Daytona Ceramic Bezel Durability

[TruthBalance]

I’ve been seriously considering the Daytona 116500LN. One concern I do have is that there is no SS outer bezel to protect the side and corner of the bezel. Based on what I’ve read, according to Rolex, the ceramic bezel is purportedly “extremely durable”. My question is will the top corner of the bezel nick if it comes into contact with a hard surface. I know, any thing will nick if hit hard enough so just don’t hit it on anything but, it happens sometimes. Love to hear from those that have experience with a ceramic bezel like this, how it holds up over time. Thanks in advance for your responses.

[Emoney11]

Ceramic has been very durable on the 2 pieces I own. I think your bigger concern should be how to find one. Of course I assume you don’t want to pay the outrageous prices on grey market

[s.m.b.]

Interesting question. I can see how this could be of some concern.

[3sheets86]

Aren’t you more likely to catch the Crystal first? I think it stands taller than the bezel.

[Chester01]

Yes, there have been reported cases of the ceramic cracking but for most uses now days will hold up to desk diving. While most folks here like the ceramic bezel for the looks, it also marks the move from function to form for Rolex. I think the company realizes the most are now wearing these piece as jewelry and not tools. However due to a variety of reasons including my job and lifestyle, I prefer the older tool versions, though appreciate the appearance of the new models.

[s.m.b.]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Yes, there have been reported cases of the ceramic cracking but for most uses now days will hold up to desk diving. While most folks here like the ceramic bezel for the looks, it also marks the move from function to form for Rolex. I think the company realizes the most are now wearing these piece as jewelry and not tools. However due to a variety of reasons including my job and lifestyle, I prefer the older tool versions, though appreciate the appearance of the new models.

Here we go...

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by s.m.b.

Here we go...

Sorry, no functional improvement using the ceramic. Ceramic More scratch resistant perhaps, but also more likely to fail and that’s the reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Coop13]

Originally Posted by 3sheets86

Aren’t you more likely to catch the Crystal first? I think it stands taller than the bezel.

In some instances yes perhaps the crystal would protect the bezel... unless you hit the bezel directly which is very possible.

[TruthBalance]

Originally Posted by Emoney11

Ceramic has been very durable on the 2 pieces I own. I think your bigger concern should be how to find one. Of course I assume you don’t want to pay the outrageous prices on grey market

Thanks for the response. Agreed, availability a key concern and grey market not an option. I do have a fairly good relationship with the local AD so before I let them know I want one, just want to make sure that I do.

[s.m.b.]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Sorry, no functional improvement using the ceramic. Ceramic More scratch resistant perhaps, but also more likely to fail and that’s the reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Plenty of aluminum bezels have been replaced over the years. Fewer scratches and no fading on a bezel would equate to better legibility. Honestly, it's probably a combination of form and function. They're both great! Wear what you like!

[Coop13]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Yes, there have been reported cases of the ceramic cracking but for most uses now days will hold up to desk diving. While most folks here like the ceramic bezel for the looks, it also marks the move from function to form for Rolex. I think the company realizes the most are now wearing these piece as jewelry and not tools. However due to a variety of reasons including my job and lifestyle, I prefer the older tool versions, though appreciate the appearance of the new models.

I feel the same way. I don’t want ceramic on my rolex but don’t have a choice. Also consider that the Daytona is the most at risk for smacking the ceramic off something because it doesn’t have the outer edge protection. I did just that with my current sub and got a ding in the metal of the bezel. If I had been wearing my previous Daytona I really question if the ceramic wouldn’t have broken. I think it’s safe to say ceramic = non tool watch.

[TruthBalance]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Yes, there have been reported cases of the ceramic cracking but for most uses now days will hold up to desk diving. While most folks here like the ceramic bezel for the looks, it also marks the move from function to form for Rolex. I think the company realizes the most are now wearing these piece as jewelry and not tools. However due to a variety of reasons including my job and lifestyle, I prefer the older tool versions, though appreciate the appearance of the new models.

Interesting points, thanks. I’m a desk driver so to your point, more so on the form side of usage.

[ArtNouveau]

Ceramics are for all intents and purposes are scratchproof and very very durable. They can shatter but it practically takes a hammer strike to do it. There are a few isolated stories of failures but they are the exceptions. If you don't like the looks that's another story.
PS: there are a number of full ceramic case watches out there and the streets are not littered with broken ones.

[Calatrava r]

Yes the ceramic can crack if hit hard enough. The nice thing about the other steel ceramics is the bezel is encased. Ceramic is hard but it has some brittleness to it. It is, though, far more legible than the metal bezels if anybody uses the scale.

[Coop13]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

Yes the ceramic can crack if hit hard enough. The nice thing about the other steel ceramics is the bezel is encased. Ceramic is hard but it has some brittleness to it. It is, though, far more legible than the metal bezels if anybody uses the scale.

Yes it’s encased is my point. Not so on the Daytona.

[TruthBalance]

Originally Posted by Coop13

I feel the same way. I don’t want ceramic on my rolex but don’t have a choice. Also consider that the Daytona is the most at risk for smacking the ceramic off something because it doesn’t have the outer edge protection. I did just that with my current sub and got a ding in the metal of the bezel. If I had been wearing my previous Daytona I really question if the ceramic wouldn’t have broken. I think it’s safe to say ceramic = non tool watch.

My concerns exactly, smacking the ceramic. I’ve had a Sub (16610) for 10 years, still in very good condition. AD’s always comment on the condition of the watch. When looking closely at the outer bezel, there are a few scratches. Just wonder if that had been directly on corner of ceramic what the result would be. Thanks.

[Ducati796]

Use of ceramic should not remove a watch from the realm of a tool watch, it simply makes the watch more resilient to normal “bumps and bruises” as to keep its appearance looking good for a long time. There are no performance enhancements, it doesnt make the watch fall within time keeping specs etc. Ceramic is hard as nails but it is brittle as a result. Sharp hit, no compromise as far as flexibility and it will break. Anything will break if hit hard enough or “just right” where as stainless steel will just dent or ding. So i would suggest if you like the look and want a watch that will look newer, longer than any other version then get the ceramic and just enjoy it. Ceramic = cosmetic. Nothing more, everything can and will get damaged depending on what you do to it.

[jdmi32]

I think the ceramic bezel will hold up fine if you wear the watch like most people do nowadays. But no way would they hold up as well if people wore them like they did thirty or forty years ago. There’s a reason why you see beaten, scratched and faded aluminum inserts.

[Rashid.bk]

Who's bashing they're Daytona around or using it while building houses and operating a jack hammer.
In todays world of pampered mechanical watches the ceramic is better subjectively and objectively based on the way we men wear this jewelry. This isn't no hard core "tool" watch and neither was the last generation. How durable does a watch need to be to stand on the side of a race track and time a car going from point A-B.
This definition of "tool" watch is way way overly exaggerated on these forums.

I'll take the ceramic all day everyday. When the argument doesn't fit the five digit size and lug function we now transition to the bezel, ceramic isn't "tool enough". The Daytona being a watch that didn't change in size is a perfect example that people just don't like change. Suddenly, everyone has a doctorate in engineering and chemistry and knows more about what should be used on a watch than a multi billion dollar company with all it's resources.

If you hit the watch as the op described I would prefer every single time to have a ceramic watch. Rolex's 904L has shown in my experience to be very soft and a ss bezel would in fact be nicked, bent, gouged or scratched.
In the past my aluminum bezels looked worn and used. Today ceramic bezels on everyone's watches look brand new and only a hand full have been report to have cracked or scratched. Replacing one isn't as expensive as previously though either.

[TruthBalance]

Originally Posted by Ducati796

Use of ceramic should not remove a watch from the realm of a tool watch, it simply makes the watch more resilient to normal “bumps and bruises” as to keep its appearance looking good for a long time. There are no performance enhancements, it doesnt make the watch fall within time keeping specs etc. Ceramic is hard as nails but it is brittle as a result. Sharp hit, no compromise as far as flexibility and it will break. Anything will break if hit hard enough or “just right” where as stainless steel will just dent or ding. So i would suggest if you like the look and want a watch that will look newer, longer than any other version then get the ceramic and just enjoy it. Ceramic = cosmetic. Nothing more, everything can and will get damaged depending on what you do to it.

