Daytona 116520 vs Daytona 116500 ceramic

[faimag]

It's interesting how a very desirable watch in different iterations - that arguably vary very little - can create so strong emotions among us!

I like them all equally! All refs and both colors.

[Marast-66]

Neither


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[doramas]

Confirmed. I'm one of the few who prefers the 116520

[synrrgy]

Originally Posted by Chester01

The non ceramic wins this one. It will always be the first iteration with the inhouse movement. Next, it’s closer to its tool watch DNA without the ceramics. With the white model, the ceramic is very stark black against white-which is a sportier look. I find the 116520 slightly more versatile on that account as it blends in better. I saw the white ceramic in person and it just looked less integrated. This is not an issue with the black ceramic version however. I look at the ceramic versions really like I would the Sub and sub date. The ceramic is not an upgrade really because the benefit is offset by its higher tendency to fail or be cracked and added cost with that. I also don’t consider 40+ year old “technology” an upgrade no matter how rolex tries to market it.

+1... my thoughts exactly. Although I wouldn’t mind owning one or the other ;)

[Sprezzatura!,]

Originally Posted by doramas

Confirmed. I'm one of the few who prefers the 116520

You’re not on your own - I also prefer the 116520.

White dial preferably.

[doramas]

Originally Posted by Sprezzatura!,

You’re not on your own - I also prefer the 116520.

White dial preferably.

Good Taste
You know how to choose well

[DarthSimon]

They are both Gorgeous watches! The Ceramic Bezel just takes it to another level....

[Atone]

i like the way the 116500 wears better on my fat wrist. cutting a 116520 loose for just that reason. will hunt down a black 116500

[kitsgq]

116500 white panda dial with 16520 black dial are my fav 2.

I'm personally not a fan of the white 16520. But go with what sings to you!

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

[poliwog]

Yeah, the white 116520 looks kinda plain and boring to me. No contrast whatsoever

[Wobbly]

I’m not going to vote, as I’m not of the over hyped over and inflated price of the Daytona.

[petay993]

Ceramic has greater definition on the wrist but the 520 is the classier piece, by a long shot.

The bezel on the 500 looks plasticky to me and I am not convinced it will stand the test of time.

[brnalkn]

116520 White,116500 Black dial.

[r_afficionado]

This is my combo. If I got the call on the 500 black I would add it to my collection.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[nachopc]

Originally Posted by doramas

Confirmed. I'm one of the few who prefers the 116520

I also prefer 520


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[60sec]

Originally Posted by brnalkn

116520 White,116500 Black dial.

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sprezzatura!,]

Originally Posted by GolfPunk

White dial 116520
Black dial 116500

100% agree.

[Sealturtle]

Looks so cool!!! Loving the earthy tones, you can almost see a green colored reflection of the grass on the bracelet.

[subprimero]

116520 or 16520 for me.

[Enoch]

I asked my AD if they could put my name down for a white ceramic Daytona..

They rang on Thursday to say they’d received a Daytona, but it was black, was I still interested??

I took all of 2 seconds to decide....

[sammy11]

Originally Posted by golfpunk

white dial 116520
black dial 116500

+1

[fleabag]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ratty]

I prefer the white dial 116520 and the black dial 116500.

I prefer the early versions of the 16520 to both of the above.

[ratty]

Originally Posted by Bholobinko

520. 500 has always looked contrived and cheap to me. Like my son’s toy watch.

This is a bit harsh, but I can see what you mean re the white dial 500 version.

[Marast-66]

Originally Posted by Wobbly

I’m not going to vote, as I’m not of the over hyped over and inflated price of the Daytona.

use to have white 116520 for a few months , eventually sold it and jumped in for 114060, totally hyped watch .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alan111]

I'd like to see a real example of a 116500 with 116520 bezel. The 116500 white dial has black subdial rings as compared to the 116520 silver subdial rings. So the 116500 white dial combined with a steel bezel would make a sharp 16520-Zenith neo-vintage remake.

[cts]

Originally Posted by Enoch

I asked my AD if they could put my name down for a white ceramic Daytona..

They rang on Thursday to say they’d received a Daytona, but it was black, was I still interested??

I took all of 2 seconds to decide....

I wanted the black and was informed a white was in, which I turned down, and received the black 4-6 weeks later...

116520 white=116500 black>116500 white=16520 white... Just not a fan of those black subdials with the white dial... Much prefer silver!!

[2nastie]

White dial... 116500

Black dial... 116520

If you are talking specifically about the white dial, I like the contrast on the 116500. The white dial of the 116520 with the silver sub-dials looks a bit too monotone for me.

[Lew Archer]

The ceramic got my vote, but only by a hair's breadth. For me, the sub dials are slightly more legible on the ceramic. So, that was the tie breaker.

They're both very handsome watches. I like the look of them equally well. The pre-ceramic leans a little more towards elegance, the ceramic a little more towards raciness. So, whichever quality you wish to emphasize, or whichever quality you prefer...take your pick.

[Rad22]

Both amazing watches I have both the 116520 and 116500 in white.

I would like to add a black one at some point, but have a few others I’d like to add first








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk