lig]

Not even remotely close here. 116500

5711 might be another matter though.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by josephashburnnn

True history? Is Rolex's history any truer than Patek's? *Puzzeld*

History of the Daytona design, apologies for not being more specific.

[josephashburnnn]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

History of the Daytona design, apologies for not being more specific.

Oh! I should have thought of that! Thanks!

[codecow]

Of the two I'd get the 5167, I sold my SS Daytona but I still have my 5167.

[mineral]

5167>5164>Daytona c

Just IMO.

[lock0ut]

Doesn't do any good to have an illegible watch, and the Daytonas are ridiculously hard to read for me. So I went with 5167, which is a fantastic timepiece.

[turpe]

Originally Posted by lock0ut

Doesn't do any good to have an illegible watch, and the Daytonas are ridiculously hard to read for me. So I went with 5167, which is a fantastic timepiece.

This.

I recently acquired a 5066, and I am selling my Daytona 16520 to recoup the funds - I have a one-in/one-out policy for $10k+ watches - and, prior to the 16520, I had a Red 1680.

During the 18 months or so I spent wearing the Daytona, I discovered that I really missed the 1680's date window, and the ability to glance quickly at my wrist and see the time straight away, rather than having to pay attention to the more 'busy' dial/hands of the 16520.

Your personal tastes may vary but,for me, the switch from Daytona to Aquanaut was absolutely the right call.

[psv]

I had the 5167, it a nice and funky little piece, PP's own Genta-esque design attempt. As much as I liked it, I felt that both the brushed and polished metal was much too sensitive for my daily life, so I'd rather wear a white Daytona C. But then again, good luck finding one...