New Rolex daytona panda 126500LN vs 116500LN

[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]

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.

[Kingcobb]

126500ln is awesome

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Joearch]

Looking forward to adding a 126500 to my current Daytona collection. Each person will have their own opinion on the design evolution. Something we experience in all aspects of design. The history of design quality with all aspects of the Rolex brand is somewhat unprecedented. I am ok to go along with the ride.

[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."

[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

[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.

[Big Tex Rolex]

From this perspective, I have to give the nod to the 116500 …




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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

[Kingcobb]

Originally Posted by EEpro

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.

No idea, but in all the release reviews, Rolex went out of their way to stipulate:

"The bezel itself isn’t an insert but a solid element, and the metallic ring is part of the case."

"Whereas your previous generation had a full-ceramic bezel ring, the new bezel includes a thin polished stainless steel band that is part of the case. Still, the ceramic ring is not an insert, despite what you might assume. Rather, it’s a solid element like on the previous model but in a protective “cage” of sorts."

"Rolex has confirmed to us that the bezel remains a monoblock Cerachrom ceramic piece within and is not a bezel insert like those on, say, the GMT-Master II. "

Not sure how much it ultimately matters, could all be hyperbole, but this is what they were obviously pushing on the release.

Again, I like em both, but a big fan of the 126500ln black.

[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.

[dkol]

Being a daytona fan for 20+ years, my fav feature has always been the asymmetrical lugs….i can’t think of another mainstream watch that had/has that feature. Such a pity that they deleted that

[bp1000]

Originally Posted by dkol

Being a daytona fan for 20+ years, my fav feature has always been the asymmetrical lugs….i can’t think of another mainstream watch that had/has that feature. Such a pity that they deleted that

With you on this.
Rolex had a reason, balance, not just with the Daytona but also 5 digit and earlier subs.

It shows the attention to detail Rolex went to, to make tool watches perfect or at least highly considered for their intended use case. It’s what made Rolex special and have character to me.

Rolex since 2008 moved from making the ultimate tool watch to making a tool watch to also look good on the red carpet. Not necessarily a bad thing, lots of positives but they are certainly moving in a different direction to the brands principles since the 50s; ones you can argue Tudor are now filling.