Returning to horology with the Rolex Daytona 116520

I think there's no need to explain what happened since my last post over 2 years ago. I bought an Apple Watch, got it on launch day, and had pretty much a horological meltdown. I sold all my pieces and lived happily with the Apple Watch (series 1) for over a year. I still believe that the Apple Watch is the perfect watch for most people. It's beautifully crafted and terrifyingly useful, I believe this will improve as the Series 3 has its own LTE connection.

Nonetheless in February of 2016 I started to go into horological remission and thought to myself about what kind of watch I wanted to get me back into the foray. There was only one clear choice: A stainless steel Daytona 116520. I was lucky enough that my local boutique in Markham near Toronto had one in stock and I gladly bought it with its gleaming white dial.

This is the second time I've owned this watch and I started to better understand what appealed to me so much about it. The merits of a watch for me come from four elements: technical, aesthetics, craft, and provenance. The Daytona excels in almost all of these elements.

The competition

There is no real competition with the Rolex Daytona in its price range. While there are watches that match some of its characteristics I cannot think of another column wheel, vertical clutch chronograph with a free sprung overcoil hairspring that is under 40 mm in diameter which exceeds COSC in performance for under 15000 USD. The closest may be Omega's I've owned a surprisingly few number of chronographs but handled many. The most prominent pieces I have experience with today are Breitling's B01 (also found in Tudor), the venerable Valjoux 7750 (as experienced in the 2 MIH watches I owned), the Patek annual calendar chronograph, and the Rolex 4130. Modular chronographs are plentiful but I do not consider purchasing them due to serviceability concerns and just believing it to not be an elegant solution.



The Breitling B01, while robust and modern, has a fatal flaw: The reset pusher. The pusher is very stiff and almost feels like the watch is malfunctioning. The hairspring is also a flat hairspring but the timing is generally fine.

The 7750 is robust but as a cam actuated chronograph with a plastic parts creates a mental block for me. To be fair, Rolex use Teflon, a polymer, on their characteristic red reversing wheels. The feel of the chronograph is adequate but I've never found them to be pleasurable to push. Finishing and chronometric performance varies widely on the grade of the movement and the manufacturer. The biggest issue I have with the 7750 is its size, at 30 mm x 7.9 mm the 7750 is generally housed in cases above 42 mm diameter and 14 mm thick. With sissy wrists, these are far too large for me.

The Patek is a work of art but the pricing is exorbitant and beyond reach for most mortals. The feel of the pushes, fit and finish, and chronometry cannot be faulted. But at 50,000 USD and up on the secondary market, I cannot see a good value proposition here.

Focusing on the Daytona

The movement 

As a technically inclined collector, the movement is the most important part of the watch. The 4130 movement used in both the 116520 (2000-2016) and 116500LN (2016-current) Daytona is one of the best chronograph movements. At 30.5 mm x 6.5 mm, it is reasonably thin for a automatic winding chronograph allowing the Daytona to have a case dimension of 38.5 x 12.2 mm despite Rolex claiming a 40 mm diameter. The movement features a very useful 72 hour power reserve, vertical clutch coupling (basically two plates make contact to start the chronograph seconds hand instead of two sharp gears meshing together), a free sprung parachrom overcoil hairspring, and a "low" part count of 201 parts. The pushers feel solid yet smooth and the operation of the movement is flawless.

Finishing of the 4130 is decent and improved since the 4030 with more finished surfaces. However, the finishing is nothing to write home about with no anglage, black polishing, or chamfered screw slots. Since all unmodified Daytonas have a solid back, I see the finishing as acceptable for the price.

The aesthetics

This is one is a bit difficult for me. The main complaint about the aesthetics of the Daytona are: too shiny, difficult to read subdials, and the screw down pushers. There's not much to say about this; the watch is very shiny and the subdials are reflective and hard to read. The screw down pushers don't bother me much and helps keep peace of mind as I rarely use the chronograph function. I wear the watch exclusively on a burgundy alligator Camille Fournet strap which helps tone down the bling factor.

Why I went back

I don't care much for provenance. While the Daytona has a "heritage" of a true racing chronograph to me much of this is marketing hype. In 2017 (or 2000 for that matter) no professional or amateur racing event was being timed on mechanical chronographs and there's no need to pretend that atomic clocks and temperature compensated quartz timekeeping does not exist. The value of the Daytona is exactly of because how it is able to evolve and endure in an age where the smartphone is an extension of the human body. The fit and finish of the watch is sublime, the robustness of the watch and bracelet is superb, and the timekeeping is worry free. For me, there is no better value than a Stainless Steel Daytona.

There could be no better watch to get back into mechanical horology again. The no-frills nature of the Datyona bears striking resemblance to the Apple Watch's intuitive nature. They could not be more different a product but it is no sin to love both.

Part 2 of 2: Review of the Rolex Submariner No Date (14060M/Cal. 3130)

Part 1 with history and specs here

I laid down some history and specifications for the Rolex No Date Submariner (14060M) in part 1. The last known retail price of this discontinued model was 6,300 USD in its only version: Steel on a steel bracelet.

Now I can get on with the actual reviewing part. I purchased the watch used for the market price at the time after deciding that I "needed" a Rolex since that was what I had wanted since the 6th grade. I have a fair amount of experience with fine timepieces and I was initially not impressed. I understood and appreciated the history but in the steel, it wasn't as impressive as I had hoped. I eventually found out why and was able to resolve that issue.

A wrist shot with the OEM steel bracelet

You can even pretend to be Bond, James Bond

Watch head
The watch head itself was well finished and had no annoyingly sharp edges which I absolutely hate. The edges are polished while everything else is brushed. The 904L steel that Rolex loves to advertise is slightly darker than 316L used in most watches but that difference is not so apparent. The 14060M is the last Rolex to have lug holes, a feature I very much appreciate since it makes switching out the bracelet much easier.

Polished side with traditional lug holes

As far as dials are concerned, the dial is glossy but quite plain. Personally I believe that the two line (non-COSC) version is much more attractive due to the watch being a "tool watch". I would have preferred a tritium markers with the characteristic yellow patina but opted for the more advanced movement instead (the 14060 was the last model to have the tritium markers).

Untouched photo showing the glare of the sapphire crystal

The uncoated sapphire crystal is completely flat which, along with the plain dial and mostly brushed case gives the watch an understated feeling. A convex and coated sapphire crystal with a lightly textured dial would have made the watch feel more expensive but would also take away from the Rolex heritage embodied in the watch and move it towards being a Breitling.

Bezel
The bezel is aluminium and will scratch, but can be replaced very easily. I prefer the newer ceramic bezel inserts but at the same time wished it was less shiny and looked more like the aluminium one. The bezel turns smoothly and has 120 clicks.

Movement
The particular example I had was running around 15 seconds fast despite demagnetizing it, while this bothered me quite a bit the 3130 movement is generally known to be a very solid performer that keeps time within COSC specifications (+6/-4 seconds per 24 hours).

The triplock crown (note the three dots)

One very important and special feature of the movement how it manual winds. Most watches with screw down crowns will wind in the first crown position but also wind as you're the crown down. Modern Rolex movements will only wind in the first position but not as it's being screwed down.

Because of Rolex's unique winding system, the movement is exceptionally quiet, but I've never owned anything with a 7750 in it so I've not had loud winding issues before with other watches.

Bracelet
Now comes the cause of my grievance. The bracelet on the submariner is by pretty much any description and evaluation terrible. It's reasonably comfortable, has removable links secured by screws, and light (due to its hollow components), but I can honestly think of no other merit.  I understand that the watch is a "tool watch" and that it's staying true to its roots with the tuna can bracelet, but they can certainly do better while staying true to heritage.

75% made of stamped metal

End Links
The end links are stamped from metal and bent into shape, a feature I would expect of watches priced under 1000 dollars only. These bend over time and even though they may be bent back into shape, it is no excuse for a brand that everyone thinks so highly of. They have since resolved this with the newer 114060 iteration of the 14060 but the newer bracelet is neither obtainable nor backwards compatible.

Made of stamped metal

The bracelet itself isn't much better, the center links are hollow (read bent sheet metal) and are known to "stretch" overtime. This stretch is actually the rivet fastening the links together wearing down the holes in the links.

An example of stretch

Courtesy of clockmaker.co.au

For small wrists, the bracelet is bad as well, and it's unlikely to fit wrists 6.5 inches and under in a balanced way (clasp on the direct bottom of the wrist) without forcing off a permanent link with a vice grip.

Perhaps something not everyone is interested in doing

The Clasp
The clasp is stamped of stainless steel and feels light and flimsy. The diver's extension does not properly secure onto the clasp with the second smallest micro adjustment hole being used.

Thin clasp

Sheet metal

The flimsy diver's extension

Concluding remarks and on the wrist
For those wanting to have a Rolex for a good price, this watch is definitely the way to go (used). For a tool watch, I would have to say forget about it. There are much better options for about 1/35th the price (one that I will review eventually).

As much as I hate the bracelet, the watch is a pleasure to wear and shines up to a classic beauty with a grey polished stingray strap. I'm just not sure the price, even used, is justified for this watch. All modern mechanical movements can take a lickin' and keep on tickin' and there are much higher quality pieces available at this price level. But regardless, I can't argue with the power of the brand and the heritage.

Part 1 of 2: Review of the Rolex Submariner No Date (14060M/Cal. 3130)

Part 2 with opinions here

The Rolex Sub is probably the most popular single "nice" watch in the general population. Ironically, it's also the most common upscale beater watch. For those who don't know, a beater is just a whatever watch that is worn during activities where the owner fears damaging more expensive watches. One should also know that as of 2012, the 14060M has been discontinued in favor of the 114060, more on the differences below.

While I won't go into the history of the watch too much since Jake has it covered more than I ever could here:

http://rolexblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/part-7-rolex-submariner-through-time.html

All that needs to be said is that it was introduced in 1953 and has remained largely unchanged for the past 60 years. Another interesting bit is that it didn't break the 200 USD barrier until the later half of the 1960's.

A whopping 195 dollars!

The 14060M is preceded by the 14060, the difference being the 14060 has the older 3000 movement while the 14060M has the 3130 movement. Later iterations of the 3130 has the parachrom bleu hairspring.

The differences between the 3000 and 3130 movement are evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The 3130 has a free sprung variable inertia balance wheel with a Breguet overcoil hairspring that is secured by a full balance bridge while the 3000 has a variable inertial balance wheel with a flat hairspring fastened by a balance cock.

The 3000 movement

In theory the balance bridge is more shock resistent but I've never heard of watches breaking because the balance cock shifted. A more common cause for broken watches is broken balance staffs that the shock protection (KIF on both movements) seeks to reduce.

The exterior of the 14060 and 14060M are identical (although some may claim differences in minute details such as dial depth and even thickness). For those interested in the date version (16610), note that the non-date is 0.5 mm smaller in diameter and 1 mm thinner.

The specs for the 14060M that is the subject of this review are:
Dimensions: 39.5 mm x 11 mm

Lug Width: 20mm

One version only: Black dial, 904L stainless steel case and bracelet

Non-COSC, Superluminova dial (later versions are COSC while earlier versions have Tritium lume)

White gold indices.

Non solid end links and hollow middle links

Triplock crown

Fliplock bracelet made of stamped 904L steel.

The 3130 movement:

28.5 mm diameter (12 lignes)

6 mm thick

31 jewels

KIF shock protection

50 hour power reserve on one mainspring

Rolex winding system with no ball bearings

A thorough review and dissection of the 3135 movement (date version of the 3130) is here:

http://www.chronometrie.com/rolex3135/rolex3135.html

The newer 114060 has the same 3130 movement but with the parachrom bleu hairspring with solid end links and a machined solid clasp. It also has a ceramic bezel insert (as opposed to a painted aluminium one). It also has blue lume in place of the traditional green.

King at last!: facts, myths, and opinions about Rolex.

What's the best watch in the world?
Rolex, of course.

At least that's the answer you would get from the vast majority of people around the world. The most powerful brand in watches and the one with the most sales (at 3 billion dollars annually). It's also the highest grossing watch brand in important developing markets like China. At around one million watches a year, the Genevan manufacturer is truly the industry king.

But since this is not a business blog so let's get down to business.

I had wanted a rolex since probably conception. They were mystical and I had heard many (untrue) things about them, the most common being:

They're the most accurate watch (some exaggerate to say they're never off)
They're the most durable watch
They're the most expensive watches (I think Greubel Forsey begs to differ)
They make the best watches (definitely not true on an absolute scale)

Not only are those bits of lore ridiculous, Rolex isn't even close to being the most technically advanced watch with the most complicated piece being the Yacht-Master II or the new Sky Dweller with the dateless Daytona coming in a close third.

The 2012 Sky Dweller is the most complicated Rolex watch currently in production

Now before I get angry emails and death threats about my criticisms, Rolex deserves a lot of credit for the things they did do:

First water resistent watch
Helium escape valve for saturation diving
Reach the bottom of the Mariana trench twice (tried but didn't quite make it to the moon...)
Brand that is not named after anyone but rather easy to pronounce
First GMT watch
Most copied design AND most faked watch (an amazing achievement)
Other "firsts" are written but are a bit more dubious

Undeniably cool

Rolex was also worn by some pretty cool people like Che Guvera, James Bond, The Pope, and every other rich/powerful/famous person ever.

In my next post I'll be reviewing what I see as the embodiment of the Rolex brand, the 14060M No-Date Submariner in 904L Stainless Steel.

Now for the rest of the post I get to be silly and rant a bit:

Rolexes are also very durable and well designed as a tool watch, but paving a tool watch with colored diamonds and having it in 18K gold seems slightly counter intuitive to me, just like a gold plated vacuum cleaner.

Complete 24K Gold Plated Vacuum cleaner nonsense

(just get a Dyson)

Cool rainbow Rolex nonsense

Sexual innuendo Rolex nonsense

The most vulgar watch in existence: Rolex Daytona Leopard

Price? Priceless

Available at Amazon 

Although we're not really into celebrities here at Horolograph, it's fun to note that apparently Miley Cyrus has already gotten her paws on the new and slightly obscene rainbow Rolex Daytona above. Rumor websites say the price is at least 100,000 dollars but I would wait for an official figure :

Let's talk about Rolex, collectors, and collecting

As a kid growing up, I always wanted a Rolex. I think it's one of those things that is drilled into you from birth: Rolex is the best, most accurate, and (insert any/every superlative word here) watch the planet has ever known and always will know. I bought fake Rolexs as a kid with clear casebacks and sea-gull movements, of course my friends didn't know better and I felt pretty cool. Now, 8 years later, I'm still a kid but my tastes have matured slowly, a small credit is owed to fakes but much more is owed to the collectors on forums and online that share the passion for the industry.

My first "real" luxury watch

The first fine watch I owned was a Breitling Colt GMT from high school graduation, I consider myself a traveller and had a friend who gave me a Breitling catalog he had obtained from an air show. I was also enamored with Breitling and Hublot at the time because I had two classmates from extraordinarily wealthy families back in Geneva that owned them. I reviewed the endless propaganda that the brand websites generated and decided that for my budget (under 2000 dollars new) the Breitling was the right fit. After all, I did owe it to the brand after having owned a fake chronomat that had a subdial fall off.

Never having had occasion to handle a rolex, I eventually got the chance to examine a used modern explorer and submariner at my favorite jeweler Erik Spitzer of Radcliffe's in Baltimore, Maryland. I was honestly not impressed at the flimsy feel of the tuna-can bracelet and the sharp edges of the case. I had been seriously affected after seeing Patek Philippe's standards and demanded that all sharp edges be polished. But somehow, the trip ignited a desire for a "real watch" which I eventually found out meant held an original manufacturer movement in a specifically designed case. Rolex technically did fit the bill but seemed to be regarded as a little higher or equal to Omega but also as pompous and unfitting for a young man.

My impression of Rolex took a turn at the Rolex dealer in Chicago, where I had tried on a yellow gold Submariner date and a white gold Daytona. The watches felt much more solid than the pre-owned pieces I had held earlier, and in the glittering lights of the boutique, did not seem to be over-done. I eventually learned that the Submariner was the first dive watch and that stamped end-links with lug-holes were a signature, as was the now much copied helium release valve.

I eventually did buy a rolex of my own, a 14060M no date submariner which I felt was the best balance of tradition, ruggedness, and wearability. I no longer fool myself that the "rugged" watches made by Breitling, Rolex, Omega and the like are anywhere near what G-Shock can handle, but at the same time I've developed more realistic expectations about watches, embracing all their merits and shortfalls. In these 8 years since my fakes, I've learned to appreciate the history of watches, the design, the people who work on them, and most of all, the other collectors that collectively form the wonderful ecosystem in which we all learn.