closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Rolex Daytona - 16520 or 116500?

  1. #1

    Rolex Daytona - 16520 or 116500?

    It seems that £12-15k will buy a choice of s/s Daytonas from a 25 year old Zenith 16520, via a 116520, to a brand new, unworn, ceramic 116500.

    I'm currently looking for one, and I know my preference, for specific reasons.

    But, assuming a Daytona interest and for the same money, what would most people go for - the latest/newest, 'current production' 116500, or the classic, pre-owned, long out of production, 16520?

  2. #2
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    7,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Geneve View Post
    It seems that £12-15k will buy a choice of s/s Daytonas from a 25 year old Zenith 16520, via a 116520, to a brand new, unworn, ceramic 116500.

    I'm currently looking for one, and I know my preference, for specific reasons.

    But, assuming a Daytona interest and for the same money, what would most people go for - the latest/newest, 'current production' 116500, or the classic, pre-owned, long out of production, 16520?
    I think you already know the answer to this.

    The 116500 is the better watch and is a much better daily wearer.

    The 16520 is the better investment.

    I have a 16520 and will pass it onto my son and he can do what he likes with it. On that basis I will hold onto it because it will probably sell for more should he decide to sell it on.

    If I wanted something to wear every day, the 116500 would win hands down.

    You chose what suits you best.

  3. #3
    Grand Master Wallasey Runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Wirral - North West England
    Posts
    15,265
    I agree with Mick, in terms of wearability etc, Ceramic, then 116520, then 16520, but in terms of desirability I would say the 16520 is head and shoulders above the later two, followed by the new Ceramic then finally the 116520 which I have never really liked.

  4. #4
    Master MarkO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    21.7738° N, 72.2719° W
    Posts
    3,313
    On the new ceramic bezel version do you have a preference for black or white ?

  5. #5
    While the self-winding Daytona's functionality improved with the better bracelet and movement introduced in 2000, the looks have gone downhill with each generation.

    So 16520 > 116520 > 116500LN

    Avoid recency bias.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkO View Post
    On the new ceramic bezel version do you have a preference for black or white ?
    I've always preferred the white dials with each generation, but I appreciate that is a personal choice.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Geneve View Post
    I've always preferred the white dials with each generation, but I appreciate that is a personal choice.
    I’d recommend trying them in person before deciding. In my experience, the white can look better in photos, but the black is better on the wrist — especially once the novelty factor wears off.

    I've gone from white to black on both the 16520 and 116520 without regretting it for a moment, despite initially preferring the white version. The black just adds more depth and substance to the watch. That said, the white dial on the 16520 is sublime.

    Regardless of dial colour, the current version will steadily become more common and easily-available, at a similar rate as the earlier models become harder and harder to find, especially in good condition.

    For me, it's simple: the 16520 is the more-special watch.

  8. #8
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    7,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Geneve View Post
    I've always preferred the white dials with each generation, but I appreciate that is a personal choice.
    Looks are subjective but the 16520 and the 116500LN score on legibility with the black and white sub dials. The 116520 has silver dials which make it much more difficult to read and as a daily wearer, that would irritate me.

    However the steel bezels do seem a lot more attractive than the ceramic when seen in the flesh.

  9. #9
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,723
    If it’s a daily wearer get the Ceramic. Better calibre, bezel won’t scratch and you won’t have to worry about servicing for 5 years.

    As an investment, 16520’s are going one way.

    I couldn’t choose:


  10. #10
    Craftsman ray_li30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    South London
    Posts
    362
    Wow, what a stunning trio!

    Quote Originally Posted by Chalet View Post
    If it’s a daily wearer get the Ceramic. Better calibre, bezel won’t scratch and you won’t have to worry about servicing for 5 years.

    As an investment, 16520’s are going one way.

    I couldn’t choose:


  11. #11
    Zenith movement Daytona, obviously.

    They were the only real limited production modern Daytona, because Zenith only supplied a certain number of Chronograph movements every year, and it was more profitable to put them in precious metal/bi-metal watches than Steel.

    Once Rolex perfected their own Chrono they could make as many as they liked, if they ramped up production. *But anyone that follows Rolex knows that their business model tries to push precious metal higher ticket items as much as possible; hence most newer models lacked in precious metal, then bi-metal, and finally, once they have milked every initial precious metal buyer, they launch a steel version.

