Daytona chrono legibility (or why Rolex binned the red seconds hand)

[Devildog]

Don’t get me wrong. I love this watch. It wasn’t my first dial choice, but when I saw it I couldn’t say no.

I used to think my RG/chocolate arabic dial Daytona was bad for hand/dial contrast. But I don’t think it’s the worst.

At least the white gold hour and minute hands on this one contrast well with the dark dial so it’s easier to see the time at a glance.

However the chronograph function (being the whole point of the Daytona) is largely unusable in anything but perfect, bright, light.



And it’s worse in real life than the picture shows

Which got me thinking and may explain why Rolex dropped the red chrono seconds hand for the new 126518 “Paul Newman” dial. It just disappears against the black dial. It’s been an unpopular decision on the forum but I now understand the change.

But, hey, let’s be honest. We don’t really buy our Daytona’s to actually use the chronograph for anything important do we?

So it may be largely unusable day to day, but when the light hits the red hands just right (and it looks even better than this picture shows) who really cares? Not me.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Harry-57]

The last time I mentioned this in here I was told to go buy a Casio. It's better on some dials but generally this has always been the issue for me with the Daytona. I doubt that many owners use the timer complication or the tachymeter scale much if at all, which kinda defeats the logic, but that's marketing for you.

That's an achingly cool and beautiful watch you have there. If only the sub dials were easier to read. It could be worse, Tudor obscure one of their sub dials with a slow moving snowflake hand that eclipses the reading as it passes over the sub dial. Style over function again.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Harry-57

The last time I mentioned this in here I was told to go buy a Casio. It's better on some dials but generally this has always been the issue for me with the Daytona. I doubt that many owners use the timer complication or the tachymeter scale much if at all, which kinda defeats the logic, but that's marketing for you.

That's an achingly cool and beautiful watch you have there. If only the sub dials were easier to read. It could be worse, Tudor obscure one of their sub dials with a slow moving snowflake hand that eclipses the reading as it passes over the sub dial. Style over function again.

Agreed Harry, its a sore point for many.

On my old 116515 its was hard to read the time sometimes, let alone actually use the chrono function.

But then I didn't buy that one, or this one, becase I specifically wanted a chronograph - although I have used tachynmeter scales in the past to accurately measure speed. I have a Chopard Mille Miglia which is an exercise in legibility being silver/white against black. The Speedmaster is he same.

I bought it because, as you have kindly noted, its a beautiful watch and a joy to wear, with arguably on of the most "solid" fully in house chrono movements out there. And it rounds out my Rolex trifecta collection nicely. And I always dreamed of one one day owning a full WG watch.

Oh, and I can actually use this one to easily tell the time

But I can see why Rolex changed the red seconds hand on the "PN" yellow gold Daytona. It too was probably largely unreadable in many conditions.

[garyk]

I was first attracted to my Daytona due to the red “Daytona” and the red hand on the dial contrasting with gold and black!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by garyk

I was first attracted to my Daytona due to the red “Daytona” and the red hand on the dial contrasting with gold and black!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stunning watch - and a very legible seconds hand

The subdials? not so much

[cornerstore]

Swapped to a red sweeping hand, the first thing I did when I purchased my 116520. The original hand was barely legible at times.

[rmlovett1]

This modification was done often on these dials. Legibility is much better with the red hands…



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Richris1

This modification was done often on these dials. Legibility is much better with the red hands…



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Love that one

Thats the dial I originally wanted. Yes, the red really stands out against the white.

[B2 Stealth]

Never seen the attraction whatsoever in cluttered, hard to read, rarely utilized features, Daytona.

[Golfbone]

I have 2 Daytonas....a 116500 and a 116509 silver racing dial with red hands. Neither is worth jackshit for use as a stopwatch. My IWC 3717 is a thousand times better with the naked eye than either Daytona is with reading glasses on. The Daytona is wrist candy pure and simple. The Tachymeter and chronometer function are practically useless. I don't know if anyone actually uses them for any functional purpose other than perhaps timing boiled eggs or lobster cooking (i've actually done that).

[subtona]

Perfect watch if it could indicate the time.

[Golfbone]

Originally Posted by subtona

Perfect watch if it could indicate the time.

It indicates time perfectly. You just need good eyes, good lighting and some patience. It's a cryptic beauty you need to look at carefully to see what some other watches can tell you at a glance. Daytonas are the only watches I own that I can stare at and not even register the time.

[jbsmith]

Glad I got both of these before Rolex gave them less contrast. The contrast is not only better legibilty, but to me they look better as well....

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[usmc_k9_vet]

Originally Posted by cornerstore

Swapped to a red sweeping hand, the first thing I did when I purchased my 116520. The original hand was barely legible at times.

Originally Posted by Devildog

Don’t get me wrong. I love this watch. It wasn’t my first dial choice, but when I saw it I couldn’t say no.

I used to think my RG/chocolate arabic dial Daytona was bad for hand/dial contrast. But I don’t think it’s the worst.

At least the white gold hour and minute hands on this one contrast well with the dark dial so it’s easier to see the time at a glance.

However the chronograph function (being the whole point of the Daytona) is largely unusable in anything but perfect, bright, light.



And it’s worse in real life than the picture shows

Which got me thinking and may explain why Rolex dropped the red chrono seconds hand for the new 126518 “Paul Newman” dial. It just disappears against the black dial. It’s been an unpopular decision on the forum but I now understand the change.

But, hey, let’s be honest. We don’t really buy our Daytona’s to actually use the chronograph for anything important do we?

So it may be largely unusable day to day, but when the light hits the red hands just right (and it looks even better than this picture shows) who really cares? Not me.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Richris1

This modification was done often on these dials. Legibility is much better with the red hands…



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by garyk

I was first attracted to my Daytona due to the red “Daytona” and the red hand on the dial contrasting with gold and black!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by jbsmith

Glad I got both of these before Rolex gave them less contrast. The contrast is not only better legibilty, but to me they look better as well....

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Stunning watches everyone. Wow! Really can’t wait to get my first Daytona. No idea when that will be, but when I get the call the credit card will absolutely be coming out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk