In this Sunday morning section, two of our scholars clash in an epic standoff for the ages. Solid suppositions and crazy metaphor are welcome (so don’t hesitate to participate with the fun in the comments segment underneath). What’s more, remember to tell us which watches you’d prefer to see destroyed/unreservedly lifted up one week from now. We’ll attempt to include as a considerable lot of our perusers’ decisions as we can. This week it’s the turn of the Rolex Cosmograph Daytona 116500LN. Let the fight commence.

Last week, everybody envisioned that Rob’s endeavor to protect the Audemars Piguet Code 11.59 arrangement may cause him lethal harm. Shockingly — and out of the blue demonstrating the value of these surveys — he missed out to Balazs by a thin edge. Only 54% of electors loathed the much-defamed newcomer. An amazing result…

Today’s Daytona traces all the way back to 1988 when Rolex chose to drop the manual injury Valjoux based developments and begin utilizing a programmed chronograph development all things being equal. The plan of the Daytona changed also. What’s more, not really for the better…

The current model traces all the way back to 2016 when refreshed their current 116520 to today’s 116500LN. The steel bezel with a tachymeter scale was supplanted with a clay one, and the new dials have bigger differentiating edges on the sub-dials, giving them this little ‘panda’ edge. The in-house type 4130 remained, yet Rolex refreshed it with a Paramagnetic blue Parachrom hairspring and more exacting guideline (±2 seconds a day). These progressions have been managed without changing the type number.

The Rolex Daytona is one of the world’s most celebrated chronographs. Maybe likewise the one that has the most popularity. Getting a Daytona was at that point extreme sledding before 2016. Yet, since the 116500LN reference was presented, it is basically difficult to get one for retail cost. For a few, that leaves an acrid insight regarding the mouth. For other people, the acrid taste has been around significantly more than that…

Robert-Jan Broer

I am somewhat of a traditionalist person. Not red jeans and Volvo V70 moderate, but rather I like works of art. My whole watch assortment chiefly comprises of works of art. I have constantly had a lot of Rolex watches. I believe the greater part of them to be works of art. I’d even venture to call most of these Rolexes symbols. As far as I might be concerned, the Datejust is the model of the advanced wristwatch. I’m sure the equivalent is valid for some individuals. The Submariner set the standard with regards to plunging watches (no doubt, despite the fact that I know Blancpain’s job in building up a jumpers watch). The Day-Date is the common ‘classic’ for each and every individual who made it and each wannabe who needs others to think he (or she) made it.

But the Daytona isn’t the run of the mill sports chronograph for me however, it won’t ever be. I’m not especially excited about the hand-wound models. I feel they are tiny and not that exceptional to begin with. Sometime in the distant past, Gerard had one in his shop in The Hague, sitting on a presentation (the uncommon reference 6262) and no one cared.

Only a couple of individuals, truth be told, seen it was there. Also, this isn’t so much as 10 years prior. You’d never find that circumstance today. Beside the way that everybody realizes the Daytona is inconceivably pursued, the fresher model is a lot harder to miss. Also, on account of the cutting edge 40mm case and self-winding development, I really needed one.

I was attracted to the Daytona as a result of the legend, less for its vibes. I believe that a ton of the hankering for a Daytona comes from its standing. As I would see it, its notoriety must be supported by the basic standards of market interest. Why? Since the Rolex Daytona isn’t that great. Allow me to elaborate…

Where the Submariner and GMT-Master have these manly looking cases (moderately thick with level surfaces), the Daytona (and Yacht-Master, for instance) have adjusted cases. It looks exceptionally ladylike. That’s not the explanation behind me to abhor a watch, however I feel it is far away from the brand’s divers’ and travelers’ watches.

I have seen a great deal of ladies wearing a Daytona, so I surmise I am not very far away from reality. In any case, once more, that’s not motivation to detest it. Keep in mind, I used to have a steel & platinum Yacht-Master a couple of years prior which has a comparative case shape (with the exception of the pushers). The greatest issue I have with the Daytona is the dial.

It’s messed up. To start with, it is excessively occupied. There’s a ton of composing on the dial. An optical ton of jumbling data is incorporated. A chronograph ought to have a perfect dial, and this one isn’t on the grounds that there’s text all over the place. Seriously irritating however, is the situating of the sub-dials at 9 and 3 o’clock. This is because of the type 4130 development. On account of the advanced Rolex Daytona (since 2000), the focal point of the sub-dials is situated higher (or over) the middle pinion. I don’t have OCD, yet this truly disturbs the hellfire out of me when wearing a Daytona (and trust me, I attempted to like it).

I need the focal point of the sub-dials to be lined up with the middle pinion. For what reason did Rolex do this? The reference 16520 with the Zenith El Primero development was greatly improved, with right adjusting of the sub-dials. Who chose to simply reposition the sub-dials when planning the in-house chronograph development? On the off chance that they had recently made the edges somewhat more slender, they might have moved the hour and moment counter somewhat further down without contacting the running seconds hand at 6 o’clock. Discussing which, for what reason did they trade the situation of the running seconds and the hour counter?

Last however not least: Screw-down pushers on a chronograph. Truly? I used to have a Royal Oak Chronograph with the very same thing. You need to unscrew the pushers before you can really utilize them. It annoyed me a great deal. On the off chance that you rapidly need to time something, you need to unscrew the pushers first. Well done.

So, Ben, I heard you like the Daytona. , to cite well known Dutch artist Anita Meijer?

Ben Hodges

Dutch pop tunes are not my forté, so I’m must take your assertion on that, RJ. In any case, your emotions on the Daytona? There’s no chance I’m letting those pass without a genuine rebuttal.

I’ll start with the self-evident. The Rolex Cosmograph Daytona is a certifiable symbol of extravagance sports watches. Regardless of whether you’re new to watches, simply putting the words “Rolex” and “Daytona” together sounds right. In the event that I said, “Dude, look at the Rolex Daytona, it’s an idiot watch”. Right off the bat they’d say, “Ben, for what reason are you talking like that?” and furthermore, they’d say, “that name sounds good.” Rolex is celebrated for the steady advancement of models that can traverse periods. What’s more, this 3-6-9 hustling chronograph has stood firm and rose to the top advance. In a large number personalities, it isn’t only a decent hustling chronograph; it is the racing chronograph.

If we are doing popular music references, that 6262 sitting in the window can be compared to 1970s David Bowie. Making widely praised collections that sit overlooked by the majority while they’re off tuning in to the canned popular music you referred to before. An effective rehash during the 1980s with “Let’s Dance” mirrors the change Rolex made by placing a programmed twisting framework in the Daytona. Abruptly, those disliked watches are not so disliked any longer. Consider the eponymous Paul Newman reference 6239 that pounded for $15.5million in 2017.

Going by , the cutting edge Rolex Daytona fits the original watch that individuals are searching out. The Daytona was additionally Rolex’s most looked for model on the biggest online watch commercial center. How might you keep that level from getting general allure? 2016’s Cerachrom-enhanced Daytona was a flat out grand slam. The 116500LN is one of those planet-adjusting watches Rolex delivers once an age. At the point when these fundamental references come along, we’d generally good sit-up and tune in. Here is a watch that combines all that aficionados requested. Also, they sure are demanding.

Why would you say you are so hung-up on the screw-down pushers at any rate? I’ve heard some don’t understand the Daytona is a chronograph, they simply like how it fits and sits on the wrist. It wears somewhat more modest than individuals expect as the case-back distance across is really 38.2mm. Include that intense bezel and the unobtrusive — or, as you call it, “feminine” — bend of the case flank and the Daytona is a perceptible watch that can be worn comfortably.

Robert-Jan Broer: I don’t hear you contradicting me on the dial configuration imperfections, Ben. What’s more, above all, the focuses that you do make, have little to do with the actual watch. They are more to do with the popularity for it. “The request is high, so it should be good,” is fundamentally what you’re tossing at me. The way that great many individuals drink Nespresso doesn’t mean it is acceptable coffee. Inquire as to whether you don’t trust me. I additionally don’t can’t help contradicting the popularity for this watch, it is unquestionably there, yet that doesn’t truly advise me much.

Ben Hodges: Unlike our government officials, I’m not one to contend realities. The chronograph sub-dials are in reality situated over the middle pinion. However, you’re considering it a plan imperfection. I consider it a characteristic of structure following function.

Robert-Jan Broer: It is cherished by a many individuals, including the individuals who don’t have an idea about watches and are simply stimulated by the words Rolex and Daytona, as you said. I know somebody who claims a Porsche and when I got some information about the motor, he didn’t understand. Same stuff. Individuals purchase things since they are attracted by the brand name or if nothing else the ‘image’ of the brand. I don’t get tied up with that, and particularly not with costly things as Daytonas and Porsches.

But, this is additionally the sort of conversation I didn’t need to have, I needed to discuss the actual watch, which has a plan that comes with blemishes. It took getting in on my own wrist to understand that. I likewise don’t need to compare it with a Speedmaster. That’s an altogether different watch, and individuals who purchase a Daytona are not searching for a Speedmaster, they need a Daytona.

The thing I generally discover interesting however is when individuals who are after a Daytona (for no different reasons that the brand name and fantasy) appear to get fanboy-ish at whatever point somebody brings up an unexpected watch in comparison to a Daytona in a similar value section (which, for a steel Daytona runs from the retail cost of €12.500 to €25.000 on the dark market). It appears to become some sort of broad assessment that this is, “Daytona money,” and I couldn’t care less about an overall assessment. I need to burn through cash on something I end up discovering cool, and a Daytona isn’t on my rundown of cool stuff.

Ben, kindly disclose to me why you like this watch, other than the interest viewpoint. On the off chance that you like its style, that’s fine obviously, however by one way or another I actually get the inclination you are more into the Daytona for different reasons. In the event that you had €12,500 in your pocket today, would you truly spend it on a steel Daytona?

Ben Hodges: If the chance went along, I’d absolutely buy my own Daytona. Maybe not on the auxiliary market, . Also, you can’t help thinking about why they moved the situation of the running seconds to 6 o’clock? It bodes well. Your eye attracts downwards to peruse the time on the vertical pivot, and tracks an occasion with the chronograph capacities on the even axis.

If you’re excusing the dial because of the lines of text at that point, most likely you ought to excuse the Submariner you acclaim also? In my view, it’s consoling that Rolex gladly features their timekeeping accomplishments. Here and there, the hefty content adjusts the Compax layout.

Robert-Jan Broer: The text on the Submariner is more adjusted, as just the Rolex logo and wordmark are at 12 o’clock and the rest over the 6 o’clock marker, which is unimaginable on the Daytona. The outcome? A jumbled mess. Anyway, I am almost certain this watch will get a 99% “rate it”, so I am very alone with my disagreeable assessment on the Daytona. Yet, that’s fine. Purchase what you love. Just don’t purchase things due to others’ opinion or feel about it.

Rolex Daytona Reference 116500LN

    Rolex Daytona Reference 116500LN

Author