Daytona Bakelite Differences

[Rolessor82]

Hi everyone,

We all know Rolex had many suppliers back then but I've noticed a "space/gap" above "Units Per" in some inserts while others don't (see picture: left, gap/right non-gap). Does it has to do with a specific year? Or is it what happens with the Big Reds with "floating" or "non-floating" Daytona, which are both accepted?

Thank you

[swish77]

I believe the MK1 bezel is the only one that has the “gap” to which you’re referring, so whatever version of the Daytona that is correctly fitted with that bezel is, well, correct, regardless of “floating” or “non-floating” dial or other minutiae.

In general, I think that bezel would be on 6263 Daytonas up to the mid-‘70s, and could also include the earlier 6240s, 6241s and 6264s.

[Rolessor82]

Interesting.

Thanks for your thoughts

I've seen it on 60s watches. But, the mark1 has the "hooked 2" in 200. Take a look at mine. My watch if from late 70s. Has the gap, but the 2 in 200 tells me is not a mark1

[Rolessor82]

Take a look at that "hooked 2". Is a more "fat font" and the curve in 2 is more narrow.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Rolessor82

Interesting.

Thanks for your thoughts

I've seen it on 60s watches. But, the mark1 has the "hooked 2" in 200. Take a look at mine. My watch if from late 70s. Has the gap, but the 2 in 200 tells me is not a mark1

Not sure the gap in that photo of your 6263 is the same as on the MK1 bezels. At that angle in the photo, all of the bezels will show some degree of “gap.”

My suggestion is to put away your magnifying glass and enjoy your Daytona. All these tiny variations are mostly meaningless, unless of course you’re trying to determine authenticity.

[Rolessor82]

Originally Posted by swish77

Not sure the gap in that photo of your 6263 is the same as on the MK1 bezels. At that angle in the photo, all of the bezels will show some degree of “gap.”

My suggestion is to put away your magnifying glass and enjoy your Daytona. All these tiny variations are mostly meaningless, unless of course you’re trying to determine authenticity.

Absolutely Swish!. Just curious, and if we can all learn smal details, great!!

[TuRo]

Btw no 60/70/80s Rolex Daytona Cosmo or Tudor Monte Carlo ever had bakelite inserts (if they had been, they by now would be all cracked and shrunken given aging characteristics and surface area/width in bezel shell).

They are in fact acrylic like the plexiglass crystals/lenses/dial covers fitted to 6239~63/65.

Bakelite broadly speaking was a 50's material fitted in the the main to the 6542 GMT (of course last year or so went to aluminium).

[swish77]

Originally Posted by TuRo

Btw no 60/70/80s Rolex Daytona Cosmo or Tudor Monte Carlo ever had bakelite inserts (if they had been, they by now would be all cracked and shrunken given aging characteristics and surface area/width in bezel shell).

They are in fact acrylic like the plexiglass crystals/lenses/dial covers fitted to 6239~63/65.

Bakelite broadly speaking was a 50's material fitted in the the main to the 6542 GMT (of course last year or so went to aluminium).

Yup, spot on. A common misconception all over the Internet. I think some people mistakenly think bakelite and plastic/acrylic are synonymous.

[Rolessor82]

Originally Posted by swish77

Yup, spot on. A common misconception all over the Internet. I think some people mistakenly think bakelite and plastic/acrylic are synonymous.

Something new for me right here. Guilty.

Thanks guys!