Five Ways The Rolex Daytona Is A Better (And Worse) Watch Than You Might Expect | aBlogtoWatch

Better: The Rolex Daytona Is Deservedly The Real Thing In The Eye Of Many

Sometimes there’s just one thing more annoying than hype — hype that’s deserved. Many superb chronograph watches have come and gone since the renaissance of luxury watchmaking began in the 1980s (with the Grand Seiko SBGC001 giving the Daytona a run for its money), but the emphasis in this instance should be on the word “gone.” Sure, famed model names and core aesthetic codes might have stuck around from many of those revered collections, but the watches around them have often changed massively in size, proportion, status, and positioning. Nevertheless, every once in a while, a company gets to operate in the long run at the helm of people so risk-averse respectful of tradition that its products get to exist virtually unchanged and unmolested not just for years, but decades, and this gives said company an advantage impossible to quickly imitate. The Rolex Daytona has looked largely unchanged since 1988 — that’s 34 years, and counting. During that time, its design got wired into the public’s collective mind in all sorts of ways, associated with great achievements (at various motor races or in one’s personal life), high-profile events like Formula 1®, and all the rest of it… But that’s not what makes the Daytona special on an ordinary Tuesday morning. Over the time it’s spent under the providence of Rolex, every small and large detail has slowly come together into a singular whole that gives off a sense of status, timelessness, and a sensation of it being “the real thing.” That’s what 34 years of repetition can do. And that’s true whether one likes the watch, or not.

 14,500.00  17,000.00


We have extensively covered the scarcity of certain watches, the Rolex Daytona included, here on aBlogtoWatch. Today, we’ll talk about the lesser-known nuances of one of the key suspects, the watch itself that lies behind all that madness. The rare opportunity presented itself for me to spend a fair bit of time wearing the highly desirable, widely recognized yet seldom fully experienced Rolex Daytona 116500LN with an affectionately nicknamed “Panda” dial. Here are five ways the Rolex Daytona watch is a better (and worse) watch than you might expect.

Better: Wearing Comfort

The Rolex Daytona is more comfortable than the majority of other steel-bracelet chronograph watches out there. It’s not yet perfect — stay tuned to learn how it could do better in the “worse” segments below — but it does not require perfection to outperform almost all the other steel chronographs. How so? First, the bar isn’t set very high by the majority of steel chronographs, to begin with; they can be heavy, thick, and ungainly, often offered on generic straps or bracelets not designed to handle the watches’ bulk. The Rolex Daytona is one of the thinnest self-winding chronograph watches in production today. At just 12mm-thick, it’s thinner than most dive watches (the Rolex Submariner is 13mm thick), let alone chronographs. This aids comfort in all sorts of ways: The low profile helps minimize wobble, keeps the watch from getting caught on sleeves and obstacles all the time, and, as a bonus, it adds a noticeably more refined aesthetic, too. Second, the 116500LN has a three-link Oyster bracelet with just the right width, weight, and integration to support the watch head comfortably. Third, neither the bracelet nor the clasp has any sharp edges anywhere — not even the underside of the lugs.


Based on 0 reviews

0.0 overall

Be the first to review “Five Ways The Rolex Daytona Is A Better (And Worse) Watch Than You Might Expect | aBlogtoWatch”

There are no reviews yet.