Two things I'd change on the Daytona

[richard371]

I really enjoy my D500 for what it is. I rarely use it to tell the time.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by ecdc

There are 5 ticks per minute marker. But the Daytona ticks 8x/second. Let's have four ticks per minute marker, so the chrono second hand, you know, can actually be read to its 1/8 second capability.

Simple. Brilliant.

[Passionata]

Originally Posted by ecdc

I'm a big Daytona fan. I wear mine more than all my other watches, combined. But still there are two small, presumably easy and inexpensive things that could be done to it to make it better.



1. Anti-reflective coating on the underside of the crystal. Why hide the beautiful dial in glare? Topside AR smudges too much, so I'd prefer only underside. It's frankly embarrassing for a five-figure watch not to have AR coating these days. Especially when the dial is glossy; sometimes the dial or hands will reflect off the underside of the crystal, onto the glossy dial, back onto the underside of the crystal, back onto the dial...it's like a funhouse mirror effect.



2. Re-do the ticks between the minute markers.There are 5 ticks per minute marker. But the Daytona ticks 8x/second. Let's have four ticks per minute marker, so the chrono second hand, you know, can actually be read to its 1/8 second capability.



This is really just an academic exercise, because Rolex does what Rolex wants. But these two changes would make the Daytona perfect.



Thoughts?

1.According to Rolex they don t use AR coatings since the crystal is the integrated part of the case and they want to show it s presence.
2.The "correct" dial would be to have only 3 sub-indices between each minute indice - which will align with the 4Hz 4130 movement,to be fully accurate we need seven subsecond indices but that would be way too cluttered.

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by mfer

If they did the 4 ticks instead of 5 imagine all the posts people would make here showing how their second hand doesn't always perfectly line up with the 1/4 second markers.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by etschell

how much was the tudor increae??

Sent from my sm-g950u using tapatalk

5%

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by AK797

5%

Not bad.

[Halothane]

Originally Posted by Tmac478

I owned a Daytona for a few months but flipped it because it was too small and almost illegible (at 60, my eyesight is not the greatest)
I'd change a few things:
I created this picture a few months ago and posted it on a concept thread.
This would be my ideal Daytona.
I'd also like to increase the size and lose some of the text but also darken and thicken the hands and indices. I added a red tip and lightened the sub-dials too.
The date wheel is probably blasphemous, but, hey, why not?

I agree except the size was perfect for me so I would keep at 40mm. I got a white dial and the legibility was marginal. Also, it is not difficult to have a date where you posted as several other chronos have this. I like your concept. I probably would have kept that one.

[HORNBLOWER]

Make the hands easier to see.

[R@lex]

Originally Posted by Tmac478

I owned a Daytona for a few months but flipped it because it was too small and almost illegible (at 60, my eyesight is not the greatest)
I'd change a few things:
I created this picture a few months ago and posted it on a concept thread.
This would be my ideal Daytona.
I'd also like to increase the size and lose some of the text but also darken and thicken the hands and indices. I added a red tip and lightened the sub-dials too.
The date wheel is probably blasphemous, but, hey, why not?

42mm would be great!

[Lol-x]

My changes I would really like to see:
1. 42 or 43mm case size;
2. Date at 4:30 O'Clock position
3. Wider and/or more distinctive minute/hour hands.

[ras47]

Larger case. 42mm would be ideal, 43mm would also be great.
I like the red-tipped second hand.
I like the date window at the 6:00 position, or at the 3:00 if not feasible at 6:00.
And as long as we're shooting for pie in the sky, how about throwing a perpetual calendar into this beast?

[regnant]

I would put it no less than a 42MM case first
To further improve the legibility of the subdials I would add more hours and minutes increments as well.
A modest Tissot offers better legibility of the subdial, because I want to know at first glance at the dial to be informed exactly how many hours has elapsed since I turn on the Chronograph

[Fletcher UK]

I think they should introduce a Daytona II. Leave both in production to satisfy the purists but do one at 42mm. I like what you did but would leave the sub dials black. Preferably full panda black. I'm only 46 and I can barely read anything on the Daytona. Even if it was 40mm as advertised it would help, instead of 38.6!!!! Not sure about the date but like the tiny red tipped second hand. Good effort

[tangofrog]

I sold my 16520 (white dial) a few years ago because of the same reason. I couldn't read the time. Now I'm looking to get another, and wondering what dial is best on my eyes, 'cause they aren't getting better -although I now wear glasses.

[strafer_kid]

I have never actually had a Daytona though a few times in the past, the opportunity did present itself for one of the earlier models....just could not go for it as I thought it looked 'too busy'. So last week I got my first look at the new white dial stainless steel. A very nice watch but am still unsure about it. I did not have an option on it as unsurprisingly it was earmarked for someone else which in some way solved a possible dilemma given my uncertainty. Maybe some day......

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Tony64

How about removing a little of the unnecessary text? Top of the dial reads like a novel.

I'd go for that on a lot of Rolex models including the DSSD

[gwalker]

I am a huge date guy. I know I can look at my phone but I can do that for the time too... maybe 1-2mm larger and easier to read hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[asiparks]

I'd leave it as it is, it is "The Daytona".
I like the idea of the Daytona II as suggested above, but in the meantime, there are better chrono options out there from Blancpain, Zenith, IWC, Omega et al that nail pretty much everything on the wish list, but then, I don't feel a particular need to have one that says "Rolex" on the dial...

[Nav01L]

Availability and size, or actually size only, I'd happily wait a year or two for a 41/42mm Daytona. But a 38.5mm watch just won't cut it on my 7.4 inch wrist.

[wongwong5]

The things that I've grown to hate about my Daytona is that it doesn't have a date on it and it many people who buy it like digital watches more than chronography.

[jrs146]

I'm ok with the size. The 500 feels bigger than the SS Daytona. Enough that I flipped my SS rather quickly because it felt too small and my 500 feels just right.

I'm a big date guy but I give it a pass on the Daytona, because... well... it's a Daytona.

The red second hand is a nice idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[breitlings]

Originally Posted by Tmac478

I owned a Daytona for a few months but flipped it because it was too small and almost illegible (at 60, my eyesight is not the greatest)
I'd change a few things:
I created this picture a few months ago and posted it on a concept thread.
This would be my ideal Daytona.
I'd also like to increase the size and lose some of the text but also darken and thicken the hands and indices. I added a red tip and lightened the sub-dials too.
The date wheel is probably blasphemous, but, hey, why not?

Would the Daytona be as sought after if it looked like that though? my thoughts are no, there are plenty of more legible chronos that no one really cares about.

[DTap]

Originally Posted by etschell

id change the price and availability. Otherwise i think its perect.

Date complication isnt needed on a watch.

✊

[rockdrock]

It’s perfect now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk