New Rolex daytona panda 126500LN vs 116500LN

[ol' Rex]

Originally Posted by watcheeze

If you compare them side by side, the 126500 is more than a size larger than the 116500.

I didn't expect such a difference.

That photo is indeed somewhat misleading. Everything one could want to know about the size difference can be found in this thread:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=930989

I tried on the new Daytona recently, and in my opinion it is even better than the previous model.

[watcheeze]

Originally Posted by ol' Rex

I tried on the new Daytona recently, and in my opinion it is even better than the previous model.

Can you tell me what the logical implication of protecting the ceramic bezel with a steel ring is?

I personally find it intolerable to see "the scratches collected on the steel ring" after years of purchase.

I have not been able to find the answer to that question.

[928ktgold]

Originally Posted by watcheeze

Can you tell me what the logical implication of protecting the ceramic bezel with a steel ring is?

I personally find it intolerable to see "the scratches collected on the steel ring" after years of purchase.

I have not been able to find the answer to that question.

It was a change for the sake of change. That’s it. New models, they had to change something. Just aesthetics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[watcheeze]

Originally Posted by jtorrebl

It was a change for the sake of change. That’s it. New models, they had to change something. Just aesthetics.

Was the 116500 too complete?

[Kingcobb]

Originally Posted by watcheeze

Can you tell me what the logical implication of protecting the ceramic bezel with a steel ring is?

I personally find it intolerable to see "the scratches collected on the steel ring" after years of purchase.

I have not been able to find the answer to that question.

The steel ring is dirt cheap to buff or replace compared to the ceramic.

[Deppe]

Originally Posted by Kingcobb

The steel ring is dirt cheap to buff or replace compared to the ceramic.

I don't think you can replace the steel ring, you will need to replace the whole insert including the ceramic - if I remember correctly Rolex stated that the steel is an integrated part of the insert.

[bp1000]

Originally Posted by Kingcobb

The steel ring is dirt cheap to buff or replace compared to the ceramic.

And the irony is, I don't think I've seen a single post since 2016 of someone breaking their ceramic bezel. I have seen some guy post at his upset of denting the steel ring on his new 12 steel Daytona.

I'd also be surprised if the ceramic was truly treated like an insert and came in two pieces.

[Kingcobb]

Originally Posted by bp1000

And the irony is, I don't think I've seen a single post since 2016 of someone breaking their ceramic bezel. I have seen some guy post at his upset of denting the steel ring on his new 12 steel Daytona.

I'd also be surprised if the ceramic was truly treated like an insert and came in two pieces.

RRJ posted on March 7 his AD ordered him a new ring for his WG daytona for like 490chf. The numbers thrown out if they had to replace entire bezel were much higher.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...=938185&page=2

Also googling the forum brought up pages of people who have replaced daytona ceramic bezel for scratches or cracks, one poor guy had his fall off a golf cart and completely break.

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by watcheeze

Can you tell me what the logical implication of protecting the ceramic bezel with a steel ring is?

I personally find it intolerable to see "the scratches collected on the steel ring" after years of purchase.

I have not been able to find the answer to that question.

I don't believe it is there to protect anything. It's just a design detail. You're not going to see scratches on the bezel easily. It's a super small part of the overall bezel insert area.




In my opinion this angle of the watch that you will see often as a wearer looks 100% better than the 11 due to the polished metal ring. It is a subtle and very beautiful addition to the views from this angle.

[watcheeze]

Originally Posted by EEpro

I don't believe it is there to protect anything. It's just a design detail.

Despite the homage to the "steel ring to protect the plastic bezel," why shouldn't we assume it's there to protect the bezel?

[Kingcobb]

Originally Posted by watcheeze

Despite the homage to the "steel ring to protect the plastic bezel," why shouldn't we assume it's there to protect the bezel?

First review I read on hodinkee or somewhere said that the purpose of the steel ring was to protect the bezel.

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by watcheeze

Despite the homage to the "steel ring to protect the plastic bezel," why shouldn't we assume it's there to protect the bezel?

The 11 series bezel was a monolithic slab of black glass that has been replaced by a steel slab of similar outer extents now with a machined groove that holds a thin black glass insert. The thin black insert definitely needs some protection... but there's a chicken and egg situation to saying they added a metal ring to protect the bezel.