    *some exceptions to the precious metal product cycle exist by exception, or in order of release, namely the sports models including Sea-Dweller, Subs and Explorer, and the Day-Date.


    I do love the look of the new white dial version Daytona though.
    It's just a matter of time...

  12. #12
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sussex, UK
    Posts
    5,128
    Of course Rolex will try to maximise profits by selling precious metal watches; but the thing is...they tend to be nicer watches to wear, at least to me. The heft is part of it, and the feeling that it is slightly more carefully made (a highly subjective view perhaps , but that's been my impression ).
    When they cost three times as much, that may all seem irrelevant. But look how things narrow. A Ceramic in steel can cost £15000, and a lightly used gold version about £18500. I know which one seems better value.

  13. #13
    Master
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI USA
    Posts
    2,133
    It couild be due to my tiny wrist, but I find the heft of gold uncomfortable. I love the look though. I'll probably hunt down a good zenith Daytona and wear it on a leather strap.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by paskinner View Post
    Of course Rolex will try to maximise profits by selling precious metal watches; but the thing is...they tend to be nicer watches to wear, at least to me. The heft is part of it, and the feeling that it is slightly more carefully made (a highly subjective view perhaps , but that's been my impression ).
    When they cost three times as much, that may all seem irrelevant. But look how things narrow. A Ceramic in steel can cost £15000, and a lightly used gold version about £18500. I know which one seems better value.
    Im glad I paid less than a used ceramic Daytona fir my brand new AD bought white gold Daytona, but I’d say they are made the same, just a different metal. I’ve had many steel Daytona’s, but kept the gold one; well after I’d sold the different dial colour and stuck with the black Arabic (more of a charcoal).

    Id still go for a Zenith as a long term ownership purchase though, and due to the reasons above I’d buy a steel one. As unlike Rolex current maximising, they quite probably sold more precious metal
    /bi-metal Zenith Daytona models than steel, which is not something you can say of their other model ranges.
    Last edited by Omegamanic; 19th November 2017 at 01:48.
    It's just a matter of time...

  15. #15
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sussex, UK
    Posts
    5,128
    The problem with buying the Zenith is that the price is already wildly inflated. Even with the Daytona there will be limits to what the market will bear....£20,000 for a watch that cost half that just two years ago. This bubble will burst, but as always, we don't know when.

  16. #16
    I really find it puzzling how people dismiss the 116520 so easily. Fantastic made watch and prices have held ok and not zoomed strataspherically.

    You get the full Daytona experience IMO

  17. #17
    Give it a few years; the earlier model always ends up being the more-desirable one when it comes to steel sports Rolex.

  18. #18
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Corona Borealis
    Posts
    6,965
    Quote Originally Posted by paskinner View Post
    The problem with buying the Zenith is that the price is already wildly inflated. Even with the Daytona there will be limits to what the market will bear....£20,000 for a watch that cost half that just two years ago. This bubble will burst, but as always, we don't know when.
    They'd have said that about Newman Daytonas and MilSubs once upon a time.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by cmcm3 View Post
    They'd have said that about Newman Daytonas and MilSubs once upon a time.
    They did. & all the Comex watches. Oh and housing in central London. That is so so much cheaper now than years ago lol
    It's just a matter of time...

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    No Fixed Abode
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by cmcm3 View Post
    They'd have said that about Newman Daytonas and MilSubs once upon a time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Omegamanic View Post
    They did. & all the Comex watches. Oh and housing in central London. That is so so much cheaper now than years ago lol
    He bought a Cellini. No one is therefore likely to be following his ‘best buy’ advice.

  21. #21
    I have no problem with the buying of a Cellini, as some are lovely watches, but selling one is a different matter!. I'd never buy one and then sell it.
    It's just a matter of time...

  22. #22
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sussex, UK
    Posts
    5,128
    Quote Originally Posted by sarky View Post
    He bought a Cellini. No one is therefore likely to be following his ‘best buy’ advice.


