A lesson in the Daytonas evolution!

[cruvon]

Came across this article on Hodinkee that describes the evolution of the Daytona from 1963 upto it's current inhouse movement variant, enjoy

PS: Might be better off clicking on the links below for the 3 parts since the text has images too, just posted the text here for your convenience and re referencing it later!


PART1

A Vintage Watch Nerd's Critical Dissection Of The Rolex Daytona, Past To Present (Part 1/3)

Ask an experienced watch collector the following question: If you had to sell all your watches and live with just one watch, what would it be? No matter how extensive, high-end, or sophisticated his or her collection maybe, chances are high the immediate reply you’ll receive is, “A Rolex Daytona”.

Why, you ask? It’s an iconic, legendary model from the world’s most well-known luxury watch brand, with a timeless design that’s evolved subtly since it was originally introduced nearly 50 years ago in 1963.

With a robust movement equipped with a highly useful chronograph complication, it’s made to be worn daily. Housed in a nearly bulletproof “Oyster” case, it’s tough-as-nails, built to last several generations. Versatile styling makes it suitable for nearly all dress occasions – looking great with jeans or a suit. On top of all that, its resale value is about as good as it gets in the world of watches. The Daytona is a compelling watch if one must boil their collection down to one. Problem is, they’re not easily obtained.


Nearly 25 years after the introduction of the first self-winding Daytona, versions in stainless steel remain one of the most difficult watches to buy new from an authorized dealer. A prize that’s typically reserved for a dealer’s best clients, every authorized dealer I’ve spoken with has claimed a waiting list ranging from one to five years.

Fortunately for me, thanks to Fourtané Jewelers of Carmel, CA, a world class Rolex authorized dealer that also specializes in vintage Rolex watches, I was able to get my hands on a brand new stainless steel version, fitted with a black dial – my favorite configuration. On loan to me for a week, I’ll share with you some impressions from the perspective of a vintage Rolex fan.

But first, let’s take a look at the gradual evolution and incremental changes leading up to today’s modern version…

The Evolution

The fifth line of text at 12 o’clock on the dial makes it clear the Daytona is actually a “Cosmograph”, and a direct descendent of Rolex’s first Cosmograph chronograph, the reference 6239. Introduced in 1963, legend has it that its name was inspired by society’s fascination with space travel.


The successor to a long-line of chronographs housed in “Oyster”-type cases produced since 1939, the reference 6239 Cosmograph introduced two important aesthetic changes to Rolex’s chronograph dials. The first was the use of inverse color schemes for the main dial and subsidiary dials – a variant with black dial and white sub-dials, and a second variant with white dial and black sub-dials. The result was a much sportier, aggressive look compared with the monochromatic dials used on all prior Rolex chronograph wristwatches.


The second major change was the removal of the printed tachymetric scale usually found on a dial’s outer circumference. Instead, Rolex engraved the tachymeter on the 6239’s bezel. The two changes, it’s believed, were made in order to improve the legibility of the chronograph’s indicators.

​A 1963 Rolex Cosmograph Ref 6239 - Notice the hashed bezel to 300 units per hour and cream colored dial - both traits of the very early Daytonas


​One year later, in 1964, Rolex introduced the “Daytona” signature on the Cosmograph’s dial, signifying the brand’s sponsorship of the annual 24 Hours of Daytona race held in Daytona Beach, Florida. Now known as the Rolex 24 at Daytona, Rolex's sponsorship of this sports car endurance race began two years prior in 1962. The signature was first placed at 12 o’clock, under the word “Cosmograph”, then by 1967, it migrated to its current position – above the sub-dial at 6 o’clock.

​
​The Cosmograph Daytona’s (Daytona for short from now on) next significant evolution came in 1965, when Rolex introduced screw-down chronograph pushers in place of pump pushers, with the reference 6240 “Oyster” Daytona. Providing an increase in water resistance capability, when screwed down, the pushers prevent the actuation of the chronograph underwater – a sure-fire way to get water into the movement.


Through approximately 1987, the Daytona remained largely unchanged, outside of some minor updates to the manual-winding, Valjoux-sourced chronograph caliber ticking inside. Based on the reliable and well-made Valjoux caliber 72, the fact that it was manual winding was the Daytona’s Achilles heel. In an era of quartz-based ease and accuracy, buyers did not like the hassle of winding the watch daily to keep it running – especially with the added inconvenience of a screw-down winding crown! As a result, these manually-wound Daytonas saw little demand, and were slow sellers subject to significant discounts.



​The El Primero Years


Finally, in 1988, Rolex introduced a self-winding Daytona, the reference 16520 using a movement based on the Zenith Caliber 400, originally introduced in 1969, but discontinued for several years until its production was restarted in 1986.

​A great movement as manufactured by Zenith, it was the industry’s only self-winding chronograph movement that met Rolex’s high quality standards. Even so, Rolex extensively modified the caliber to its own specification, including:

- A new escapement with a much larger, freely sprung balance and balance spring with Breguet overcoil - a preferred, and more costly configuration for Rolex that leads to higher accuracy.

- A reduction in the balance's oscillation rate from a speedy 36,000 beats per hour to a more relaxed 28,800 beats per houre - requiring less frequent service.

- Elimination of the date function.


Retaining just 50% of the Zenith caliber 400's parts, the final result was the Rolex caliber 4030​.

With the reference 16520 came the introduction of a sapphire crystal and several aesthetic changes from the prior generation. Influenced by Rolex’s other contemporary sports watches like the Submariner, the case diameter grew from 37 mm to 40 mm. The surfaces of the dials were now lacquered and glossy versus matte (black) or metallic (silver), and were adorned with applied metal hour markers inlaid with luminous material. Finally, the sub-dials featured a thin outer track of an opposing color, each ringed with a metallic edge.


The sum of these changes evolved the Daytona from a functional, subdued tool watch to an impressive statement piece.

It was an immediate success. Rolex’s timing was perfect – wristwatch collecting was at an all-time high in 1988. With the discontinuation of the manually wound Daytonas, and the excitement surrounding the 16520’s launch, the demand for both models skyrocketed. Dealers and enthusiasts quickly began hoarding the new model, which was produced in limited numbers due to the use of an outsourced movement. They could only be purchased through secondary channels, at prices up to double the suggested retail.

Even though the 16520 incorporated a new movement and was by all measures a spectacular success, for Rolex, one significant weakness remained. Unlike all other movements used by Rolex at the time, the caliber 4030 was not a 100% in-house design. The Daytona, therefore, was the last model in Rolex’s collection to be fitted with a foreign-sourced caliber. Twelve years later, this situation finally was rectified.




PART2

A Vintage Watch Nerd's Critical Dissection Of The Rolex Daytona, Past To Present (Part 2/3)
Rolex's reference 116520 was introduced in 2000, housing the caliber 4130.

At​ the BaselWorld fair of 2000, Rolex introduced a new Daytona - the reference 116520 - and with it, its first completely new in-house movement in over 50 years – a fully integrated, self-winding chronograph for the Daytona - the caliber 4130. (For an explanation of the Valjoux 72 based Daytona movement as we all as the Zenith-based caliber 4030 Daytona movement, please refer to part one of this series.)

The product of five years of development, it was masterfully designed for improved robustness, efficiency, accuracy, and serviceability. Rolex’s use of a high-performance “vertical clutch” chronograph coupling mechanism was a key enabler. A brief explanation…

​Rolex didn't produce an in-house chronograph movement until BaselWorld 2000

Consider a chronograph mechanism as a separate subsystem, which, through a “clutch”, is coupled to the movement to power the chronograph’s indicators once activated. The most widely used is a “lateral clutch”, as was found on all prior movements used in Rolex’s chronograph watches. Lateral clutch-based chronographs work well in general, and are visually very appealing; however they have a couple significant disadvantages: 1. Loss of amplitude in the balance wheel’s oscillation when the chronograph is engaged, affecting timekeeping accuracy, and 2. Backlash. When the chronograph is either started or stopped, the chronograph seconds hand typically hops, or jumps, due to the imperfect, mis-aligned mating of the lateral clutch’s gear with the teeth of the movement’s driving gear.

By design, the 4130’s vertically coupled approach enables absolutely precise starts and stops of the chronograph seconds hand. When started, stopped, or reset, no unwanted jitters are seen on any of the watch’s hands. The vertical clutch also allows the chronograph to run continuously for extended periods, with no impact on timekeeping accuracy. Understanding Rolex’s longstanding, noble pursuit of maximum timekeeping accuracy, their decision to use a vertical clutch makes sense.

Smart design features are found throughout. Rolex greatly simplified the chronograph’s counter system (the hour and minute counters), integrating what used to be two separate mechanisms on two sides of the movement into one unit occupying significantly less space. Rolex used this freed up space to increase the size of the mainspring barrel – providing 72 hours of power reserve versus the caliber 4030’s 54 hours. Rolex also increased the size of the balance wheel for improved timekeeping accuracy. The balance wheel is mounted to a full bridge, fixed securely on two sides for much improved shock and vibration resistance.


​Note the increased size of the caliber 4130's balance wheel, fixed to two sides for improved shock resistance.

Compared with the 4030, the 4130 is much easier to service. A few little known “insider” facts:

- The 4130 uses 12 different screws versus more than 40 found inside the 4030.

- The 4130 has roughly 20% fewer parts than the 4030, which yes, is a good thing.

- The 4130’s vertical clutch is serviceable, unlike the vertical clutches used by other, competing and very well-known brands. It is routinely re-lubricated during servicing, but can be disassembled and repaired as well. The alternative, unserviceable vertical clutches, are untouched during servicing. They’re reinstalled as is, and become, in the words of an experienced watchmaker friend, “basically time bombs which will, of course, eventually fail”.

- The 4130’s mainspring can be replaced without taking the movement out of the case. A 4030, on the other hand, requires a full overhaul in order to replace the mainspring.

- All of the 4130’s chronograph parts are on the movement side – only one eccentric (e.g., difficult) is required. The 4030, with three horizontal clutches spanning both sides of the movement, requires up to five different eccentric adjustments to function properly.

- The 4130’s automatic winding mechanism winds 68% more efficiently than the 4030’s, and is equipped with more reliable reversers compared with the 4030, which uses a complicated reverser that is prone to sticking.


Many respected watchmakers will confirm: The caliber 4130 set a new benchmark among high-end, self-winding chronograph movements.

Upon first glance, the 116520 appears largely unchanged from the 16520. A closer look shows some subtle but important aesthetic changes to the dial, making the caliber 4130-equipped 116520 both easy to distinguish and extremely difficult for forgers to accurately fake. The seconds indication sub-dial was moved from the 9 o’clock position to the 6 o’clock sub-dial. Now, the chronograph’s hour register was placed in-line with the 30-minute register – and both of these sub-dials were raised above the center axis of the dial by an angle of 7 degrees.

Other minor changes include the use of wider luminous hour indices, slightly longer case lugs, and mirror polishing used on the top-side of the case versus a brushed finish used on all prior stainless Daytonas.



PART3

A Vintage Watch Nerd's Critical Dissection Of The Rolex Daytona, Past To Present (Part 3/3)

Wearing the Daytona

For one week, I had the pleasure of wearing the 116520 Rolex Daytona. The very first post 2000-made modern Rolex I’ve had the opportunity to wear for an extended period of time, I was a bit worried I’d find it too big, too heavy, or too flashy.

Key to my enjoyment of a watch is its wearing comfort. My initial concerns on the Daytona’s size and weight quickly disappeared. The case with its long, steeply curved lugs, fit my wrist with glove-like comfort. Likewise, the Oyster-style bracelet was equally comfortable, with its taut yet supple solid steel links. A major improvement over the vintage Rolex bracelets I’m accustomed to, the craftsmanship, functionality, and quality truly impressed me. So enjoyable was the process of locking and unlocking of the innovative “Oysterlock” clasp, I found myself taking the watch on and off several times each day to experience its precise, smooth operation. The bracelet is that well made.

Timekeeping accuracy, over the course of seven days, was superb. The rate performance ranged from +1 second over 24 hours to +3 seconds over 24 hours. Most impressively, these rates were achieved with frequent use of the chronograph – starting, stopping, and resetting it throughout each day. The fact that it was a new, factory fresh watch certainly is a factor behind this performance. But really, the main reason is the high-quality escapement – the timekeeping heart of the watch. Rolex designed it for maximum accuracy with its large balance wheel and state-of-the-art, Rolex-made Parachrom balance spring. True to expectations, there were no jitters in any of the watch’s hands when operating the chronograph – thanks to the vertical clutch. Awesome.

