or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...) - Page 1489  

post #22321 of 48312
^^that ivory dial is gorgeous with the rose gold.
post #22322 of 48312

Thanks for the tip, Dino, which brings me to an interesting question that ties these two subjects together: not-too-big classy chrono with iconic shape.  Twelve grand buys you the new IWC (if you're an idiot, I think we've established), a new Daytona, or a used-but-immaculate this:

 

 

 

P.S. That is not my number.

post #22323 of 48312
id take the AP. as much as i loved my daytonas....that AP has some real balls. stunning watch with pedigree. Kinda like comparing an aston to a jaguar.
post #22324 of 48312
Daytonas rightfully deserve the respect and adoration they're given, I have several friends and family members who own them and they are truly nice watches.

However, for some reason they don't sing to me at all, so call me an idiot but I'd much prefer to lay down my money on a watch that I would love (such as the IWC), and I would even take this AP chrono over the Daytona, which is saying a lot because I don't really love the AP RO line (again, fantastic watches, just not my cup of tea)


As all have said, to each his own - no right or wrong choice here, and I'm sure I'm in the vast minority of SF'ers on this one.




Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

Thanks for the tip, Dino, which brings me to an interesting question that ties these two subjects together: not-too-big classy chrono with iconic shape.  Twelve grand buys you the new IWC (if you're an idiot, I think we've established), a new Daytona, or a used-but-immaculate this:





P.S. That is not my number.
post #22325 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekS View Post

nofuckingshit. I dont think i could respect anyone that would choose the opposite. lol8[1].gif

my man!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekS View Post

that looks like its being worn by a penis. good god thats a tiny wrist. IMHO it doesnt wear large at all. Ive only tried one on though...but it didnt look like that on me. and i have pretty small wrists.

lolz
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekS View Post

^^that ivory dial is gorgeous with the rose gold.

+1.

nice of you to get another watch for the mrs, frillster. one of my fave non all steel dayona is the white gold with a meteorite dial:

?src=is%7BRolex%2Fcd_croco_brown213106122933155l4s%3F%26layer%3D1%26src%3Dmeteorite_roman--cd--g--g--40131061742356901FA%26layer%3D2%26src%3D11651913106121356275EQl%7D&$description$&rotate=87&extend=-1256,-701,-112,-541
post #22326 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

As for the homogenization of Richemont brand watches, the public speaks through sales and if the public is still clamoring for really big thick watches, companies will modify classic designs to increase sales.  Most companies have beefied up case sizes, if one considers Rolex super cases, Patek bumping Calatravas from what was once their large size at 34-35mm to 37mm+, Cartier increase the size of the manual wind Tanks, and AP increase the size of ROs.  No one wants to give up sales to the competition.  If the public tires of extra large thick watches, the companies will trim down case sizes again.

I guess I mean the homogenization of design as well. But yes, you are correct, Richemont is going to respond to the beck and call of the customers. But whereas a PP Calatrava aesthetically looks similar to its predecessors, despite its increase in size, this new Tank is going very far away from what I view as a Tank.

The public needs to get with the program!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post


I like this quite a lot.  Whatever the design influence, this looks both very Cartier, and very masculine, to me.  I approve of this direction.

You know it does not look like a tank anymore when Mimo likes it nod[1].gif
post #22327 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekS View Post

id take the AP. as much as i loved my daytonas....that AP has some real balls. stunning watch with pedigree. Kinda like comparing an aston to a jaguar.

if/when i get an RO, i would want one of the simple 3 hand models.
post #22328 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

if/when i get an RO, i would want one of the simple 3 hand models.

thats my first choice as well. but if youre comparing chronos...id still take the AP over the daytona. And i LOVE daytonas...im a longtime rolex fanboii.
post #22329 of 48312
I think that a Rolex Daytona and an AP fill a similar niche in a collection though. For example, anytime you can wear a AP RO, you can wear a Daytona. I view the RO, Daytona, and Nautilus as filling a similar role in a persons collection.
post #22330 of 48312
Oh yeah, and some dirty, dirty watch pron:






On a related note--Frills, do you see a difference in quality of finishing between your "base" Patek and your complicated Pateks?
post #22331 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

Thanks for the tip, Dino, which brings me to an interesting question that ties these two subjects together: not-too-big classy chrono with iconic shape.  Twelve grand buys you the new IWC (if you're an idiot, I think we've established), a new Daytona, or a used-but-immaculate this:

 

 

 

P.S. That is not my number.

