SS Daytona Dials hard to read

[trumpedaces]

I have the new Black dial SS Daytona and I have the same issue. I almost find the piece too shiny. It really takes the right light to make the dial pop. See photos below. It's beautiful in the right light, but in less than optimal light it shines and washes out.

[anothernewphone]

Those are some really good shots, trumpedaces. I think it's hard to read depending on where the hands line up with the subdials, but I think it's less of an issue when you're actually reading the watch vs looking at a picture of the dial. If I know it's somewhere between 10 and 12, my eyes are automatically drawn to that part of the dial, making it easier to distinguish what time it is. It's not super-legible like a diver, but it isn't terrible. I've yet to wear one for more than a minute or two though, so I can't speak to it all that much.

[trumpedaces]

Originally Posted by anothernewphone

Those are some really good shots, trumpedaces. I think it's hard to read depending on where the hands line up with the subdials, but I think it's less of an issue when you're actually reading the watch vs looking at a picture of the dial. If I know it's somewhere between 10 and 12, my eyes are automatically drawn to that part of the dial, making it easier to distinguish what time it is. It's not super-legible like a diver, but it isn't terrible. I've yet to wear one for more than a minute or two though, so I can't speak to it all that much.

Thanks! I think you follow me on IG @horologyandtechnology

[Jake B]

I can see mine just fine, all the time. Maybe get some glasses?

[Andad]

I have no problem reading the time on my white dial.

Like Richard said - if you can't read it at a glance spend more time staring at it.

[WWC]

I think the lighting and the angle makes a big difference. The second picture reading 5:16 is hard to read compared to the first picture. I love it's history and how iconic it is but the legibility issue is a concern impeding me from making a trade with my LVc.

After all a watch is to tell time right?


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

[locutus49]

Look, this is simple: A SubC will ALWAYS be more visible than any chronograph, especially at night. Simpler dial, larger batons, more lume, etc.

But they are different watches. Daytona have a complication. Complications mean the wearer has to process more information. Look at the Pateks people buy and prize. It takes me a couple minutes to figure out the dials, but that is why they are called complications Yet people don't trash Pateks, some of which are harder to read than Daytonas.

If you want a chrono, buy a Daytona or Tudor or whatever. If you have bad eyesight, buy glasses or contacts, or get lasik.

If your only goal to to see the time without any distraction in all conditions, stick with a Sub.

My decision was to reject the either/or proposition and buy both. But it is your choice.

Originally Posted by WWC

I think the lighting and the angle makes a big difference. The second picture reading 5:16 is hard to read compared to the first picture. I love it's history and how iconic it is but the legibility issue is a concern impeding me from making a trade with my LVc.

After all a watch is to tell time right?


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

[Xenophon]

I found my white dial Cosmograph particularly difficult to read except in bight daylight which is one of the reasons why I got rid of it. It is a beautiful watch though.

[WWC]

Originally Posted by locutus49

Look, this is simple: A SubC will ALWAYS be more visible than any chronograph, especially at night. Simpler dial, larger batons, more lume, etc.

But they are different watches. Daytona have a complication. Complications mean the wearer has to process more information. Look at the Pateks people buy and prize. It takes me a couple minutes to figure out the dials, but that is why they are called complications Yet people don't trash Pateks, some of which are harder to read than Daytonas.

If you want a chrono, buy a Daytona or Tudor or whatever. If you have bad eyesight, buy glasses or contacts, or get lasik.

If your only goal to to see the time without any distraction in all conditions, stick with a Sub.

My decision was to reject the either/or proposition and buy both. But it is your choice.

Sounds like you're offended by what I said but I just stated my opinion about the two pics I saw and that's it

If you're trying to break the info into smaller pieces and tell me the sub is more legible than the daytona, well thanks

I'm not trashing the daytona as I think it's a gorgeous piece

[SSCosmo]

It seems to me that the issue of legibility with the SS Daytona needs to be separated into two parts - telling the time and reading the sub-dials. I have the SS white dial and I have no problems reading the time at a quick glance in reasonable lighting conditions. The sub-dials, however, are a different story. I don't think there can be any dispute that the tick marks and numbers on the sub-dials are unreadable, unless you're looking in the right lighting and/or at the right angle.

Nevertheless, I use the chrono function every day, and despite the fact that it takes some more time to read the sub-dials, I still love this watch. It just gives me more reason to stare at the watch and admire it.

[locutus49]

Sorry, I did not mean to attack you. Just breaking the issue down into smaller chunks.

But any long time TRF member will have to acknowledge that the Daytona is a frequent target of

1) criticism for small size,
2) feminine-looking,
3) and readability, not to mention
4) price,
5) use of precious metals on a tool watch,
6) lack of ceramic bezels on many models, etc.
7) Women are wearing them, thus making them less desirable to men

No watch I am aware of has been the victim of such vitriol.

I think much of it is herd instinct: one person launches an attack and others pile on. My personal feeling is that because of its reputation as an icon, people expect perfection, and look for anything they can call a flaw. But who knows?

But I will jump in and defend the Daytona. I guess I always have protected the underdog. Call me crazy.

Originally Posted by WWC

Sounds like you're offended by what I said but I just stated my opinion about the two pics I saw and that's it

If you're trying to break the info into smaller pieces and tell me the sub is more legible than the daytona, well thanks

I'm not trashing the daytona as I think it's a gorgeous piece

[GTS Dean]

I've owned my black dialed 16520 for 16 years and it is a rugged, handsome, accurate timepiece. Under normal lighting conditions, the hands are legible enough to tell time at a quick glance. However, the white gold subdial hands don't stand out when viewed from many angles. The hour and minute hands are beveled, and against the black dial background, they tend to reflect the blackness, rather than contrast against it. Often, I have to look for the tritium inserts to pick out the hands. Later model 4130 movements have substantially larger hands and lume plots, but problems do persist. Most probably don't realize it, but you actually have to move your elbow around quite a bit to find the optimum viewing angle to tell time or read the chrono dials. Also, for those who use the tach bezel, it's highly polished bevel surface also requires a lot of elbow jockeying to read the scale. At night in a car, or in a poorly lighted room, the Daytona practically ceases to be a useful timepiece. Too much bling and reflected glare to confuse the eye from telling time.

As for legibility, the Omega Speedmaster is unrivaled. It is THE iconic chronograph wristwatch. I wear my Speedy almost daily, followed by my GMT, TTOQ, then the Daytona.



Look at the photo and tell me if you can find the sweep seconds subdial hand on the Daytona.

____________________________
TT OysterQuartz
SS/Black "U" Daytona
TT GMT II-C
DD OysterQuartz
Breitling Aero
Omega Speedmaster Pro

[The Submariner]

Originally Posted by locutus49

Sorry, I did not mean to attack you. Just breaking the issue down into smaller chunks.

But any long time TRF member will have to acknowledge that the Daytona is a frequent target of

1) criticism for small size,
2) feminine-looking,
3) and readability, not to mention
4) price,
5) use of precious metals on a tool watch,
6) lack of ceramic bezels on many models, etc.
7) Women are wearing them, thus making them less desirable to men

No watch I am aware of has been the victim of such vitriol.

I think much of it is herd instinct: one person launches an attack and others pile on. My personal feeling is that because of its reputation as an icon, people expect perfection, and look for anything they can call a flaw. But who knows?

But I will jump in and defend the Daytona. I guess I always have protected the underdog. Call me crazy.

You have to admit all those reasons you listed are absolutely true...I believe that the Daytona is one of the best looking watches in macro pics but the least attractive in person.

It just needs to be made larger. That's the answer. Why Rolex would make other watches larger and not the one dial that has so much on it, is beyond me.

