AP RO 14790ST or Rolex Daytona 16520

[jesulaiman]

A simple question: would you choose AP RO 14790ST or Rolex ‘Zenith’ Daytona 16520?

Here’s a bit of description:

14790ST:
- Year 2003, white dial.
- Case diameter 36mm
- Thickness 7.5 mm
- Water resistant 50m
- Caliber: 2225 (28,800 bph, 4 Hz, 40 h power reserve)

16520:
- T series, Year around 1996, white dial
- Case diameter 40mm
- Thickness 12.5 mm
- Water resistant 100m
- Caliber: 4030 Zenith El Primero (28,800 bph, 40 h power reserve)


Here are photos of the two:

[TunaTuna]

Since the AP is a ladies piece, I'd go with the Daytona. If you have a smaller wrist, the Daytona wears small and can fit most wrists. Going to a small AP because you have a smaller wrist just isn't that cool tbh

[brucethemanlee]

16520

[Pw92676]

Originally Posted by TunaTuna

Since the AP is a ladies piece, I'd go with the Daytona. If you have a smaller wrist, the Daytona wears small and can fit most wrists. Going to a small AP because you have a smaller wrist just isn't that cool tbh

I don’t know if this was truly ever considered a lady’s piece.

I disagree about the going small isn’t cool. It’s all a matter of opinion. I frankly think wearing a “manly mans” watch that is too big is more uncool.

[ts3]

Originally Posted by Pw92676

I don’t know if this was truly ever considered a lady’s piece.

I disagree about the going small isn’t cool. It’s all a matter of opinion. I frankly think wearing a “manly mans” watch that is too big is more uncool.

Agree, in its day the 14790 was no lady's piece.

I'd still pick the 16520 among the two in the pictures though as I don't like the late 14790 variants with short hour markers which make the watch smaller than it is. I'd definitely go for an earlier model with long hour markers if 14790 or any other small RO.

[dh1]

Originally Posted by ts3

I don't like the late 14790 variants with short hour markers which make the watch smaller than it is. I'd definitely go for an earlier model with long hour markers if 14790 or any small RO.

FWIW, I have the same preference for the "long index" 14790 MK1 or MK2 dial over the MK3. But it's not primarily about the short markers making the watch look smaller.

For me the 2000s era jumbo 15202ST 0944 dial variant and the MK3 14790 dial variant aesthetics are completely changed by the larger tapisserie squares and the arabic numeral 5 second labels along the outer edge. To me there's something that feels like it was supposed to be a "high tech 21st century refresh" by departing more substantially from the 70s classic aesthetic... but now post 2012 (with the 1240 15202) they went back closer to the 70s look, making the mid-2000s aesthetic llook somehow more dated than older watches.

[huncho]

16520 between the 2, but if you look at the 15450 instead then that would be my pick. i feel like the bracelet on the 14790 isn't as nice as the more modern APs

[Neom]

I would pick the daytona between these 2

[deuxani]

Originally Posted by ts3

Agree, in its day the 14790 was no lady's piece.

I'd still pick the 16520 among the two in the pictures though as I don't like the late 14790 variants with short hour markers which make the watch smaller than it is. I'd definitely go for an earlier model with long hour markers if 14790 or any other small RO.

Yeah I totally agree with this. Normally I would always choose the Royal Oak over a Daytona, but the MK3 dial of the 14790 just always feels off for me. If it was the MK1 or 2 I would’ve said the Royal Oak.

Regarding size, this was a mens model and it all depends on your wrist size and if you like large or smaller watches. The 36mm 14790 wears pretty large, obviously due to the integrated bracelet. It feels like a 38mm, so close enough to the Daytona in size. My wrists are 18.5cm and for me the 36mm didn’t feel small.

[cascavel]

Forgetting size, for the moment, based on one picture of each the Daytona appears to be in better condition, less polished. But either way the 16520 is my choice even if it costs twice as much.

[KBM]

Originally Posted by cascavel

Forgetting size, for the moment, based on one picture of each the Daytona appears to be in better condition, less polished.

My thoughts as well.

[Animo Felonico]

Comments about 36 or 37mm Royal Oaks being "ladies watches" make me laugh (there were many such comments when the 15450 was released).

Anyone who has worn a watch with an integrated bracelet knows very well that their numbers don't reflect the experience of wearing them. I have watches ranging from 34mm to 44mm and a 7 inch wrist. A 14790 or an Oysterquartz do not feel meaningfully smaller than a Seiko Turtle, which is 10mm larger. Frankly, a 15202 or 5402 wear enormous, and way larger than their 39mm size would suggest. Of the people posting their 39mm ROs on instagram, etc, I think a great number of them would better suit a 36mm RO, as the lugs can overhang their wrists by quite a bit.

My final comment is that the elegance and thinness of the midsize jumbos are very special qualities. In good, original condition, the little facets of the connecting links really play with the light, but it's actually a very under the radar watch (even the all gold versions) due to its satin finish on the flat surfaces.

I prefer the series 1 or 2 dial as well, and I think the example you posted may have been overpolished, so some of that exquisite link edge treatment may not be as visible.

[Jsol]

The 14790 is a wonderful reference due to it's thinness and overall elegant proportions. But agree that the MK1 or MK2 or the Yves Klein examples are the best. The MK3 w the short indexes is the least pleasing design of the series. You can't ever go wrong w the Daytona so in this case that would be my choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jesulaiman]

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk