Reply With QuoteOnly one of those is all-steel . . .
Do you mean the YM 116622 and the Daytona 116520 ?
H
Not been on here for a while, I sold all my nice watches recently to help fund a property purchase. Then for Christmas I received a Swatch Sistem51 which I'm rather enjoying. However, I'm missing having something a bit nicer so I've decided this summer I'll treat myself to a brand new steel Rolex. Which of the following would you go for, and why?
SD Ceramic (116600)
Yacht-Master (116655) Blue Face
Daytona (116523) Black Face
I tried to to add images but can't figure out how to from my iPad, however I'm sure you all know what they look like.
Only one of those is all-steel . . .
Do you mean the YM 116622 and the Daytona 116520 ?
H
For what its worth I had the same choices in mind and went for the seadweller- I do use the date and didn't really like the PCL's- had those before on a milgauss GV and found them a bit delicate.
The other obvious ones are the blue/black GMT and the Hulk, of course......
I may have got my numbers mixed up. I'll have another go.. and yes, I noticed the Yacht-Master is described as steel and platinum (I meant that rather than the Everose gold version).
Sea Dweller or BLNR personally.
Ok, which of the following would you go for, and why?
Seadweller Ceramic
http://www.rolex.com/watches/sea-dwe...6600-0003.html
Yacht-Master (Steel and platinum, blue face)
http://www.rolex.com/watches/yacht-m...6622-0001.html
Daytona (Steel, Black Face)
http://www.rolex.com/watches/cosmogr...6520-0015.html
I hope the links help
(Even though I'm now on my computer I still can't work out how to add images)
Have or have had them all. Currently have a Sea Dweller WG Daytona and BLNR.Originally Posted by Murdoc
The Daytona for me was a big disappointment, all hype and minimal substance. The case shape was a letdown and it was a bit blingy for a Rolex.
The Yachtmaster is a beautiful watch but the bezel is its achilles heel, too easy to mark and impossible to refurbish (100%).
Of these three it has to be the Sea Dweller, however, the BLNR is the best watch Rolex make today in my opinion, having had almost everything they make, its the one that has stood the test of time and seems to spend 80% of the time on my wrist.
SDc for me. I find the others too fancy looking.
Rather depends on your criteria or budget perhaps?
For me I'd forget the YM right away and really concentrate on the Subs/GMT's and Seadwellers - DSSD and/or SD4000. Have you tried any of these on yet?
FWIW there mught be a new daytona coming out at the basel with ceramic bezel.... i)now I would go for that :)
It's hard to answer, because there is no correct answer. It is just whatever you fancy, none of them are inherently superior or inferior.
For what little it is worth, I'd go for a Milgauss GV, which is tough and less 'obvious' , yet just as able to survive normal rough and tumble. . I bought a new 114060 last year but have sold it ; I couldn't get on with the coarser design than the earlier subs.. All very personal.
One other point...do you think Rolex will be putting 3255 movements in more of their watches quite soon? How would that influence the market?
Simple:
Daytona > Sea-Dweller > Yacht-Master
But they're all fine, so just get whichever one you think looks best.
SD from that lot I think
Go to a store, try them, buy the one that gets your heart pounding most.
+1 to this!
BLNR or YM 1
All winners. Can't make a bad choice.
I think the yacht master looks the best but can't comment on the scratch resistant face.
Buying new, only the Daytona is a smart move, the YM will plummet in value (plenty about for £5k used) and even the SDc take a hit.
However preowned, the blue YM at £5k is a stunning watch, unlike any other Rolex; it's more like a classier Ulysse Nardin than a Rolex. A beautiful piece of semi-bling that survives knocks and life generally surprisingly well. A very, very good daily watch I found suitable for evenings out as well as holidays. And so much less predictable than a Sub/SD ;)
A guy at work has my old one and loves it - he's just spent the last few months in Nairobi with it and it's back remarkably unscathed and attracted surprisingly little negative attention. The baddies are looking for Subs and the much beloved bi-metal GMTs of the oilfield!
SDc4000... The longest I've owned a watch like this in years. It's so versatile.
Because it's completely anonymous ;)
In all seriousness, they are superb, best of the (black) Submariner variants - a perfect compromise between all of them, vintage and modern.
I've tried the SD on and really liked it; the 60 minute markers and the decent size hands and lume, the very practical size and the (no-cyclops) lower profile all appeal - it's the watch that you could wear the rest of your life and just grow more familiar with it, rather than more tired of it.
