Royal Oak 15450ST durability vs Rolex 36 WG Day Date

[dexvd]

I've heard that the bezels of the Royal Oaks can be scratch magnets but as compared to the Rolex they are steel as compared to the softer white gold, so I'm thinking the Day date may be just as bad or worse for showing signs of wear after day to day wearing over the course of years.
I understand the Day Date has more water resistance but I don't intend to swim or play tennis or golf with the watch on for that matter, so I'm thinking the 50m of the Royal Oak would be sufficient for hand washing, being in the rain, etc.
Rolex are known for rock solid construction, are the issues with the crown and stem breaking on Royal Oaks not present in the newer movement of the 15450?

Any thoughts on this comparison? Both have beautiful bracelets and the pre-owned market for the 18239 and 15450ST are similar. They both seem pretty versatile for wearing with polo and shorts up to a suit.... I have plenty of other watches (Rolex and Omega) that are more sporty and more casual but I guess I am looking to have a "main watch" or "grail watch" that I always want to reach for regardless of the day or what I am wearing and while I'm not intending to use it for spelunking, something durable enough to not look beat 5 years into ownership.

[///armin]

I own a WG Daytona and a Royal Oak, the finish on AP's Royal Oak is in no way more prone to scratches compared to my WG Daytona. Since AP has a brushed look, you will not really see very fine scratches. With WG when you look at it under direct sun specially, there are hundreds of small tiny scratches similar to swirl marks on cars, that's because its a shiny finish.

[dexvd]

Originally Posted by ///armin

I own a WG Daytona and a Royal Oak, the finish on AP's Royal Oak is in no way more prone to scratches compared to my WG Daytona. Since AP has a brushed look, you will not really see very fine scratches. With WG when you look at it under direct sun specially, there are hundreds of small tiny scratches similar to swirl marks on cars, that's because its a shiny finish.

Thanks, I figured that would be the case, that it was more that ROs were scratch magnets compared to SS Rolex watches but likely less wear prone than white gold Rolex. I don't want to be cringing every time I accidentally brush my watch up against a wall, door casing or counter top.

[WatchingAustin]

Originally Posted by dexvd

Thanks, I figured that would be the case, that it was more that ROs were scratch magnets compared to SS Rolex watches but likely less wear prone than white gold Rolex. I don't want to be cringing every time I accidentally brush my watch up against a wall, door casing or counter top.

I've come to realize that this is just up to the person, regardless of watch they are wearing. My buddy has a YG ROC and is very harsh with it. I cannot bear to scratch my 15202.

DD is the beater of the two.

[dexvd]

Originally Posted by WatchingAustin

I've come to realize that this is just up to the person, regardless of watch they are wearing. My buddy has a YG ROC and is very harsh with it. I cannot bear to scratch my 15202.

DD is the beater of the two.

What do you mean by that, "DD is the beater"? You think its the more durable watch overall or that its a beater (not as good) compared to the Royal Oak? I would think scratch for scratch a DD would have deeper scratches than the same scratches on a Royal oak as well the gold is just softer...

[Tomas Eriksson]

I used to have a daydate 118209 and hat one scratched much easier than any of my steel APs. Gold picks up hairlines from clothing.

[Manofsteelpt]

Rolex are scratch magnets... there's a thread in the Rolex section noting a guy that has his GMT all scratched up just from wearing his jacket.

My WG Daytona looked like it spent some time in a blender after a year of owning it. Both my APs are still in excellent condition.