Day-Date II vs Day-Date 40?

[Copasetic]

Now that more TRF members have tried on or obtained the new 40, I'm curious how the two compare. Not necessarily the movement and the technical specs, but wrist presence, size and look differences, dials, etc.
Thanks!

[dadonn2]

Hey Howie, a little research will go a long way here. There are a number of threads on this topic. The main differences are the new movement on the 40 and in terms of wrist presence, the drop in size from 41mm to 40mm. The actual small difference has become quite subjective where some feel it significant while others find it minimal. The discussions have waged over the change in overall proportions and how that impacted the watch. Having seen them both up close and on my wrist, I do feel the difference to be significant and far more than 1mm would suggest.

[Copasetic]

Originally Posted by dadonn2

Hey Howie, a little research will go a long way here. There are a number of threads on this topic. The main differences are the new movement on the 40 and in terms of wrist presence, the drop in size from 41mm to 40mm. The actual small difference has become quite subjective where some feel it significant while others find it minimal. The discussions have waged over the change in overall proportions and how that impacted the watch. Having seen them both up close and on my wrist, I do feel the difference to be significant and far more than 1mm would suggest.

Thanks for responding. I have read most, if not all, of the previous threads on the subject. I was thinking people that have seen them both, and/or had them on, would have new information to share after viewing. As you have.

[rebel_1]

To me the biggest difference is the size of the bezel. I'd also assume that one might "fit" better than the other based on different lug lengths. Either way, I can say that there is not enough of a difference between the fluted bezel variant for me to replace my RD DDII but there is enough of a difference with the smooth bezel PT one that has me wanting a DD40 PT!

[kunlun]

When trying them both on, I felt that the new proportions of the DD40, while consisting of a number of small changes, make for a significant overall effect. The subjective feeling I had was that the DD40 is more dressy and well put-together on the wrist. Someone who wants a more sporty and chunky look would definitely prefer the DD2.

[Racerdj]

I am looking forward to seeing them in person!

[Colin10101]

Having recently tried both on at an AD, the best way I can describe it is the DD 40 wears leaner. As it should, since it is smaller, but the difference feels larger than just 1mm. This can be attributed to the smaller bezel i suppose, and it makes the watch wear very nicely on the wrist.

The DD2, in my opinion (and consider that my wrists are 6' 3/4), feels bloated. It wears bigger. Its hard to describe since 1mm seems on paper to be very insignificant, but the DD40 comes off as a more proportioned watch.

The best thing you can do is go try it on. Before I did I was convinced there would be almost no noticeable difference. Boy was I wrong.

[brandrea]

I've tried both and would say that for me, the aesthetics is not the reason I'd opt for one vs. the other. It's ALL about the new movement and end link design in the DD40

[Maiden]

I tried both on and what I found interesting is that when you look at your wrist you notice the DD40 is slightly smaller. However stand back 4 feet and look in a full length mirror and (at least to me and the salespeople in the store) you could not tell the difference in size or wrist presence between the 40 and the 41. Personally I think blown up internet pictures overstate the size difference. However we all admire our watches on our own wrists so if that what sings that is the way to go.

[tkerrmd]

If I were to choose today would go DD40

[gummy]

To me the main visual difference is the appearance of the bezel...

Seems more size appropriate on the DD40.

and

More flat and "stretching" on the DDII.

I think both are nice but the dial on the platinum DD40 Stick dial is wonderful!

[PerioBear]

Originally Posted by tkerrmd

If I were to choose today would go DD40

Nice. But I feel the size of romans are too large for the watch. Out of proportion?

[SUPERDOC]

I have to say that I found the differences very insignificant when I saw it in the display case... I actually didn't even give them a second look because I thought that I was looking at the DayDateII... then the sales lady said it was the new one, and I looked again and noticed the Roman Numerals...

On the wrist I found that I prefer my DD2... but I can see the appeal of the DD40...add the new movement in, and its a no brainer..

I agree with the statement that the hype, and macro Internet imaging is making a bigger deal out of the change...

either way...Beautiful..

The only question... sell DD2 before price plunges... or hold on until price soars...

[zama]

Originally Posted by kunlun

When trying them both on, I felt that the new proportions of the DD40, while consisting of a number of small changes, make for a significant overall effect. The subjective feeling I had was that the DD40 is more dressy and well put-together on the wrist. Someone who wants a more sporty and chunky look would definitely prefer the DD2.

My thoughts as well

[Sub/GMT]

Here you can see the size differences between all three....



Left DD36mm middle DD40 (see also difference in endlink) right DDII 41mm

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Copasetic

Now that more TRF members have tried on or obtained the new 40, I'm curious how the two compare. Not necessarily the movement and the technical specs, but wrist presence, size and look differences, dials, etc.
Thanks!

It's the new technical aspects that would draw me to the DD 40.

[Sub/GMT]

Originally Posted by Tools

It's the new technical aspects that would draw me to the DD 40.

For me it would only be the size that matters here. DD40 has great measures and if it is running well, it is okay buy me

[Oyster99]

It looks GOOD!


Picture credit: Fremstar!

[second time]

Originally Posted by Sub/GMT

Here you can see the size differences between all three....

Those romans on the DD2 are much smaller than any others I've seen. Anyone know what's going on with that?

[Racerdj]

Originally Posted by second time

Those romans on the DD2 are much smaller than any others I've seen. Anyone know what's going on with that?

Very true!

[theken]

I owned a DDII for about 10 months.
Last week, I sold my DDII after trying on the DD40 at a couple of the ADs I visited.
The differences are very slight but the size of the case and fluted bezel are asthetically more pleasing to me.
Additionally, I think the improved accuracy of the movement makes the DD40 the new flagship of the current Rolex lineup.
The president bracelet has also been improved with internal ceramic bushings to eliminate the stretching tendency of the previous versions of the bracelet.
I also like the new dial that is offered with the alternating Roman numerals and stick markers.

[dadonn2]

Originally Posted by Copasetic

Thanks for responding. I have read most, if not all, of the previous threads on the subject. I was thinking people that have seen them both, and/or had them on, would have new information to share after viewing. As you have.

Gotcha. Point taken.

I completely agree with the notion that DD II is sportier vs. the perfectly proportioned lean appeal of the DD40. There is an understated elegance to the new one, in the context of gold Rolex's. Personally, I prefer the DD II for its personality and believe it looks better on my fairly large wrist.

[Mr DateJust]

The problem I always had with the DDII was that it was a watch designed to be 36mm "stretched" out to 41mm. The bezel and dial especially looked too large. The bezel on the 40 does look better and it has an overall better look but it is still a watch designed to be 36mm stretched out to 40mm so to my eye still doesn't look quite "right".

[el1125]

Originally Posted by theken

I owned a DDII for about 10 months.
Last week, I sold my DDII after trying on the DD40 at a couple of the ADs I visited.
The differences are very slight but the size of the case and fluted bezel are asthetically more pleasing to me.
Additionally, I think the improved accuracy of the movement makes the DD40 the new flagship of the current Rolex lineup.
The president bracelet has also been improved with internal ceramic bushings to eliminate the stretching tendency of the previous versions of the bracelet.
I also like the new dial that is offered with the alternating Roman numerals and stick markers.

Absolutely correct with the new ceramic material added into the bracelet

[superdog]

Great thread.

I tried on a 40 last week. It's beautiful.

Have to agree with the consensus that it's more of a dress watch. But hey, maybe that's exactly what it's supposed to be.

I like the "2" because it's sportier and IMHO goes better with just about anything. It's a wear everywhere do anything kind of watch.

Both great. I think it just depends on what the user is looking for.

[bigrustypig]

The DD2 has been my grail for some time now. I did quite a bit of research after the Basel launch, tried them both at the AD, and although the DD2 is heaps more masculine and certainly more substantial on the wrist, I was drawn to all the improvements on the 40.

IMHO, the best option would have been all improvements on the DD40 slapped into the DD2.

[bigrustypig]

Originally Posted by second time

Those romans on the DD2 are much smaller than any others I've seen. Anyone know what's going on with that?

Very sharp eyes! The hour hand also looks shorter than the usual.

[tomchicago]

It's an improvement but the bezel is still too large on the 40 imo. The 36 still has the nicest proportions.

[shirtguy]

36mm day date is the way to go

[superdog]

Originally Posted by shirtguy

36mm day date is the way to go

I wish I could agree as I think they look really nice. It would be so much easier too. I just find them to be way too small on the wrist. My wife wears a 36mm DJ and it looks fantastic on her.