[The Submariner]

Originally Posted by GTS Dean

I've owned my black dialed 16520 for 16 years and it is a rugged, handsome, accurate timepiece. Under normal lighting conditions, the hands are legible enough to tell time at a quick glance. However, the white gold subdial hands don't stand out when viewed from many angles. The hour and minute hands are beveled, and against the black dial background, they tend to reflect the blackness, rather than contrast against it. Often, I have to look for the tritium inserts to pick out the hands. Later model 4130 movements have substantially larger hands and lume plots, but problems do persist. Most probably don't realize it, but you actually have to move your elbow around quite a bit to find the optimum viewing angle to tell time or read the chrono dials. Also, for those who use the tach bezel, it's highly polished bevel surface also requires a lot of elbow jockeying to read the scale. At night in a car, or in a poorly lighted room, the Daytona practically ceases to be a useful timepiece. Too much bling and reflected glare to confuse the eye from telling time.

As for legibility, the Omega Speedmaster is unrivaled. It is THE iconic chronograph wristwatch. I wear my Speedy almost daily, followed by my GMT, TTOQ, then the Daytona.



Look at the photo and tell me if you can find the sweep seconds subdial hand on the Daytona.

____________________________
TT OysterQuartz
SS/Black "U" Daytona
TT GMT II-C
DD OysterQuartz
Breitling Aero
Omega Speedmaster Pro

Lets face it...The Speedy is "Batman" and the Daytona is "Robin"

[Riff]

Originally Posted by subtona

Waited 20 years to get one ... Sold in less than 6 months because it was illegible for me.

Ps. I owned the white dial (V serial), I believe the black is even more challenging to read.

Btw. In the 20 years I was waiting for a Daytona to come my way I settled (at the time for my second choice) for a Submariner. In the end, I will always own diver submariner or sea dweller and appreciate it for its supreme legibility and simplified function of timing up to 60 minutes

Hi just to clarify as I’m looking myself. Was it the Submariner or Submariner date you went for?

[compounddavid]

Although I like larger watches I feel the Daytona size is perfect. I have SS Black and SS white. I can't read either one. Some of the gold ones are much more legible. I have a Tudor Black Bay Chrono in black, perfect for reading, but a little thick and the date(useless).

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[1665fan]

Originally Posted by locutus49

My WG meteorite dial is not easy to read compared to my Sub, but I can read it at a glance in any light. In the dark, not so much. But I knew that going in. I'm 64 and can read the dials okay, but the meteorite is probably the hardest to see clearly. But worth it, IMO.

OG meteorite unpolished!!!! We’ll done!

[amphr1]

The Daytona is definitely not as easy to read as a dive watch. I actually have to use a magnifier to set the time because, for me, it's hard to put the zenith style minute hand at the exact position. If the Daytona is my only chronograph I think I might have a problem with it. The moonwatch on the other hand is the exact opposite. Super easy to read. Matte hand and dial. High constrast.

[WatchGuy1966]

I agree the 116500 white dial is difficult to read. Some have no problem, but I (and many others) do.

[Ensign]

One of life’s cruelest ironies is that when we are young, most of us can’t afford a Daytona. By the time we can afford one, our eyes are too old to enjoy it.

[Ny325]

Never a fan of the Daytona.

[Strad]

Of the two stainless steel models, I find the white to be easier to read. However, I find that all the Daytona watches don't excel in readability.

I think you shouldn't have that much trouble reading hours/minutes. Reading the Chronograph is more challenging.

I find it a little difficult to set the minute hand so that it lines up perfectly as the second hand passes the 12. But that's just me and some people don't care.

There are other watches that are easier to read such as the Omega Moonwatch.

However, the Rolex Daytona is in a class by itself.

[S’portEye]

This is a very old thread.

[rambo99]

aesthetic and legibility is a trade of.

[CHRONOLEX]

I’ve been around long enough to remember when this thread was new

[hutch300]

I think it's funny for the new people. We are like come on pal, did you search. If they do and reply to an old thread we are like this is so old. Ha can't win unless you have box and papers bro.

[garyk]

I like these old threads. Use to read them with great interest. One of my oldest watches is my Porsche Design chronograph and no doubt one of my most easy to read along with my Speedmaster…but I love my Daytonas!







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DLRIDES]

Holy 2014 Batman !