STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
I think you and I will have to agree to disagree. Your initial point seemed to be that the gold Daytona was a better choice than the AP RO Chrono in gold. You are saying that the AP wins as a piece of jewelry, however if we still with your original premise...both are pieces of jewelry once you go from all steel to all gold. There is no horologic value in going from a steel Daytona or steel AP to all gold...its jewelry and its priced that way. However, before you discount what the AP offers as merely jewlery vs. horology, I think one has to consider the entire watch...not merely the movement. Afterall, the Daytona's case is pretty straight forward. There are no real innovations, and nothing unusually difficult about making that case (its a basic round shaped case). However, there is a lot more engineering into making the case of the Royal Oak. Its shape is more intricate, but beyond that the rubber gaskets used and sandwiched in its case and bezel using its hexagonal bolts to make a secure closure...well I think that is horology, engineering, and art. As for the movement, that fact that something isn't in house doesn't make or break something IMHO, provided its a high quality movement. I don't think anyone would say, well Patek's 5070 isn't as good as a 5980, because the 5070 used a Lemania based movement, which one can also find in a VC Historiques Chronograph. Again I think we will just have to agree to disagree.I happily own and enjoy both chronos, a RO and Daytona (with a 4130 mvmt)
The finish on the RO, especially the dial and bracelet, is certainly in a different class than the Daytona, no question. What it comes down to, in my view, is as a piece of jewelry, the AP wins. As a piece of horology, I don't think it does.
I am familiar with what was going on back then, and as it happens I paid about 40% more for my Daytona than for my RO Chrono when I bought each (within about the same 18 month period) in the early 00s. This was very shortly after the 4130 mvmt was introduced. No regrets.
Regards,
Thanks Stitch.great stuff, dino. any thoughts though on the 15202 vs the 15400?
Hi Stitchy,awesome. thanks so much for sharing that, dino. i know its discontinued, but what are your thoughts on the 15300 while we are at it?
yes sir, and thank you. it is a happy new year for me and between this and the JLC i think i am done for awhile.
Anyone have any thoughts on the Rolex GMT Black and Blue? Been thinking about a beefier watch than my Nautilus and miss my Rolex...
I can't decide whether I love it or hate it.
@TC (Houston)
Tc sorry if i missed the news. Did the stagecoach get through?
It's been a long time since I've visited the thread, but I just wanted to say that I do like that watch. When did Rolex start selling this version?
-LR
I think you and I will have to agree to disagree. Your initial point seemed to be that the gold Daytona was a better choice than the AP RO Chrono in gold. You are saying that the AP wins as a piece of jewelry, however if we still with your original premise...both are pieces of jewelry once you go from all steel to all gold. There is no horologic value in going from a steel Daytona or steel AP to all gold...its jewelry and its priced that way. However, before you discount what the AP offers as merely jewlery vs. horology, I think one has to consider the entire watch...not merely the movement. Afterall, the Daytona's case is pretty straight forward. There are no real innovations, and nothing unusually difficult about making that case (its a basic round shaped case). However, there is a lot more engineering into making the case of the Royal Oak. Its shape is more intricate, but beyond that the rubber gaskets used and sandwiched in its case and bezel using its hexagonal bolts to make a secure closure...well I think that is horology, engineering, and art. As for the movement, that fact that something isn't in house doesn't make or break something IMHO, provided its a high quality movement. I don't think anyone would say, well Patek's 5070 isn't as good as a 5980, because the 5070 used a Lemania based movement, which one can also find in a VC Historiques Chronograph. Again I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
Now, In my eyes that's an amazing watch. I have wanted this watch for years, just haven't found the right one yet.Hi Guys, I realized I've never shared photos of this piece so I figured I'd post a few here. This was my grail watch in the 1990s. Its a stainless steel ref 16520 Rolex Daytona with the Zenith El Primero based movement, which after numerous modifications became cal 4030. It took me 2 years to track one down from a dealer willing to sell a new one at list price. Back then demand was much higher than supply so waiting lists were many years long and many dealers were asking anywhere from a 50% premium to double the MSRP for one of these. I was in law school at the time and sold a steel Submariner to pay for part of it. Lets just say I ate a lot of ramen noodles after that purchase, but it was well worth it! I have a modern 116250 with Rolex movement, which is a great watch, but this one is still my favorite.
its less than a year that it has been available for sale i believe.
its less than a year that it has been available for sale i believe.
correct.........debuted at Basel 2013.
Although it's gorgeous, my problem with this watch (and the ceramic submariner) is that Rolex will soon price themselves into a tough spot. Almost $10K for a stainless steel watch? If i'm spending that much it'd better have some sort of precious metals or diamond markers.