Speaking of operating the chronograph, the tactile feel of actuating each pusher was crisp and assured, with just the right amount of tension. You immediately get the sense this is a well-made machine – the feedback is comparable to chronographs with significantly higher retail prices. There is one downside I noted: The screw-down pushers are rather inconvenient. Though aesthetically, they look great (when screwed down), having to first unscrew each before use is annoying. Yes, they can be left in the unscrewed position, particularly if the watch will not be used underwater, but they look less attractive to my eyes. Perhaps the elimination of the screw-down pusher becomes the next evolutionary step in the Daytona line? I hope so!

The glossy black dial and contrasting, silver-ringed metallic sub-dials, combined with the high-polished lugs, bezel, and central bracelet links make the watch highly noticeable. Adding a bit more shine is the highly reflective, flat sapphire crystal, which I wish was domed like the acrylic crystals used by Rolex in the past.

The wide metallic rings encircling each sub-dial give the watch a lower-end look – the least appealing design feature on the dial, in my opinion. When compared with vintage, manual-winding Daytonas, the 116520’s aesthetic leans more towards a status-symbol than the more Spartan and modest reference 6263. Overall, the flashiness was not over-the-top, however, making the watch appealing to vintage watch fans like me.

So…would I buy this modern Daytona? Well, by day two of seven, I was sold. I submitted an offer to Fourtané to try to buy it. Their response was expected: “Sorry, we have a waiting list for it, and we do not discount.”

Pros

+ Outstanding movement – among the industry’s best self-winding chronographs

+ Superb, high-quality bracelet and clasp

+ Classic, versatile styling

+ High accuracy – unaffected by chronograph’s operation

+ High power reserve, even with chronograph activated


CONS​



- Screw down pushers limit accessibility to chronograph function

- Metallic regions within sub-dials look lower-end

- Flat, raised sapphire crystal


http://www.hodinkee.com/a-vintage-wa...esent-part-1-3

http://www.hodinkee.com/a-vintage-wa...-present-pt-23

http://www.hodinkee.com/a-vintage-wa...resent-part-33

[Kiwinz]

Fantastic info, Thanks for sharing.

[cruvon]

Originally Posted by Kiwinz

Fantastic info, Thanks for sharing.

Cheers Mario!

[Steelgold]

Great article! Thanks for sharing with us.

[Keeperoftime]

I wouldn't sell all of my watches for a Daytona....

Are they cool? Yes.

I'D rather own a 8171, 6062

Interesting read though. Thanks for sharing

[imono]

I know little about Daytonas.
Now I know a lot!

[conrail]

Interesting read. I certainly agree that if I could only have one watch, you'd be hard-pressed to get me away from a Daytona, especially a 16520.

However this statement is just completely wrong: "Problem is, they’re not easily obtained. Nearly 25 years after the introduction of the first self-winding Daytona, versions in stainless steel remain one of the most difficult watches to buy new from an authorized dealer. " That's laughable in 2012. And if for some reason you ABSOLUTELY have to have a brand new shiny one with box, papers, etc., you're a fool to sit on an AD's waiting list when there are brand new ones for sale on the secondary market at reasonable prices from reputable sellers.

[vintagewaferthin]

Originally Posted by Keeperoftime

I wouldn't sell all of my watches for a Daytona....

Are they cool? Yes.

I'D rather own a 8171, 6062

Interesting read though. Thanks for sharing

I feel exactly the same. I love the looks of a vintage Daytona, however I love the solid gold 6062s and would much rather have one of those on my wrist than a vintage Daytona.

[cruvon]

Cheers guys, glad you'll found it informative as I did. True, I too never understood the waiting list for SS Daytonas at AD's when they are readily available as gray or sparingly used in abundance and at no huge premium. Would I craze behind a vintage Daytona, must admit they do have a unexpicable charm around them:)

[conrail]

Originally Posted by cruvon

Cheers guys, gald you'll found it informative as I did. True, I too never understood the waiting list for SS Daytonas at AD's when they are readily available as gray or sparingly used in abundance and at no huge premium. Would I craze behind a vintage Daytona, must admit they do have a unexpicable charm around them:)

They must be re-using old stock text from their libraries :)

There is some certain charm about a vintage Daytona that has been copied by everyone, but no one can duplicate the feeling evoked.

[mrarchiegoodwin]

Thank you for this highly informative post. I was reading to learn, but did not feel the Daytona is for me. However I finally saw some today and they are different in person than in the pictures. I especially liked the oldest one of the bunch (manual wind version). Now I have added another Rolex for my list.