Well stated, thanks.

[watchwatcher]

IMO, the ceramic is very durable for most of us in most situations. However, it will crack or even shatter if you hit it the right way. I wouldn't wear one to change the oil in my car. But then again, I wouldn't wear the cheapest (most inexpensive) watch I own to do that either.

The scratch magnet steel bezel was one of the biggest complaints on the 116520 back in the pre-ceramic days. It would seem almost as if Rolex listened and tried to come up with a better solution. It would also seem to prove the old adage that you can't make everybody happy.

[037]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

I wouldn't wear one to change the oil in my car.

Is that unsafe? I wore mine to install snow tires and throw close to 6 quarts of 0W/20 in my engine a couple weeks ago.

[Coop13]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Who's bashing they're Daytona around or using it while building houses and operating a jack hammer.
In todays world of pampered mechanical watches the ceramic is better subjectively and objectively based on the way we men wear this jewelry. This isn't no hard core "tool" watch and neither was the last generation. How durable does a watch need to be to stand on the side of a race track and time a car going from point A-B.
This definition of "tool" watch is way way overly exaggerated on these forums.

I'll take the ceramic all day everyday. When the argument doesn't fit the five digit size and lug function we now transition to the bezel, ceramic isn't "tool enough". The Daytona being a watch that didn't change in size is a perfect example that people just don't like change. Suddenly, everyone has a doctorate in engineering and chemistry and knows more about what should be used on a watch than a multi billion dollar company with all it's resources.

If you hit the watch as the op described I would prefer every single time to have a ceramic watch. Rolex's 904L has shown in my experience to be very soft and a ss bezel would in fact be nicked, bent, gouged or scratched.
In the past my aluminum bezels looked worn and used. Today ceramic bezels on everyone's watches look brand new and only a hand full have been report to have cracked or scratched. Replacing one isn't as expensive as previously though either.

Building houses? Operating a jackhammer? Where’d you get that from?

[brucethemanlee]

Of course ceramic can scratch the shatter if hit "just" right and hard enough

But I've read rule of thumb is that if you normally don't scratch or shatter saphire crystal then you likely won't be doing it to the ceramic bezel




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Roger Lococco]

Originally Posted by brucethemanlee

Of course ceramic can scratch the shatter if hit "just" right and hard enough

But I've read rule of thumb is that if you normally don't scratch or shatter saphire crystal then you likely won't be doing it to the ceramic bezel




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great post. Not to sound dismissive of some of the responses, but I would think the odds of the ceramic shattering - or even being damaged - are so remote that it's nothing to even think about.

[Dyim]

Yes, it happens.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=436303

[Burlington]

Originally Posted by Dyim

Yes, it happens.



https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=436303

99.9% of the time it will be fine, but with that hardness comes a drawback - in this case brittleness.

[kauffee]

It's been years since the ceramic bezel showed up on the Daytonas (PM and SS) and I can't remember a single post on this forum showing a shattered or chipped one. Happy to be proven wrong, but you can find countless pics of scratched and dented SS/PM metal Daytona bezels. The ceramic is just way more durable.

This argument always brings out the anti-ceramic, anti-6-digit curmudgeon "you kids get off my lawn!" crowd. It's tired.

[Coop13]

Originally Posted by kauffee

It's been years since the ceramic bezel showed up on the Daytonas (PM and SS) and I can't remember a single post on this forum showing a shattered or chipped one. Happy to be proven wrong, but you can find countless pics of scratched and dented SS/PM metal Daytona bezels. The ceramic is just way more durable.

This argument always brings out the anti-ceramic, anti-6-digit curmudgeon "you kids get off my lawn!" crowd. It's tired.

I’m pro 6 digit.

[AK797]

Well this is a new one, someone is now saying having a ceramic, scratch-resistant bezel makes it less of a tool watch than a shiny, metal, slice it up as you like bezel! I can understand if you don't like the look of it but the function of it is far superior to the SS and which is why Rolex have upgraded the Daytona and many other lines. As for the bezel cracking there have been so few reported issues here in my time as for it to be a total non issue.