I think the metal bezel was the design language they wanted and then they stuck the insert in it. Contrast to "I think they added a metal ring to protect the bezel"

Originally Posted by Kingcobb

First review I read on hodinkee or somewhere said that the purpose of the steel ring was to protect the bezel.

The steel IS the bezel.

[watcheeze]

Citing an article in Monochrome Watches.

--
The bezel itself isn’t an insert but a solid element, and the metallic ring is part of the case. It’s interesting to note that Rolex mentions that the design is a tribute to vintage watches with bakelite inserts – and we know that Rolex rarely looks back to the past or admits to having retro-looking references.
--


I am not sure if the steel ring on the 126500 is case-integrated or if only the steel ring can be removed, this point is not clear.

However, the article states that it is "integrated with case."

[Kingcobb]

Originally Posted by watcheeze

Citing an article in Monochrome Watches.

--
The bezel itself isn’t an insert but a solid element, and the metallic ring is part of the case. It’s interesting to note that Rolex mentions that the design is a tribute to vintage watches with bakelite inserts – and we know that Rolex rarely looks back to the past or admits to having retro-looking references.
--


I am not sure if the steel ring on the 126500 is case-integrated or if only the steel ring can be removed, this point is not clear.

However, the article states that it is "integrated with case."

As I posted above a member on here got a replacement ring installed on his 126 less than a month ago, so they are obviously removable.

[Kingcobb]

Originally Posted by EEpro

The 11 series bezel was a monolithic slab of black glass that has been replaced by a steel slab of similar outer extents now with a machined groove that holds a thin black glass insert. The thin black insert definitely needs some protection... but there's a chicken and egg situation to saying they added a metal ring to protect the bezel.

I think the metal bezel was the design language they wanted and then they stuck the insert in it. Contrast to "I think they added a metal ring to protect the bezel"



The steel IS the bezel.

Rolex calls the cerachrome insert a bezel 7 times on their website for the 125600. including the actual bezel technical description:

Bezel
Black monobloc Cerachrom bezel in ceramic with moulded tachymetric scale

So I will continue calling the Cerachrom Bezel a bezel and the ring a ring.

Also, as the purpose of the bezel is to hold the crystal in place and the ring in no way comes in contact with the crystal...the cerachrome bezel is ergo the bezel.

Also, Rolex has repeatedly stated in all their launch info that the cerachrome bezel is a full bezel the same as 116 and not just an insert.

Also, by all accounts the bezels on both are the same thickness minus the grove for the steel ring.

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by Kingcobb

Rolex calls the cerachrome insert a bezel 7 times on their website for the 125600. including the actual bezel technical description:

Bezel
Black monobloc Cerachrom bezel in ceramic with moulded tachymetric scale

So I will continue calling the Cerachrom Bezel a bezel and the ring a ring.

Also, as the purpose of the bezel is to hold the crystal in place and the ring in no way comes in contact with the crystal...the cerachrome bezel is ergo the bezel.

Also, Rolex has repeatedly stated in all their launch info that the cerachrome bezel is a full bezel the same as 116 and not just an insert.

Also, by all accounts the bezels on both are the same thickness minus the grove for the steel ring.

That's interesting since they specifically call the ceramic an insert on the BLRO. If it is still a slab of ceramic that press fits / interfaces to the case... perhaps the ceramic bezel is pre-assembled to the ring structure before that. That would indeed make it the bezel.

Would be great to see an exploded diagram on this one day.

[mario1971]

Originally Posted by EEpro

I don't believe it is there to protect anything. It's just a design detail. You're not going to see scratches on the bezel easily. It's a super small part of the overall bezel insert area.




In my opinion this angle of the watch that you will see often as a wearer looks 100% better than the 11 due to the polished metal ring. It is a subtle and very beautiful addition to the views from this angle.

If you screw up and a dent appears on the outer steel ring, you will definitely notice it even if it is minimal. All you need is the right refraction of light and it will shine/reflect in the sun's rays, like a small piece of gold somewhere at the bottom of a stream with crystal clear water.