New Rolex daytona panda 126500LN vs 116500LN

[watcheeze]

Originally Posted by jtorrebl

Traded mine in. And I loved my 116. After much debate the 126 just felt more refined

If you prefer a larger case and a flatter look, the 126500 is preferred.

Which one you prefer depends on your body shape, how thin your arms are, and many other factors.

[watcheeze]

Originally Posted by jtorrebl

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.

[shirtguy]

The 116 looks thicker because of the ceramic bezel and darker and thicker subdial rings

[watcheeze]

Originally Posted by shirtguy

The 116 looks thicker because of the ceramic bezel and darker and thicker subdial rings

Does that mean that because the 126500 is large, the margins are also wide?

[jtorrebl]

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.

This picture is not the best since I have the 126500 closer in front making it look larger by perspective


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[watcheeze]

Originally Posted by jtorrebl

This picture is not the best since I have the 126500 closer in front making it look larger by perspective

Not more than one size larger, but one size larger, or so?

[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.

[jtorrebl]

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

[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.

[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.

[hutch300]

I'd say you have to wear them to really know. I like a lot about the new model but its worth noting there is a real size difference.

[jtorrebl]

Also the steel 126500 has rounded edges on the lugs that aren’t a as sharp or as thick as the oysteflex models’ cases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[watcheeze]

Originally Posted by jtorrebl

Also the steel 126500 has rounded edges on the lugs

Yes, I understand that the lugs on the 126500 are somewhat rounded as well.

But I meant that the 116500 is more streamlined and rounded.

As a result, the overall appearance looks flatter than the 116500.

Sorry for my lack of words.

Of course, both are still cool.

[Bazil]

I’m interested in either, and know my only path is grey, so I’m trying to judge best option.
I really don’t like the bezel on the 126, I much prefer 116.
126 crown guards look better, if that really matters, I don’t know ..
Sub dials I much prefer 116.
I honestly wouldn’t mind either, but I’m definitely swaying more towards 116500 Panda .. that’s just my view of both ..

[watcheeze]

Originally Posted by Bazil

I really don’t like the bezel on the 126, I much prefer 116.

I know the steel ring around the bezel on the 126500 is a tribute to the past and not functional.

In the past, the steel ring was to protect the plastic bezel.

I can still understand a plastic bezel, but why bother protecting a ceramic bezel?

In some cases, it has the potential to become a "scratch collecting ring".

I have yet to see an 116500 with a cracked ceramic bezel.

These may just be my narrow view.

[watcheeze]

[watcheeze]

Not many people are fierce enough to hit it in an experiment.

In the end, it will be up to each person as he/she likes the way it looks.

[Manamana]

If you see the new white dial Daytona 126500 alone it looks nice. Put the 116500 vs 126500 white dial and the new 126500 looks off. The cheap steel ring look on ceramic , very thin subdials, and the thorn indices don't look good.

[Kingcobb]

126500ln is awesome

[bp1000]

Clearly going to be controversial but no matter how hard I try, I can't love the new 12 Daytona.

So many people say it looks more refined.

To me it looks lazy, plain, modular, lacking in character, like an accountant designed it.

The thinner subdials and markers along with the thinner bezel inside a ring that sits on a fatter (wider) case, it just doesn't work for me.

Side by side, the 11 series looks meaty and purposeful, just flows better to me. I just don't get what Rolex was trying to achieve with the 12 series other than the ability to streamline production at the expense of aesthetics and purpose.

And to be clear this is not an antagonistic post for current and future owners... still a great watch if you can get one, but I just prefer the older 11 series, I think its got a design we may probably never see again.

[watcheeze]

Originally Posted by bp1000

12 series other than the ability to streamline production at the expense of aesthetics and purpose.

It may make sense to think of it as a rationalization of production at the expense of aesthetics and purpose.

[jtorrebl]

Originally Posted by watcheeze

It may make sense to think of it as a rationalization of production at the expense of aesthetics and purpose.