    I have bought in the last three months a new 5711, a Ceramic Daytona and a Speedy Tuesday. All sold at a handsome profit. Because I decided they weren't for me. I could have made more money but that's not the hobby for me. I like to deal with fellow enthusiasts, on a fair basis. They usually treat me in the same way. That's what it is about.
    Not that you could grasp that. Not mean and sour enough to suit your tastes.
    Last edited by paskinner; 19th November 2017 at 19:10.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    No Fixed Abode
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by paskinner View Post
    I have bought in the last three months a new 5711, a Ceramic Daytona and a Speedy Tuesday. All sold at a handsome profit. Because I decided they weren't for me. I could have made more money but that's not the hobby for me. I like to deal with fellow enthusiasts, on a fair basis. They usually treat me in the same way. That's what it is about.
    Not that you could grasp that. Not mean and sour enough to suit your tastes.
    My point is, you are not the best placed to be providing advice based on your track record, albeit seems to be improving. As for being fair, I wouldn’t bother, they all call you all sorts in the Bear Pit, so just fleece the mugs.

  24. #24
    Master -Ally-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Eurabia
    Posts
    8,329
    I think there’s a lot to be said for a new watch. Certainly any I’ve bought new or nearly new have lasted some time. I can’t say the same for the vintage watches I’ve bought. As such my vote would be for a 116500 but just wait it out rather than pay over RRP.

  25. #25
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    5,134
    116500 is a fantastic watch, you won’t go wrong.

  26. #26
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Southend
    Posts
    1,638
    Why can’t I get a 116500 at RRP. I have a few good relationships with AD and managed to get a few very sought after pieces within 3 months but mention this and they won’t even look me in the face. All handled by head office, list closed etc. I have not really hit my vintage stage yet and went with BLNR as opposed to Pepsi or Coke (although I like them both) and I am generally more of an enjoyment man than investment. That said, I can’t get a look in. It’s actually put me off a bit then I tried my cousin’s one on (he has more money than sense and paid 14k-ish) and it’s got me going again.

    What am I doing wrong, happy to wait but I can’t even get at the start line. Someone please PM me and give me some advice so I don’t spoil this thread with a moan.

    Cheers
    Fred





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  27. #27
    Master
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI USA
    Posts
    2,133
    ^^^ Buy a daydate, conditional on a Daytona.

  28. #28
    Master -Ally-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Eurabia
    Posts
    8,329
    Not getting a Daytona is not worth stressing over. Nice but over-rated to be honest.

  29. #29
    I posted the thread to gauge opinion.

    The question has been fairly well answered above, but it was a specialist watch dealer who originally pointed it out to me.

    He said they appeal to two very different buyers. There will always be those who want the newest and latest, and those who specifically don't, and would rather have something more subtle.

    I'm in the latter group. I like the idea that the 16520s were made in smaller numbers, are long out of production, and now part of 'Daytona history'. I don't see values going through the roof, and I wouldn't pay a silly premium for papers, but as a watch to wear and enjoy I think they offer a nice blend of classic good taste.

    I'm also less keen on the Rolex brand image these days. I remember the quality adverts in selected journals - now the Rolex logo seems to be emblazoned everywhere.

  30. #30
    Master
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI USA
    Posts
    2,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Geneve View Post
    I posted the thread to gauge opinion.

    The question has been fairly well answered above, but it was a specialist watch dealer who originally pointed it out to me.

    He said they appeal to two very different buyers. There will always be those who want the newest and latest, and those who specifically don't, and would rather have something more subtle.

    I'm in the latter group. I like the idea that the 16520s were made in smaller numbers, are long out of production, and now part of 'Daytona history'. I don't see values going through the roof, and I wouldn't pay a silly premium for papers, but as a watch to wear and enjoy I think they offer a nice blend of classic good taste.

    I'm also less keen on the Rolex brand image these days. I remember the quality adverts in selected journals - now the Rolex logo seems to be emblazoned everywhere.
    I'm a big fan of the five digit models. I have a bunch and I really like them. When it came time for a Daytona, I picked an early version six digit (nicer clasp, thinner hands, no RolexRolexRolex) because I wanted to experience one of the more modern offerings and the Daytona in SS is the least "maxi". I REALLY like the added features, fit, and finish of the newer watch. For a watch just to wear, not to collect, I think the modern non-ceramic is a terrific option. I love mine.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information