I've actually bought a 2003 GMT II, which is one of the most versatile watches around, but I don't think you could far wrong with that SD - it's the modern Rolex I'd have bought if I didn't have the GMT.
I would add my support for the SDc. I've had mine for nearly 2 years and despite it's Sub-like looks, I've had people commenting on it as "that's a lovely Sea Dweller", so they aren't as anonymous as you might think (to those who know).
My money would go on the SDc if I could only have one steel Rolex, it's just such a well rounded piece with such iconic history and style
Let us know what you end up buying
My current crop of this marque and if I had to go down to one it would be the Sub IMO it covers all the bases and I do not miss the cyclops or date.
The only input I can give is a commercial one.
I would buy an SDc4000 at the best price possible. They are available unworn at terrific prices and it will retain much of that value secondhand. It is also a very practical model which I see more people wearing and keeping than they do with the next watch :
The Daytona is increasingly available, there are many around and if you do the slightest damage to the bezel or glass then you're going to struggle to get top money in a busy market. Servicing costs are high; yes, you may have a five year warranty but that doesn't cover you for accidental damage. While many love the Daytona, I see too many customers who buy one after many years only to return it after a matter of months because it just doesn't suit them. The novelty of the chrono soon wears off, they miss the date feature and every girl in town hasn't been prostrating herself at the altar of his wondrousness.....or perhaps that was just my experience.
I have always had a slight problem with the Yachtmaster, the "Timberland boot with a kitten heel" as I called it in the early days. To have a tool watch with such an intricate, easily-marked yet almost impossible-to-restore precious metal bezel insert seems strange. It does nothing better than a Submariner, except look a bit prettier in some people's eyes.
Having offended just about everyone, then, I'll be off. They're all good watches so make up your own chuffing mind :-)
Haywood
As ever, Haywood's comments are worthy of consideration!
I think it's down to the OP to try them all on , have a good think, then make up his mind. Much as I like the Daytona (although I`d never shell out the money to own one) it doesn`t suit everyone and the bezel is easily marked. Ideal in a collection for careful wear, but not as an everyday wearer IMO. Same with the Yachtmaster, far too much potential for irreversible damage to that precious metal bezel.......I`d never feel happy wearing it for that reason.
Paul
personal preference but for me the sea dweller 4000 ticks all the boxes
I'd go for the Daytona but that's only because I already have a Submariner.
If it was to be my only watch then I'd probably opt for the Sea Dweller
Like the quote above about the timberland boot with the kitten heel...
I've always wondered if I could ever afford a Rolex if I'd be disappointed as they are so hyped that it wouldn't live up to my expectations!?
Saying that at the moment I'd have a Milgauss :-)
Just go to the shop and try one on. Actually, try them all!
First Q I would ask is do you like polished links????? Believe me the Rolex ones get hairlines just looking at them! If your anal about scratches etc like a lot of people then avoid the Daytona and YM and go for the more tool like Sea Dweller!!!
The YM is the most boring watch out of the Rolex "sport" range in my opinion so it would go down to a Sub type watch or a Daytona.
I own a Sub and a Daytona - both totally diff watches
Daytona wears small and of course has a chrono function - beautiful and quite blingy (the only Rolex I own which gets noticed - White SS)
Sea Dweller is hard as nails and I dont even worry about marking / knocking my sub
I have a black dial Daytona so I would advise that one
SDc for me, the watch that is the versatile from those options. Daytona wears small as others have said.
It's a nicely made, expensive, usually stainless steel, usually uncomplicated watch. If you expect something else, then yes you'll be disappointed.
The hype is in people's heads primarily - too much bull attached to Rolex for some reason - but then it;s the key to their success. I find them perfect for do-anything weekend wear or holidays but wouldn't dream of wearing one where there could be other watch enthusiasts about! But that's just snobbishness on my part.
I think they've out marketed themselves for a lot of people although there's plenty that would disagree! What we need is a little bit of reverse marketing :)
What are you basing that on?
Longer, curvier lugs
Platinum bezel
Iridescent blue dial
Greater depth of colour (red accents on blue dial)
Not ubiquitous like the Sub or (less so) Daytona. The lugs don't have chamfers and are quite conventional, but that's the case with most Rolexes nowadays. I'd have said it has more character than most of the others!
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Oddly enough, I find that Rolex is among the very few companies in the industry with a level of manufacturing and design integrity that requires no excuses around "watch enthusiasts", or indeed, actual watchmakers.
Disdain for Rolex tends to be the calling card of those who know only a little about watches. ;)
The three levels of Rolex appreciation:
"Rolex is the best" (New Guy version)
"Rolex is for suckers" (New Connoisseur version)
"Rolexes are actually pretty good watches" (Grizzled Veteran version)
Source: The Rolex Problem
I would but it's a 5hr round trip :-(
Sorry it simply does nothing for me at all - just my personal opinion!
This one........
- - - Updated - - -
Uncomplicated, classy and sporty all at the same time...
Ha! Good description of the Yachtmaster. As it was introduced in the early 90's, I've always thought it was the odd-one-out amongst the Professional range as it didn't have that genuine history of the other watches, it seemed like it had been 'invented' without any real reason i.e. if you sailed a yacht then surely a Submariner would be suitable? Maybe yacht owners needed the bling of the platinum bezel to distinguish themselves from lowly Sub wearers.
With regard to the Daytona, the screw-in pushers just make it totally inconvenient to use the chrono, I can't imagine many using it at all.
As Haywood says: get a Sea Dweller.
@ TheBat : thankyou, but you have edited my post heavily when quoting it, such that it no longer makes sense. I can make myself look daft without additional help!
H
Sorry, that was not my intention. I'll proof-read my posts better next time.@ TheBat : thankyou, but you have edited my post heavily when quoting it, such that it no longer makes sense. I can make myself look daft without additional help!
H
Many thanks for all the advice so far. I have got as close as I can to trying them all on. Last weekend I tried on a Yacht Master, I've previously tried on an SDc, and a while ago I tried on a Daytona (either yellow gold or bi metal, I can't quite remember now). But I've never been to a shop that has all three together, which is what I'd need in order to try them all on and compare. The steel Daytona in particular is something I don't seem to see in my local ADs.
To the question about PCLs, I'm happy to have a watch with them. I accept they'll get minor scratches with time.
I'm also not considering selling whatever I buy. I imagine I'll have it for many many years (though of course it's always beneficial to pay some attention to resale in any purchase).
As a bit of background, many years ago I developed an interest in watches. I got a few inexpensive Seikos, then saved up and bought my first 'nice watch', a 16600. I loved it and wore it everywhere for a few years, then as my interest developed I owned a few other interesting watches. Amongst those were a Seiko MM600, and a Grand Seiko Spring Drive.
One day I decided to take a step up, sold all my nice watches (apart from my first one, the 16600) and bought a Patek Nautilus which I wore every day for a year, then alternated with the 16600. I loved both those watches but last year I needed to sell them both to raise funds for a house.
It's been a while since then, and I'm enjoying my current less expensive watches, but I'm missing having something nicer. Thinking about it, a steel Rolex seems to satisfy what I want from a decent watch. Partly it reminds me of how excited I was to get my old SD all those years ago. I don't mind that Rolexs are popular, and that some who see it will only think I've bought it to show off. None of that bothers me.
I think my next purchase will be one of these for the following reasons:
SDc simply reminds me of my first Rolex. It's a modern classic. Though I've already had an SD, maybe I should get something different...
The Daytona has always looked like an iconic design, I've already had an SD, and this is probably my next favourite black faced Rolex.
I'm drawn to the Yacht Master partly because it's not as quite an obvious choice as the other two, and after having the Nautilus I'm really drawn to blue faces.
Keep the advice coming, and I'll definitely update this thread when I've come to a decision and made a purchase.
Recently I made the mistake of trying on a SD 4000 and
guess what?
I want one
But will have to move on a couple of pieces first, otherwise I would get lynched
I think the clean simplistic design of the Explorer II, preferably with white dial, looks very classy and distinctive for a s/s Rolex. Never been a fan of the Daytona.
Please forgive a bit of pedantry here, as I see this word misused often in watch discussions:
"Simplistic" is generally an undesirable quality, as it means something is over-simplified to the point of being deficient.
"Simple" can certainly be a positive characteristic, though; it doesn't carry the same negative implications that "simplistic" does.
Regarding the Explorer II, I find that the extra hand and 24-hour bezel make it one of the busier designs from Rolex. And alhough I quite like the watch, it's highly unlikely I'd keep it over my Daytona if forced to choose between the two. ;)
Posting Permissions
