Daytona. 116500 black dial or 116520 white dial

[Captainbob]

Hi all,
I want a new daily watch and have decided to trade my Milgauss for a Daytona.

I’m torn between 2 models - black dial 116500 or 116520 white dial.

I find the contrast between the ceramic bezel on white dial 116500 too much compared with the black dial which just seems to gel better with the bezel.

116520 white dial works nicely with steel bezel.

Has anyone owned both and able to provide a viewpoint.

Without getting into crazy money for 116520 variants is anyone able to provide an insight into interesting variants of the 116520 to look out for.

[bob101]

Hello fellow Bob,

I have owned both as well as black dial 116520 and much prefer the 116520 with white dial. The white dial to me is much more legible and has an enamel style finish to it which looks much more attractive in my opinion.
Having owned both I am more drawn to the classic discontinued steel bezel than the ceramic bezel on
the 116500.
I also feel the 116520 is a good investment piece (has gone up around 6-7k gbp since discontinued by the looks of market prices) and has some interesting dial variations as you mention such as the APH dial, tall 0 and serif variations identified in the excellent forum post here. Some people mention a rare cream looking 116520 dial but I haven’t seen this and would be interested to find out more about it.
From a collection point of view I personally am not that concerned whether APH or not given the APH dial seems to have been produced for a number of years from around 2009 to quite late on and doesn’t seem a rare dial.
Either way I don’t think you can go wrong and it’s really down to which sings to you when you try it on.

Enjoy,
Bob

[bob101]

Sorry forgot to include link to dial variations https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...45#post9279045

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Captainbob

I find the contrast between the ceramic bezel on white dial 116500 too much compared with the black dial which just seems to gel better with the bezel.

Get the black. It is a personal preference and it seems you prefer black.

i prefer white because my eyesight is not what it once was so need the higher contrast.

[dafuture]

My preference would be the 116500LN in black. I just love the ceramic bezel.

[Captainbob]

That’s an incredible link to all the 116520’s.

The eyes can deceive but I never really considered the black 116520 as I felt it wore smaller than the white one - I even stupidly turned one down at list about 7 yrs ago. For the 116500 the black seams to wear bigger than its predecessor as the ceramic has a bigger presence if not size.

I’ve smacked the case of my Milgauss around a bit but it still lo0ks great with little evidence if any of rough wear.

Beyond the ink on the bezel fading are there any concerns on durability of 116520 case?

[ttmedical]

I personally am a fan of the stainless subdial rings look, and that's why even though I have a black dial 116520, I think if given the call from an AD, would probably pull the trigger on the black dial 116500. In regards to your question, I think the white 116520 with the steel bezel and those steel subdials just looks more balanced. Those subdials just make the dial pop a little more with a shiny silver look for me.

[nygo]

black

[zjd168]

Black 500c of course

[cts]

Get both! Best of each iteration!!!

[Sunstreaker]

I find it hard to choose as well, as I honestly like them both. I wouldn't say no to either but if I had to pick only one, I'd say the white. Easier to read, looks a bit smaller on the wrist (something that I personally appreciate) and more iconic. But really, any Daytona is iconic, so doesn't really matter the color.

Well ok, except for the Rainbow one maybe. Haha.

[Seaswirl]

Although I generally prefer the 116500 over the 116520, I’d go with the white dial 116520. It’s just much easier to read the time when compared to black dialed Daytonas. Tough call though as I do find the ceramic bezel to be a meaningful improvement. The polished steel bezels of the 116520s really are prone to picking up scratches, at least in my case.

[1665fan]

I don’t think there is a wrong choice...the early thin hand 116520 are underpriced as well as most of the small buckle 116520.....that would be the cheapest route. Me personally would only buy an unpolished piece

[ArtNouveau]

I had both dials of the 116520 and now a black 116500. Enjoyed Both of the ‘520’s altgough I kept the black longer. I asked for the black ceramic this time, I just like it better. All of them are good choices.

[macrowatch]

White dial more legible, black dial sharper looking. On style alone Black. If using to actually tell time, white dial.

Also as a daily, be mindful that steel bezel is a scratch magnet. Much prefer the ceramic for daily wear.

[lcs77]

Black 500c

[campfire]

They're both nice. But probably the Black ceramic.

[Captainbob]

Having read the info from the earlier post, I’m moving towards aph from 2016 white dial. Somehow to me 116520 has a bit more character than 116500.

[foo4rolex]

Great choice !!!
Where you plan to get the dated 2016?

[Yuri.Popov]

I usually tend to prefer the white dials as it reflects more light and look classic, but here is a a tough choice because the black looks more edgy. I think it depends on the look you are going for

[Rohan1806]

I'd go for the white. I think the contrast catches the eye in a way few watches do.

[101031-28]

500c black without hesitation.

[garyk]

White is awesome! Black is awesome too but I prefer the white w/ceramic......

[Solo118]

Ceramic

Was never a fan of the 116520 white dial with silver subdials. That is just me though.