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 2289  

post #34321 of 48312
TC you are a ROCKSTAR!

Stitchy - "W B" could also mean "WANNABUY!!!" Hahahahahaha.
post #34322 of 48312
Good on ya, TC.

I like seeing action shots!
post #34323 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tried and True View Post


The point that Rolex allowed Tiffany to add their mark is what creates rarity. Why should it matter if Rolex, Tiffany or a third party actually performed the work?

 

At one point in time when Rolex was still building itself and expanding its brand name, I'm sure it helped to be affiliated with a brand that was well known for selling quality products.  Rolex passively allowing Tiffany's to put their name on their watches is a bit different than Rolex as part of their relationship putting the name on themselves be it as a result of a contract or out of respect.  When I thought Rolex actually did print the Tiffany name at their factory, I thought it was more significant to both the watch and their relationship with Tiffany. 

 

I'm not saying its not a beautiful watch or that its not rare.  That perfectly matched patina of the lum on the dial and hands helps make that watch stunning!  However, its the combination of it being a rare watch the Double Red SD, and it having the Tiffany marking on the dial adds to its rarity.  The Tiffany name alone doesn't make a watch specifically rare or valuable unless its on a rare watch.  Think of the tens of thousands of Datejusts they sold over several decades...they carry a slight premium over a standard DJ, but they aren't truly rare or that valuable.  The Double Red SD is very rare and valuable even without the Tiffany marking on the dial. 

post #34324 of 48312
LOL thanks guys!
post #34325 of 48312

:teach:

post #34326 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

TC you are a ROCKSTAR!

Stitchy - "W B" could also mean "WANNABUY!!!" Hahahahahaha.

It could. But it doesn't. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

LOL thanks guys!

Yw!
post #34327 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post
  Warning: Awesomeness (Click to show)

I apologize for the delay in responding.  I actually started responding to this yesterday, and then lost my response and so I'm starting over.  Please forgive me for this being a bit jumbled but I don't have time to organize everything, its just sort of how it comes to me.  

 

First, I would state there is no right or wrong, both the 16520 and 116520 are great watches.   Many of my preferences for the 16520 are subjective, not from a practicality stand point.  The 16520 and the 116520 both represented great values especially when they were first released.  When I first started looking at a SS Daytona in 1994 the list price was approximately $3,850.  The demand for was insane with AD's having 5 year waiting lists.  One was considered lucky to get them at MSRP when you could find one, because many ADs and Grays were selling them with 50-100% mark ups and people continued to buy them.  I was diligent in my search and after a few years...I found one in each color at their MSRP.  These were far rarer than the 116520 is today, because from roughly 1988 though about 2000, Rolex was dependent upon Zenith for a supply of El Primero ebauches to be used in various models such as the tutone, all gold on a strap, and all gold bracelet models...and the SS had the smallest profit margin for Rolex.   The world was also a "Smaller place" back then...there were not as many watch internet sites and other than in maybe NYC or a handful of really large cities, you rarely saw new Daytonas on people, much less in a store.  

 

When one thinks about it there really wasn't much that offered what the 16520 offered particularly at its price level.  You have to keep in mind it was in production well before the public was beginning to insist on in house movements.  The 16520 was the first automatic Rolex chronograph, it was water resistant to 100m, and it was very rugged. The bulk of chronographs on the market back then were using Val 7750s, some modified more or less than others.  A few brands like Patek, VC and Breguet, were using Lemanias as chronograph bases in their higher end chronos, and a few companies, BP, Breguet, VC were using F. Piguet 1185s in their more modestly priced chronographs that listed for say $7,000 +.  It should also be noted that it wasn't until the late 1990s that AP released the RO chronograph and VC released the Overseas chronographs (both had 1185 base movements) and were in excess of $12,500 and $11,000 respectively.  So most of its competition was significantly more expensive, used the 1185 movement, and most depreciated significantly compared to the 16520.  