What do you mean streamline production? The steel case while similar is still different to the oysterflex case. The OF case is more sharp and thicker at the lugs than the steel case in the 126 series

[watcheeze]

Originally Posted by jtorrebl

What do you mean streamline production?

For example, in the 11 series, the case shape itself was different between WG and SS.

However, in the 12 series, the case shapes of WG and SS are closer, aren't they?

These are one of the factors that enable us to achieve "efficiency" in production.

Even if the finishing details are different, if "the basic case shape is the same," it will lead to efficiency.

This is my personal view and I do not know the actual situation.

[salnuaimi]

panda 12 is mid

[jtorrebl]

Originally Posted by watcheeze

For example, in the 11 series, the case shape itself was different between WG and SS.

However, in the 12 series, the case shapes of WG and SS are closer, aren't they?

These are one of the factors that enable us to achieve "efficiency" in production.

Even if the finishing details are different, if "the basic case shape is the same," it will lead to efficiency.

This is my personal view and I do not know the actual situation.

Yes the cases are much closer in design now. Could lead to efficiency

[jtorrebl]

Originally Posted by watcheeze

For example, in the 11 series, the case shape itself was different between WG and SS.

However, in the 12 series, the case shapes of WG and SS are closer, aren't they?

These are one of the factors that enable us to achieve "efficiency" in production.

Even if the finishing details are different, if "the basic case shape is the same," it will lead to efficiency.

This is my personal view and I do not know the actual situation.

Yes the cases are much closer in design now. Could lead to efficiency

[ol' Rex]

Originally Posted by bp1000

Clearly going to be controversial but no matter how hard I try, I can't love the new 12 Daytona.

So many people say it looks more refined.

To me it looks lazy, plain, modular, lacking in character, like an accountant designed it.

The thinner subdials and markers along with the thinner bezel inside a ring that sits on a fatter (wider) case, it just doesn't work for me.

Side by side, the 11 series looks meaty and purposeful, just flows better to me. I just don't get what Rolex was trying to achieve with the 12 series other than the ability to streamline production at the expense of aesthetics and purpose.

And to be clear this is not an antagonistic post for current and future owners... still a great watch if you can get one, but I just prefer the older 11 series, I think its got a design we may probably never see again.

I felt almost exactly the same way until I saw the new model in person.

In the photos I had seen the thinner rings of the white 126500 looked sort of wimpy or anemic as compared to the older model, but when I actually tried it on, that wasn't my impression at all. And the steel ring really helps to integrate the ceramic bezel into the watch as a whole, while also bringing the 126500 a bit closer to the 6263.

I still find the white-dial 116500 to be a bit more photogenic than the new model, but in real life I prefer the 126500.

[watcheeze]

Originally Posted by ol' Rex

And the steel ring really helps to integrate the ceramic bezel into the watch as a whole, while also bringing the 126500 a bit closer to the 6263.

The tribute to 6263 is an interesting idea.

However, in the 6263 the steel ring is there to protect the plastic bezel.

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 agree. If the steel ring was added for the sole reason of balancing with the wider case, that would not be logical.

These are, of course, just personal observations.

I have not found this answer and am still searching for it all the time.

Both the 116500 and 126500 are great models, but the 116500 may have been too perfect.

[jcdevoe26]

Originally Posted by bp1000

Clearly going to be controversial but no matter how hard I try, I can't love the new 12 Daytona.

So many people say it looks more refined.

To me it looks lazy, plain, modular, lacking in character, like an accountant designed it.

The thinner subdials and markers along with the thinner bezel inside a ring that sits on a fatter (wider) case, it just doesn't work for me.

Side by side, the 11 series looks meaty and purposeful, just flows better to me. I just don't get what Rolex was trying to achieve with the 12 series other than the ability to streamline production at the expense of aesthetics and purpose.

And to be clear this is not an antagonistic post for current and future owners... still a great watch if you can get one, but I just prefer the older 11 series, I think its got a design we may probably never see again.

100% agree…