Why Isn't the Daytona Sapphire Crystal Flush with the Bezel?

[3omar]

I happen to love the design of the Daytona, from the size to the overall proportions, to the dial layout. But... Something that I have always wondered is whether the watch would look more elegant and more aesthetically pleasing, if the sapphire crystal was flush with the bezel, instead of sticking out so much. I understand that the crystal needs to be a certain thickness, and that there is a rehaut underneath, etc. I am not suggesting that the crystal could somehow be pushed lower. Rather, I am wondering if the watch could have been designed differently, so that the crystal could be sunk in more.

From the side, the crystal reminds me of super thick prescription eyeglasses. Nothing wrong with prescription eyeglasses, I happen to wear a pair myself, but IMO this look doesn't quite belong on the Daytona. Anyone else feel the same way?

[jb335]

It’s a fair question and I’m sorry to have no answers for you but I love the raised crystal. Part of the Daytona charm. Yes, I’m an unapologetic Daytona fanboy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EvelynWaugh]

I think it looks good like this. Is that a 116520?

[ArtNouveau]

It’s the aesthetic, you either like it or you don’t. The case would have to be thicker to have it inset and that would spoil its thin fit that people rave about. I’ve had four SS Daytonas with both steel and ceramic bezels and and never damaged a crystal so I don’t see a functional issue either.

[Polyesterpig]

I do wish it had a larger bevel on the crystal.

[logo]

This is a design characteristic on Daytonas since the 60s and speedmasters since the 50s. Nostalgia is why it’s like that today.

[al7391z]

Originally Posted by artnouveau

it’s the aesthetic, you either like it or you don’t. The case would have to be thicker to have it inset and that would spoil its thin fit that people rave about. I’ve had four ss daytonas with both steel and ceramic bezels and and never damaged a crystal so i don’t see a functional issue either.

+1

[JSolution]

Aren’t they all?

[shammad10]

Originally Posted by JSolution

Aren’t they all?

Ye that's what I was thinking. Every Rolex I have has a slightly raised crystal.

[omar-rye]

Every modern Rolex without a rotating bezel has a raised crystal

[Old Expat Beast]

Yeah, it's a Rolex thing and doesn't really look great, IMO, except on the Milgauss GV with that electric green glow it gives off. Makes it easier to get chipped, too.

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

Every modern Rolex without a rotating bezel has a raised crystal

Correction: GMT ceramic have it as well




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Driver8]

I have no answer as to why it's raised on models like the Daytona, other than a desire to keep the case as thin as possible, but one slight added bonus (especially on your Daytona, OP, with the steel bezel) is that the raised sapphire helps to protect the bezel from scratches.

Obviously on dive models it's a little more understandable as the crystal needs to be thick by design, but other than that I think it's just a design aesthetic. And personally I love it!

[brandrea]

Visual interest IMO.

[Osmin]

My Daytona has it, my Sub has it, my DJ has it.
So why should the Daytona bei different?
I also like it aesthetically

[DaytonaAllDay]

Protects the bezel from impact as the sapphire would likely get hit first.

[rolexgs]

i like the way it is now.

[77T]

Why?

Well the crystal is as thick as it needs to be for strength plus some moderate deflection needed in 10bar environment.

So the “why” has more to do with the bezel methinks.

Rolex could have milled a thicker bezel on the Daytonas that have a metal one vs ceramic bezel. But do not hold your breath getting to the why’s with the Rolex design team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[kegan]

Because to make the watch functionally the same with the crystal flush to the case/ bezel would almost certainly require the watch to look hideous.

[swish77]

Yeah, a raised crystal looks terrible on a Daytona.

[Cliffnopus]

In reading this post, I just had to check my TTYM and noticed that it too has a raised crystal. Looks to be about 1/64th inch above the bezel. Huh...never noticed it.

My 126621 Rolex 3.jpg

[3omar]

Thank you for the replies. And yes, I have the 116520 for those who asked.

Everyone seems to be thinking that I am proposing some sort of thickening of the bezel, or larger beveling of the crystal. But couldn't Rolex have kept everything exactly the same size and shape, and moved the crystal, rehaut, dial and movement down by a bit to make the crystal flush with the bezel? Of course, the case back would have to bulge out by the same amount, but the watch would still be the same overall thickness as now. And I doubt that it would wear that differently on the wrist with a slightly more pronounced case back...

This is a purely theoretical design discussion, obviously, but I find it to be interesting.

[Hardtimes]

I dont know but I like it like that..

[KdPg]

I like it better now

[mgsooner]

The first gen ceramic Subs (not sure about the GMTs) have crystals that are flush with the rotating bezel. The current gen Subs have a raised crystal.