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...

[Rogdogg]

Haha, great story. She knows what she likes and there's a lot to be said for that.
I hope it didn't hurt your feelings too much. We don't think you're old!

[DCheeta]

Hahaha, that's awesome! I love children's perspective, so honest.

Damn, and I have a 116520...

[DCheeta]

I'm sticking with "beautiful and dashing."

[Rogdogg]

It's amazing how the new bezel makes the ceramic version look bigger. That is exactly what I was hoping for. Do you notice it much when wearing it?

[sensui]

Hah. I'm wearing mine today and I'm in the mid thirties. Imo elegant and dashing just as you say (lounge watch on my off gym day) :



I have to ask my seven year old and four year old the same question when my my white ceramic lands. Should be interesting.

[Lew Archer]

Originally Posted by Rogdogg

It's amazing how the new bezel makes the ceramic version look bigger. That is exactly what I was hoping for. Do you notice it much when wearing it?

The photos do seem to enlarge the ceramic model. However, in person, the effect seems less, at least to my eye.



The striking black ceramic bezel frames the circumference of the case more prominently, providing a more pronounced border, and contrasts with the lugs and bracelet. The polished stainless bezel is a more subtle frame, a less distinct border around the case, and and it blends more with the lugs and bracelet.



In person, though, I'd say they wear about same, size wise. Both have a strong, though different, wrist presence. Again, the black and white contrast makes the bezel and sub-dials jump out more. More handsome than beautiful. The polished stainless steel bezel and sub-dials shimmer. More beautiful than handsome.

[Lew Archer]

Originally Posted by sensui

Hah. I'm wearing mine today and I'm in the mid thirties. Imo elegant and dashing just as you say (lounge watch on my off gym day) :



I have to ask my seven year old and four year old the same question when my my white ceramic lands. Should be interesting.

Enjoy that beautiful watch. It's a stunner. And, since you're elegant and dashing, just right for you! Let me know what your kids think...

[Lew Archer]

Originally Posted by DCheeta

I'm sticking with "beautiful and dashing."

You can't go wrong! Great photo, and the watch looks terrific on you.

[Lew Archer]

Originally Posted by Rogdogg

Haha, great story. She knows what she likes and there's a lot to be said for that.
I hope it didn't hurt your feelings too much. We don't think you're old!

I was just glad she liked the new one! I love her honesty, her candor. I also respect her taste. She has a good eye, naturally, and an eye for detail.

As for being old, I revise my earlier statement. I won't carry a cane with my trusty old 116520...

I'll carry a gentleman's walking stick...

[Lew Archer]

Originally Posted by DCheeta

Hahaha, that's awesome! I love children's perspective, so honest.

Damn, and I have a 116520...

Yes, they're honest, sometimes brutally so. The more I think of it, though, I think what she was saying is that the 116520 is more dressy (which she associates with older people) and the 116500 is more sporty (which she associates with younger people). Hey, how about that? I've reframed her words in a much more palatable way!

[DCheeta]

Originally Posted by Lew Archer

Yes, they're honest, sometimes brutally so. The more I think of it, though, I think what she was saying is that the 116520 is more dressy (which she associates with older people) and the 116500 is more sporty (which she associates with younger people). Hey, how about that? I've reframed her words in a much more palatable way!

Haha, well done! To be honest, I probably would have said the same thing ten or fifteen years ago.

Looking at your photos, I realize that they are very different watches. I think I might add the 116500 and keep the 116520 as well, as you have done. Some days you feel young, some days you feel...dressy!

[sensui]

Originally Posted by Lew Archer

Enjoy that beautiful watch. It's a stunner. And, since you're elegant and dashing, just right for you! Let me know what your kids think...

Well the watch certainly is I think... Myself..... I'm optimistic... So getting there. Will most definitely put my daughters on the spot when I get my hands on the new Daytona and report back.

[Rogdogg]

Originally Posted by Lew Archer

The photos due seem to enlarge the ceramic model. However, in person, the effect seems less, at least to my eye.

The striking black ceramic bezel frames the circumference of the case more prominently, providing a more pronounced border, and contrasts with the lugs and bracelet. The polished stainless bezel is a more subtle frame, a less distinct border around the case, and and it blends more with the lugs and bracelet.

In person, though, I'd say they wear about same, size wise. Both have a strong, though different, wrist presence. Again, the black and white contrast makes the bezel and sub-dials jump out more. More handsome than beautiful. The polished stainless steel bezel and sub-dials shimmer. More beautiful than handsome.

Thanks for the response. It's always great to get an owners opinion rather than just basing it on photos. I can't wait to try them on when they arrive here.

[77T]

The classic white 520 could have used a small facelift in the past 10 years IMHO. The silver-ringed subdials could have been executed in plain white with black graduations. (Much the same as the light MOP TT dial looked.)

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1464842904.269074.jpg


Maybe would not have looked so "old" to her?

[Lew Archer]

Originally Posted by DCheeta

Haha, well done! To be honest, I probably would have said the same thing ten or fifteen years ago.



Looking at your photos, I realize that they are very different watches. I think I might add the 116500 and keep the 116520 as well, as you have done. Some days you feel young, some days you feel...dressy!

Yes, options are a good thing!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[al503]

They're both great. I prefer the new ceramic simply because it just looks bigger. The 116520 is great but looks too small on my (8+") wrist.

[Lew Archer]

(null)

My pleasure! Glad my comments are useful!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lew Archer]

Originally Posted by al503

They're both great. I prefer the new ceramic simply because it just looks bigger. The 116520 is great but looks too small on my (8+") wrist.

Out of curiosity, I put one watch on my left wrist, one on my right, then stood in front of a full length mirror, arms hanging normally. The watches seem the same size (as they are).

Looking down at them directly, wrist against wrist, they also appear to be the same size. The black bezel, though, jumps out, a bold frame for the dial. I think that is what gives it a stronger presence, more then a size difference.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lew Archer]

I showed the watches to my daughter again. She stood by her earlier choice, preferring the ceramic.

She doesn't care for the silver sub-dials. She prefers the black sub-dials. She doesn't mind the SS bezel, she prefers the black bezel.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GerardoG]

Congratulations! Fantastic opinions!

[T01]

Congrats!

[Lew Archer]

Originally Posted by GerardoG

Congratulations! Fantastic opinions!

You guys are great! It's a pleasure to talk with other aficionados.

Most folks would say, "Hey, why did you buy the same watch twice??"

[RolexAuthority]

A young WIS - great story and big congrats on the Daytona

[OmegaJJH]

Kids can have such an innocent brutal honesty sometimes.

Huge congrats. What a pair.

[Cru Jones]

very cute.

[Singslinger]

Both are very nice watches (from a 56-year old)!

[Verdi]

She's spot on.

Ceramic bezel makes the Daytona a lot sportier imo. Hence, it has a younger look.
The new model is less dressy than the old one.

[douglasf13]

I think she's right, too. The prior Daytona looks dressier, which is why it was never on my radar.

[yannis]

Haha, got to love kids' spontaneity :)