 

The use of the El Primero in a 16520 is often oversimplified in the minds of people.  Many think its was just popped in and it was the same movement that was found in a Zenith or Chopard St. Mortiz chrono.  That couldn't be further from the truth.  I have a list of changes that Rolex made to the El Primero, some are small some are large,  but there were well over 100 changes made to the El Prirmero base, before it became Rolex Cal 4030.  By some, its movement is considered the last Rolex movement to truly have a great deal of hand workmanship.   Furthermore, in my own personal experience, I wore one for 5 years as a daily wearer, beat the heck out of it, and it was the most accurate watch I ever owned.  It was dead on accurate, not fast, not slow...right on time.  So for $3800 -$5,100 (price I paid for my last one), one was getting an automatic chronograph, with a movement that was not commonly found in other watches, and which was highly modified by Rolex, and performed flawlessly in day to day life.  My first in-house movement 116520 Daytona had to go back to Rolex for 2 warranty repairs.  After a about 6 months or so I noticed one of the links on the bracelet (which was not removable), was uneven in terms of thickness compared to the other links (and this was on their new solid link SS bracelet). Rolex replaced the bracelet under warranty.  Then I didn't wear it for about 8 months.  The next time I went to wear 116520, when I went to use the chronograph function, one revolution of the large sweep second hand would result in the minute subdial hand advancing anywhere from 4-7 minutes with one revolution of the large sweep second hand.  So it went back and their repaired the movement under warranty.  These may have been teething issues, as I bought this 116520 within its first year of being released.  A few years later I traded it for a newer model, which has had no issues.  

 

As for the styling, for me the 116520 is a great watch, but there are nuances that I prefer about the 16520.  First the 16520 has fewer polished surfaces, the lugs are brushed and on the 1st year or 2 of production the bracelets are brushed (although the do not have the Oysterlock safety latch).  Then there is the dial.  The hour markers and lum are more delicate, a bit dressier and are perfectly matched to the hour and minute hands.  I think they give the watch a bit more versatility making it a bit dressier.  So IMHO it works just a tad better with a suit (although neither is a true dress watch).  Many people may not remember, but there are 2 versions of hands for the 116520.  The early ones, like my first 116520 are now known as "Thin hand" Daytonas.  What Rolex did was simply use the same hands that had been used on the 16520 and put them on the 116520, which sounds ok, until you consider how much larger the new hour markers and lum are on the 116520...IMHO they were very mismatched and awkward.  This was corrected around the end of 2004 when Rolex revised the Daytona hands, which became wider, the black line down the middle became wider and the lum markings became wider...and it became a known as the "Fat Hands" Daytona.  Then they were better suited to the revised dial, and gave it an even sportier look.  

 

Another, nuance I prefer on 16520 the subdial and subdial hand alignment which is more symmetric and in line with the hour and minute hands.  On the 116520 all of the subdials were moved I think 12 degrees upward (it was partly to make it tougher for people to make fakes...as most movements used in fakes have the hands and subdial hands level).  On the 116250 the subdials shifted upward and the hands on the subdials at 3 and 9 sit slightly above the centrally mounted hour/minute/large second hand.  I also prefer the classic black and white dials/subdials of the 16520.  

 

In the end the 116520 is a fantastic watch and today its the more practical choice, with its SEL bracelet (only the last year of 16520 production have SELs), bracelets that have solid center links, and it has a 72 hour power reserve.  Belligero and I were chatting a while ago, and his friend who is a watchmaker recently completed Rolex service training.  IIRC, he came away with new found respect for the engineering that went into the movements of the Daytonas (I believe he worked on both the cal 4030 El Primero based and the current 4130).  He clearly would have an understanding and appreciation that goes beyond what most of us would consider, but both are superb movements.

 

I think that both the 16520 and 116520 are great watches and I enjoy both of them.  I do prefer the 16520, however, other owners may feel differently and there are good reasons to favor the 116520.  Cheers!

 

I'm finally back home and got a chance to really read through this properly. Thank you for taking the time to respond. The markers are probably my biggest gripe with the 116520. I definitely prefer the (slimmer markers of the) 16520 in that regard. I'm bothered less by the subdial symmetry issue, with the exception of the spacing between subdials and the dial text. And I actually have come to prefer the polished lugs on the 116520 assuming the center links are polished. I'm bothered by brushed/ brushed/polished/brushed/brushed but am somehow okay with polished/brushed/polished/brushed/polished. No idea why that is though, just find it more appealing to the eye I suppose.

 

But again, thanks a lot for taking the time. This is very helpful in the long list of things I'm considering for the next watch on my list (it's a depressingly long list, but it's a fun exercise and I have lots of time). If I do end up with a Daytona, the one thing I know is that it will be the white dial.

post #34328 of 48312
Too much talk. Not enough porn. I will fix. Dining at a private kitchen in Hong Kong...


Three amigos



Two snobs





One weirdo



One vintage



Snob had its own wine



Sexy back



Another sexy back
post #34329 of 48312
F*in A. Dat Ferrier and Journe nod[1].gif

The RJ is might interesting, don't see that one in the wild too often.
post #34330 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

Poor planning caused me to end up wearing my RO to band rehearsal last night. If there ever were an environment where something could get banged up, this is it. Fortunately I think we made it through unscathed.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
14657607299_b20e19d1c2_c.jpg

"..wearing my RO to band practice..." Quite possibly the first time in history these words have ever been heard together. happy.gif

Rock on TC!
post #34331 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLJr View Post
 

I'm finally back home and got a chance to really read through this properly. Thank you for taking the time to respond. The markers are probably my biggest gripe with the 116520. I definitely prefer the (slimmer markers of the) 16520 in that regard. I'm bothered less by the subdial symmetry issue, with the exception of the spacing between subdials and the dial text. And I actually have come to prefer the polished lugs on the 116520 assuming the center links are polished. I'm bothered by brushed/ brushed/polished/brushed/brushed but am somehow okay with polished/brushed/polished/brushed/polished. No idea why that is though, just find it more appealing to the eye I suppose.

 

But again, thanks a lot for taking the time. This is very helpful in the long list of things I'm considering for the next watch on my list (it's a depressingly long list, but it's a fun exercise and I have lots of time). If I do end up with a Daytona, the one thing I know is that it will be the white dial.

I'm glad you found my post helpful.  We all have our preferences when it comes to polished/brushed surfaces and dials colors or dial colors.  I've owned black and white dialed Daytonas, and there is no right answer...unless of course its black, because that's my favorite dial color on modern Daytonas;)

 

Wishing you luck on your search for the next watch be it a Daytona or something else.  Cheers!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gazman70k View Post

Too much talk. Not enough porn. I will fix. Dining at a private kitchen in Hong Kong...
 

That Ferrier is beautiful!  

post #34332 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by gazman70k View Post

Too much talk. Not enough porn. I will fix. Dining at a private kitchen in Hong Kong...
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Three amigos



Two snobs





One weirdo



One vintage



Snob had its own wine



Sexy back



Another sexy back

OooOoooOOoooooOOmF!

Dat back. drool.gif
post #34333 of 48312
So, a while back I waxed poetic about the FPJ Chrono Bleu. Well, I think that these pictures perfectly describe what I was trying to communicate! A picture really does speak a thousand words.






Oh, and a gratuitous shot of the backside for kicks (#MimoShot):



*pictures jacked from Alex83
http://home.watchprosite.com/show-forumpost/fi-17/pi-6535828/ti-944323/s-0/t-horological-meandering-blue-in-face/
Edited by Newcomer - 8/6/14 at 1:04pm
post #34334 of 48312

After handling that watch in person, I totally get it. It's one of my favorite "attainable" watches, if not my favorite. Love dat blue.

post #34335 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLJr View Post

After handling that watch in person, I totally get it. It's one of my favorite "attainable" watches, if not my favorite. Love dat blue.

nod[1].gif

Dat blue indeed. And it really, really is attainable. That is a heck of a tricky monetary range though. So, so much available in that price range.
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...)