I like the RO Chronograph a lot.  It was a serious contender before the 2012 15202 Jumbo was released. I think a new Daytona vs. a pre-owned 39mm RO chrono poses and interesting dilemma.  Both are great watches.  One has to way a few considerations.  Movements, you are getting a revised F.Piguet 1185 in the RO (also used in VC, Breguets, BPs, and some Cartiers).  Great movement, each company finishes it to its own standards, I know AP and VC use gold rotors, although its a solid case back so you won't be able to view it.  The Daytona uses in house cal 4130, and has a considerably longer power reserve.  

 

Whether a buyer is tough on watches might be a consideration.  The Daytona is more rugged, with a deeper WR rating 100m rather than 50, and its case and bracelet generally hide scratches and dings better than a RO.  The RO's crisp angles really don't hide scratches or dings maybe as well as the rounded surfaces of the Daytona's case and bracelet (although the Daytona's polished center links and lugs will show lots of scratches).   In addition, if you really use the chronograph function, the screw down pushers are easier to grip to screw or unscrew on the Daytona.  The octagonal screw down pushers look cool but are tough to grip and turn.  

 

If I were buying one chronograph to do everything and it might get banged around or spend a lot of time in water, I'd go with the Daytona.  If I were just wearing it to work and at a desk, then maybe I'd go with the RO Chrono.  Just my 2 cents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

 

Daytona-related note.  My wife has decided that she likes my 116520 best of all.  And frankly, it looks super hot on her.  I am thinking of getting her another Daytona not right now, but sometime in the future, perhaps next year or when we celebrate our 15th wedding anniversary a few years from now (italics on the disclaimer from me - let's see if I can hold myself to this personal pledge).  Want something in precious metal but also want to consider the fact that the wife murders her daily wearers.

 

So am thinking of the 116515 with an ivory dial:

 

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 80

 

Pluses (for me):

 

1.  Rose gold - quite like it.  But not all-rose-gold on a bracelet, which is very charming on Elle MacPherson and Brooklyn Decker but I've seen my wife shy away from wearing all-gold pieces.  So the leather strap works for this case.

 

2.  Bezel is less prone to scratching given ceramic construction.

 

3.  On a deploy, which the wife loves.

 

Minuses:

 

1.  Leather strap can't exactly be taken swimming or in the shower - but that's OK, she will have the 116520 for that.

 

2.  At $28,800 retail and around $22 to $23K pre-owned there are many other pieces I can get for her.  But she is really smitten with the Daytona's look/presence on her wrist.

 

Anyway, would appreciate the watch-style-mavens thoughts on the matter.

 

P.S.  Also open to the darker dial.

 

Take my opinion with a grain of salt, as I haven't been a fan of Daytonas on straps in a long time (I owned one in WG several years ago).  To me, Daytonas always look better on a bracelet, I feel it looks incomplete without it.  Also the WG and RG on a strap models have center sections that prevent you from adding a bracelet if you/she changes here mind.

 

I only kept mine for about 6 months, found I was wearing my Daytonas on bracelets far more often and sold it.  Also, I needed a short strap from Rolex for it.  It was a PITA getting them to send one to the AD so that I could wear it.  Not sure if they have gotten better about it, but getting a standard black croc strap for it took 2+ months.  When a friend was buying a Patek at the same AD and he needed a shorter strap, Patek over-nighted a shorter strap to the AD.  

 

The ceramic bezel, doesn't appeal to me on this model.  I might have liked it more of it had metal trim around it and was a tad thinner like on the old manual wind Daytonas.  I find the bezel a bit clunky compared to the older ones.  Also, although ceramic is scratch proof, I did see a story on a Rolex forum where someone with either a relatively new GMT or Sub dropped it and the ceramic bezel broke apart.  Not sure how tough your wife is on watches...as we know from photos, ceramic can break and shatter while SS or Gold scratches or dents.

 

I am generally a fan of Daytonas...but I personally would never buy another Daytona on a strap.  But if the Mrs. loves it...go for it.  

post #22332 of 48312
^^ another excellent post, dino. very well said. ^^

love those pics, newcommer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekS View Post

thats my first choice as well. but if youre comparing chronos...id still take the AP over the daytona. And i LOVE daytonas...im a longtime rolex fanboii.

