Am I missing something? Daytona.

[warrior]

I’ve never liked the Daytona or the vast vast majority of chronographs from
ANY brand; it doesn’t matter if it’s Rolex, AP, Patek, Timex, Tag, Breitling, Seiko.

WHY? Chronographs generally look all look the same to me. They BLEND. The busier the dial, the more my eyes glaze over. I just saw too many young guys on the street with watches with busy dials/ prominent sub dials. Turned me off of chronographs completely.

There are a few exceptions, including the Omega Speedmaster Pro.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by DonRickles

Grouping us all into this is just ridiculous….Besides myself I’m certain there are many others here striving to learn more about horology….

The post I’m quoting of yours again is another regurgitated reply, again avoided my original question.

One more time, please provide me with some specifics that has you turned off towards the Daytonas being produced today?

Going back many years now was given one of the first Zenith powered Daytona to try, liked it at first but after wearing it was not for me so returned it. But will say I did much prefer the Zenith dial lay out over the inhouse Rolex one launched in 2000.So myself just dont like the dial lay out with the in-house Daytona and not a huge fan of the steel bezel or now the ceramic bezel. But if Rolex made a Daytona like the 6263 with aluminium insert with the auto movement I could be temped to buy in SS only.

[doboy007]

Originally Posted by OrangeSport

Not anti-chrono

I have a Speedy which I love and use a lot.

I just think many are ugly, including the Daytona.

I agree. There are many ugly ones including the Speedy. Even some Daytonas are ugly depending on the dial.

[VegasBaby]

Originally Posted by joeboy

Hi lads,
Been thinking about this for a few months. There are a few Rolex styles that i'm not massively mad on but I just don't get the whole Daytona thing. Every now and then I'll see a pic of a white face on s/s and think 'Not bad', couplea actors had them back in the day. That's as far as it goes. I'm not a fan of the three button, three dial look. Over busy and reminds me of Mickey Mouse from some angles. What am I missing? Is it all hype and people jumping on a bandwagon? Can't be, help me out, is this just eye of the beholder? Fair play to those who like em and have em.

Cool story........thanks for the update!!!

[swish77]

Originally Posted by OrangeSport

The unbalanced sub dial designs

The way the 6 is inverted on the 9 o'clock dial

The unclear / over - fussy design

The stupid garish colour schemes

The overly polished case

It's just not a nice watch to look at. Vintage models with the Zenith movement weren't great, but were at least better.

Most of this is a matter of opinion, but facts are facts. The 9 o'clock sub-dial on current Rolex Daytonas does not have an inverted 6.

Perhaps you're confusing it with the old Zenith Daytonas, some of which had an inverted 6 on the 6 o'clock sub-dial.

[Gromet]

Everyone is different. I myself think the Daytona, Day-Date and Datejust are the nicest Rolexes. I never understood the hype for the Submariners, Yacht Masters, Sea Dwellers, etc... I don't like air-King or Milgauss at all. They just didn't do it for me.

For some reason when I first saw the Daytona, I fell in love with it. I happen to like PM Daytona's more than steel. I'm also not a fan of the newer references with the ceramic dial. They just don't look as good to me. Yes they might be less prone to scratching etc, but I just don't love the look.

Anyway, Everyone has their own opinion and feelings on what they like. That is why there are watch stores with hundreds of different models and styles. When I go into these stores I see more Watches I don't like than ones I do.

It's funny, the Steel Daytona is the hardest to get. I'm my opinion, it's not that it's the nicest it's that it happens to be the cheapest.

I happen to be someone who likes the TT look and love my TT Daytona. I've had it for 16 Years and wear it almost every day.

[OrangeSport]

Originally Posted by swish77

Most of this is a matter of opinion, but facts are facts. The 9 o'clock sub-dial on current Rolex Daytonas does not have an inverted 6.

Perhaps you're confusing it with the old Zenith Daytonas, some of which had an inverted 6 on the 6 o'clock sub-dial.

You are wrong. The bottoms of the 3 9 and 13 are against the edge of the dial. The 6 is the over way round so its top is against the edge of dial. It is the other way up to all tge other numbers in that sub dial.

Had they marked 1 4 and 8 they could have escaped this issue.

[AdamW]

Overrated is in the eye of the beholder! Personally my top things overrated:

1. Wimbledon dial
2. Coldplay, Hip Hop, Bob Dylan, and The Rolling Stones After 1974
3. "Friends" TV Show
4. Kale
5. Anyone with the last name Kardashian

[OrangeSport]

Originally Posted by AdamW

Overrated is in the eye of the beholder! Personally my top things overrated:

1. Wimbledon dial
2. Coldplay, Hip Hop, Bob Dylan, and The Rolling Stones After 1974
3. "Friends" TV Show
4. Kale
5. Anyone with the last name Kardashian

Kale!

