The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre,

[Dino944]

Post pics!
I know the Speedy / Daytona debate has been done to death. For me they are both beautiful iconic watches (although often in different price brackets) and it merely comes down to which is the more aesthetically pleasing for me.

Both are great watches with interesting histories, and strong followings among collectors. There is no right or wrong answer. Most people don't actually need a chronograph. Choosing the one that is more aesthetically pleasing to you is as good a reason as any. Wishing you luck with your next addition. Cheers!

 

[Keith T]

That Nomos is really good.

Yep. And don't sleep on that Zenith, either!

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

I thought long and hard about a Moonwatch but the Daytona edges it for me plus I already have a black face chrono (Autavia reissue) that has the extra utility of a date window and second time zone bezel. I know the Speedy / Daytona debate has been done to death. For me they are both beautiful iconic watches (although often in different price brackets) and it merely comes down to which is the more aesthetically pleasing for me.

A plea for the Speedy: You will add some variety to your collection with a manual-wind. The Speedy started off as a car racing watch and became a space flight icon, so you have those two categories covered. I suggest the 60th Anniversary Speedy if you can find it (and stomach the upcharge over retail).

 

[Belligero]

Counterpoint:

 

[Mr. Moo]

How are we comparing watches that are at least 3 price brackets apart?

 

[Thin White Duke]

How are we comparing watches that are at least 3 price brackets apart?

Well I did include that point in my musings but they are both top class chronos and if what I read was true the Daytona was named ‘cosmograph’ as it was in the frame to be the official space watch but the Speedy pipped it in the final rounds of selection. It may have been because the manual movement was seen as less susceptible to the whims of zero gravity but I’m happy to be corrected by those who know more.
Anyway like I said the debate has been done to death and everyone is entitled to their preference. Either one will always get a nod of appreciation from watch enthusiasts.

(Anyone ready to do a deal for a white face 116520 like that which Belligro posted PM me!)

 

[firenze_rob]

How are we comparing watches that are at least 3 price brackets apart?

This wasn’t always the case. See 60s advertisements below for the Moonwatch and Daytona. A Speedmaster retailed for $185 USD and the Daytona (née Le Mans) was $210.

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

Man, if I had a time machine, first thing I would do is buy up all the manual-wind Daytona’s I could find.

 

[Dino944]

Well I did include that point in my musings but they are both top class chronos and if what I read was true the Daytona was named ‘cosmograph’ as it was in the frame to be the official space watch but the Speedy pipped it in the final rounds of selection. It may have been because the manual movement was seen as less susceptible to the whims of zero gravity but I’m happy to be corrected by those who know more.
Anyway like I said the debate has been done to death and everyone is entitled to their preference. Either one will always get a nod of appreciation from watch enthusiasts.

Not quite accurate at least based on my past research on Daytonas. The name Cosmograph was originally used on a Rolex made in the 1950s which had a moonphase function. Supposedly, the "Cosmo" part of the name had to do with the watch tracking the moon and is a refernce to the cosmos. Production of the original Cosmograph only lasted a few years in the 1950s, and the name was shelved until 1962 when Rolex came out with what we commonly refer to as the manual wind Daytonas such as the 6239/6240/6263/6265 etc.

As for NASA choosing the Speedy over the Daytona both were manual winds back then. So it has nothing to do with them feeling a manual wind is less susceptible to the affects of zero gravity. Actually, astronauts have actually worn their own person GMT Master's in space, they just manually wound them. IIRC NASA only tested a Rolex Cosmograph once around 1963 and it stopped and restarted during a high humidity test, and the hands warped and got stuck together in a high heat test. Regardless, it is important to remember that neither today's Speedy Pro nor today's Daytona use the same movements that were used in the 60s (and today's Daytonas use a different case, a different crystal, different pushers, and have much higher water resistance than the Daytonas of the 1960s through the late 80s).

Again, both are icons in the world of wrist watches, and either makes a fine addition to any collection.

Man, if I had a time machine, first thing I would do is buy up all the manual-wind Daytona’s I could find.

Funny thing is no one wanted manual wind Daytonas when they were new. Dealers struggled to sell them. Daytonas started to become popular once Rolex introduced their first automatic Daytona around 1988 (and when I believe some Italian collectors notice Paul Newman wore one, Italy was one of the first markets to start buying up Daytonas). However, even some of the less vintage Daytonas have increased in value drastically in the last 18 months or so. You could get a 116520 for around $6K in 2004/2005...today I see them going for more than twice that amount...and the previous model with a black dial and the Patrizzi effect/defect (depending on how you view it) are easily seeing over $30K and those retailed for between $4,350 and $5,100 depending on the year they were purchased.

 

[Thin White Duke]

Interesting stuff Dino cheers.
You are dead right about the 116520 jumping in value recently. That’s why I need to get one sorted pronto!

 

[HEPennypacker]

Latest acquisition. The original.

 

[ShawnBC]

@HEPennypacker love the Datograph line! One thing I can't get off my mind is the fact that ALS chose not to fill the left date window with a "0" for the 9 first days of the month, ex.: "01, 02, 03..." instead of "_1, _2, _3...".

I wonder what is the rationale behind the decision. Coming from ALS, I'm guessing it was much more than a mere stylistic choice.

On another note, the sight of the movement surely alleviate my gripe with the date concern!

 

[HEPennypacker]

@ShawnBC, I agree that having a zero instead of a blank would add greater balance to the dial. But it honestly doesn't bother me.

I also like the Roman numerals on the original (a point of contention here). To me, it's a perfectly fitting, superfluous nod to tradition that a company making watches by hand in a small village in Germany would include.

 

[Dino944]

@ShawnBC, I agree that having a zero instead of a blank would add greater balance to the dial. But it honestly doesn't bother me.

I also like the Roman numerals on the original (a point of contention here). To me, it's a perfectly fitting, superfluous nod to tradition that a company making watches by hand in a small village in Germany would include.

Yes, I'm one of those people who has never been a fan of the use of Romans on the Datograph, but it is still a great watch with a fantastic movement! Cheers!

 

[atia2]

Roman numerals on a precision time measuring device seem incongruous to me, but I approve wholeheartedly of the blank date window. It invites us to ponder how reality does not always share our symmetric ideals.