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn, that would be a tough call for me. would have to think a while on that.
post #22333 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

Oh yeah, and some dirty, dirty watch pron:






On a related note--Frills, do you see a difference in quality of finishing between your "base" Patek and your complicated Pateks?

no spoiling for this. holy balls those are sexy.
post #22334 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

Oh yeah, and some dirty, dirty watch pron:

On a related note--Frills, do you see a difference in quality of finishing between your "base" Patek and your complicated Pateks?

 

Yeah - Oliver always posts some great pics via PuristS.  But that's the least you should expect if the PuristS mods get privileged access to Patek pieces!

 

The finishing in my more complicated Pateks are otherworldly - but then they are also more complicated, with more nooks and crannies in which to employ the use of depth, different coloring, etc.  This would be both on the dial side (3970s just have more subdials and detail than, say, a Calatrava or Nautilus 5711) or for movements (the manual winding CH 27-70 with its lack of rotor also lends itself to more to lovely viewing, and it has far more parts than, say, a cal 215 for a 5119 or a cal 324 for a 5711).  So it's hard to compare.

 

I'd say that the complicated Pateks provide more of an opportunity to show off detailed, magnificent finishing.  Unsure if Patek really scrimps on finishing for the "base" models, but there's only so much you can do on a relatively simple, flat Calatrava dial.  What's good about Oliver's post (and the pictures you shared here) is that it compares the 5550 and the 5140, which should be more or less similar - except Patek just provides more detailing and better finishing for the 5550 (and prices it accordingly!).  smile.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

 

Take my opinion with a grain of salt, as I haven't been a fan of Daytonas on straps in a long time (I owned one in WG several years ago).  To me, Daytonas always look better on a bracelet, I feel it looks incomplete without it.  Also the WG and RG on a strap models have center sections that prevent you from adding a bracelet if you/she changes here mind.

 

I only kept mine for about 6 months, found I was wearing my Daytonas on bracelets far more often and sold it.  Also, I needed a short strap from Rolex for it.  It was a PITA getting them to send one to the AD so that I could wear it.  Not sure if they have gotten better about it, but getting a standard black croc strap for it took 2+ months.  When a friend was buying a Patek at the same AD and he needed a shorter strap, Patek over-nighted a shorter strap to the AD.  

 

The ceramic bezel, doesn't appeal to me on this model.  I might have liked it more of it had metal trim around it and was a tad thinner like on the old manual wind Daytonas.  I find the bezel a bit clunky compared to the older ones.  Also, although ceramic is scratch proof, I did see a story on a Rolex forum where someone with either a relatively new GMT or Sub dropped it and the ceramic bezel broke apart.  Not sure how tough your wife is on watches...as we know from photos, ceramic can break and shatter while SS or Gold scratches or dents.

 

I am generally a fan of Daytonas...but I personally would never buy another Daytona on a strap.  But if the Mrs. loves it...go for it.  

 

These are, as always, excellent points.  I will have the missus try different pieces on and see what she likes.  Otherwise, Brooklyn Decker's choice ain't so bad.

 

 

Stitchy - that WG meteorite is really lovely.  I will also have to have her check it out.  She's a fan of "quirky" non-traditional dials and that might do the trick for her.

post #22335 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

^^ another excellent post, dino. very well said. ^^

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn, that would be a tough call for me. would have to think a while on that.

Thanks man cheers.gif.  Agreed very difficult choice!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

I think that a Rolex Daytona and an AP fill a similar niche in a collection though. For example, anytime you can wear a AP RO, you can wear a Daytona. I view the RO, Daytona, and Nautilus as filling a similar role in a persons collection.

Yes, and no.  You can wear a RO or Nautilus to anything you could wear a Daytona to.  And while I think you can wear a Daytona with a suit, I think the RO and Nautilus are more versatile and look a bit dressier when paired with a suit.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

Oh yeah, and some dirty, dirty watch pron:






On a related note--Frills, do you see a difference in quality of finishing between your "base" Patek and your complicated Pateks?

Just stunning!!!  I've heard there are slight differences, although in my viewing of their time only movements and their more complicated movements, I've never noticed big differences.  But really, for what they charge these days for a Calatrava they really don't have any excuse to deviate drastically from the quality of finish on their more "Basic Pateks."

Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekS View Post


thats my first choice as well. but if youre comparing chronos...id still take the AP over the daytona. And i LOVE daytonas...im a longtime rolex fanboii.

Spot on again and the SS Daytona was my grail watch for several years!  fistbump.gif 

 

I think the only way I might change my vote is if its a vintage manual wind Daytona. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)