[faz]

Originally Posted by OrangeSport

You are wrong. The bottoms of the 3 9 and 13 are against the edge of the dial. The 6 is the over way round so its top is against the edge of dial. It is the other way up to all tge other numbers in that sub dial.

Had they marked 1 4 and 8 they could have escaped this issue.

Yet the one that would be 'correct' in your mind is the one that is referred to as 'inverted 6' :)



I would glance at this 'inverted 6' and read '3, 9, 9, 12' and go

The current 3,6,9,12 makes sense and the way it should be.

I think people are nitpicking with these.

These rules that people come up with as hard rules (all bottom edges of the numbers have to be placed exactly the same, for example) do not play nice in the real world. Sticking to a rule for the sake of consistency and sacrificing user friendliness is not a welcome practice in any modern design practice.

[msg315]

Originally Posted by 7enderbender

I don’t get it either. I’ll take a Speedmaster over a Daytona any day of the week.

Totally agree. I was in Vegas recently and the Rolex AD in the Bellagio had a demo (TT) Daytona that I tried on for the first time. Very underwhelming. Too small, hard to read, bracelet overwhelmed the case, and the screw down pushers were cumbersome and distracting. My first reaction was "this is the piece behind all the hype, I don't get it!"

Comparing the to my 3861 Speedmaster, the Daytona is not in the same league, by any measure. I popped over to Omega and the very nice Omega associate, Mandy, gave me a private viewing of the Ed White. Wow, next one on my list! Perfection. I would not pick a Daytona over a Speedmaster, at any price.

If you are playing the flip game or all you want is hype on your wrist I get the motivation for a Daytona, but as a functional and aesthetic piece, I do not. To each his own, and if you love the Daytona, right on, but I don't see it.

I love my Rolex collection, but there is no room (at any price) for a Daytona.

[joeboy]

Quite a lot of interesting views here, a few unexpectedly prickly. I tried hard to show neutral. I guess that's a fair cut & thrust of the thoughts. For the record I am so wealthy it's embarrassing. My thoughts when viewing Daytona is that it's all a bit 'emperors new clothes' to me of course and i'm not seeking to dump on anyones choice of watch. Fair play to u all. Thank you for your ongoing input and apols for not using the search function.

[faz]

Originally Posted by joeboy

Hi lads,
Been thinking about this for a few months. There are a few Rolex styles that i'm not massively mad on but I just don't get the whole Daytona thing. Every now and then I'll see a pic of a white face on s/s and think 'Not bad', couplea actors had them back in the day. That's as far as it goes. I'm not a fan of the three button, three dial look. Over busy and reminds me of Mickey Mouse from some angles. What am I missing? Is it all hype and people jumping on a bandwagon? Can't be, help me out, is this just eye of the beholder? Fair play to those who like em and have em.

Not all watches are for everyone. This has been established already in this thread I guess.

Now here is the thing: my wife's daily is a 116520 white face. There is not a day that goes by, that she doesn't get a comment about her Daytona from others. I borrowed it from her for a few days (put the additional link on it and wore it around), and man, every day I was getting a 'hey, is that a Daytona?' comment from random people (young clerk at the fast food store, salesperson at the clothing store, etc.)

It is I would say one of the most recognized sports models out there. I was surprised as hell since I do have other chronos that I wear and I don't get as much as a second look, but this Daytona on my wrist was like a comment magnet.

Its popularity amongst the masses is undeniable, regardless of how much you or I don't necessarily love it personally.

[OrangeSport]

Originally Posted by faz

Yet the one that would be 'correct' in your mind is the one that is referred to as 'inverted 6' :)



I would glance at this 'inverted 6' and read '3, 9, 9, 12' and go

The current 3,6,9,12 makes sense and the way it should be.

I think people are nitpicking with these.

These rules that people come up with as hard rules (all bottom edges of the numbers have to be placed exactly the same, for example) do not play nice in the real world. Sticking to a rule for the sake of consistency and sacrificing user friendliness is not a welcome practice in any modern design practice.

Have to agree to disagree

I think it’s a terribly lazy design and going 4 8 12 would solve it and match the rest of the watch. Using the 6 gave them no good option.

[stewester]

I've never really taken to it, despite being endowed with tiny wrists. Just a bit overly fussy and blingy in its current iteration.

It has always been in high demand and short supply since the introduction of the automatic models, so it's sort of emblematic of the current situation and the ultimate "trophy" model, which definitely appeals to some.

[franktehtank]

Took me about 6 years of being a watch enthusiast before I finally "got it". Now I love them.

[jb335]

Originally Posted by franktehtank

Took me about 6 years of being a watch enthusiast before I finally "got it". Now I love them.

Same. But closer to 6 months for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jb335]

You either get it or you don’t. I’m just glad I’m in the former.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swish77]

Originally Posted by OrangeSport

You are wrong. The bottoms of the 3 9 and 13 are against the edge of the dial. The 6 is the over way round so its top is against the edge of dial. It is the other way up to all tge other numbers in that sub dial.

No, sorry, you are wrong. You might not like the design of the sub-dials and their numbers' position, but you said the 6 is "inverted," which by definition means upside down.

Where is the upside down 6 here? Again, some of the old Zenith Daytonas had an "inverted" 6 on a sub-dial (worth more money, by the way,) but the modern Daytonas do not.

[huncho]

never seen the black dial in person but after seeing the white one i get it now. it's a very clean look

[garyk]

I have the white but the black is really good looking.

[zengineer]

I find the black bezel a bit overpowering on the white dial but to each his own.

This seems a better balance design to me but at 1/4 the cost it probably lacks the statement value.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[OrangeSport]

Originally Posted by swish77

No, sorry, you are wrong. You might not like the design of the sub-dials and their numbers' position, but you said the 6 is "inverted," which by definition means upside down.

Where is the upside down 6 here? Again, some of the old Zenith Daytonas had an "inverted" 6 on a sub-dial (worth more money, by the way,) but the modern Daytonas do not.

Inverted compared to the others on that sub dial

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by faz

Yet the one that would be 'correct' in your mind is the one that is referred to as 'inverted 6' :)

I would glance at this 'inverted 6' and read '3, 9, 9, 12' and go

The current 3,6,9,12 makes sense and the way it should be.

I think people are nitpicking with these.

Originally Posted by OrangeSport

Have to agree to disagree

I think it’s a terribly lazy design and going 4 8 12 would solve it and match the rest of the watch. Using the 6 gave them no good option.

Originally Posted by swish77

No, sorry, you are wrong. You might not like the design of the sub-dials and their numbers' position, but you said the 6 is "inverted," which by definition means upside down.

Where is the upside down 6 here? Again, some of the old Zenith Daytonas had an "inverted" 6 on a sub-dial (worth more money, by the way,) but the modern Daytonas do not.

If we're going to split hairs, let's not ignore half the subject! There is no true consistency in any of the models, or at least not in the sampling of pics in this thread. In the models where the orientation of the subdial text goes one way, the bezel tachymeter text does the opposite. New Daytona has upside down bezel text at the 6 o'clock position but right side up subdial text at the 6 o'clock position. Older Daytona has upside down subdial text at 6 o'clock and right side up bezel text at 6 o'clock.

Seems this is not the model for those with OCD because it appears a bit random how they did their orientations. Somebody at Rolex must have sensed they were doing something wrong (given the number of changes) but apparently couldn't quite put their finger cots on what it was exactly.

[1665fan]

Long live the inverted 6 zenith…..such a classic and only going up in $$€€££

[faz]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

If we're going to split hairs, let's not ignore half the subject! There is no true consistency in any of the models, or at least not in the sampling of pics in this thread. In the models where the orientation of the subdial text goes one way, the bezel tachymeter text does the opposite. New Daytona has upside down bezel text at the 6 o'clock position but right side up subdial text at the 6 o'clock position. Older Daytona has upside down subdial text at 6 o'clock and right side up bezel text at 6 o'clock.

Seems this is not the model for those with OCD because it appears a bit random how they did their orientations. Somebody at Rolex must have sensed they were doing something wrong (given the number of changes) but apparently couldn't quite put their finger cots on what it was exactly.

agreed.

[Oxfordian]

Originally Posted by zengineer

I find the black bezel a bit overpowering on the white dial but to each his own.

This seems a better balance design to me but at 1/4 the cost it probably lacks the statement value.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I would have this watch over a 116500 anytime, its gorgeous.

Sod any statement value its just so much nicer.

Congratulations that is one beautiful watch.

[airchitect]

I like certain versions of it a lot, and yes this topic has been beaten to death, but you are at least a bit correct. Daytonas don’t have the history of so many other watches and are pretty dainty….but people still want them In the last 18mths my AD has offered me a Newman OF, a black ss, and a wg OF. All nice, but the only one that made me think “hell yeeeeeah” was the Newman….. the rest were nice but compared to say a speedy on a nice leather nato….nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stoffel]

It has to be the most overhyped watch in history to the point it is quite laughable. A big percentage of the modern ones seem to be bought for the flex and flip. I’d choose to wear the Omega Ed White reissue every time over the Daytona.

[GMT Aviator]

I like that it has a cult following and maybe I’ve been living under a rock because I don’t understand the hype that surrounds it, but thats just me.
On the whole I’m not a chrono fan but all the ones I do have are Speedy’s.
No Daytona on the radar for me and not long back i did turn down one an AD offered me.