Gen to Rep pictorial comparison of the Rolex Daytona 116520

[gioarmani]

I got this idea from another board, and unless memory fails, I haven't seen a pictorial comparison of the two, so I hope this one helps those who might still be on the fence.

*Note to Admin--feel free to move this to the watch comparison section, if you wish. Thanks.

For what it's worth, this piece was purchased form Josh about one year ago, and after my initial regulation, still keeps to within + 2 or 3 seconds per day. After sealing the case, pusher & tube rings with silicon grease, this piece tested to 3 ATMs, not 6, as I would have hoped (similar to my SMP chrono and other Rolex sports models), but still sufficient for shallow-water swimming.

We all know the story of this model's modified A7750's reliability factor, and I had been already been burned by one crapping out, so chalk it up to a learning experience. Is this movement more prone to malfunction than certain others, based on it's extra bridge & added gears? Of course--so lesson learned is to simply be more careful with it. Don't use it as a daily beater, and don't keep it running on a watch winder 24/7. I keep mine in the watchbox's drawer, and only pull it out when I want to wear it.

Other than the rehaut & case being a millimeter or so too thick, they're damn near spot-on (Spotable as a fake to the experts? Easier off the wrist that on. But then again, even the most expensive & professionally modded reps are, to a well trained eye...). Here's mine, from it's original shoot here, straight from the box:

Notice how the newer rep's rotor makes the A7750 look a lot closer to the gen's 4130?

New rep rotor & movement:

Gen rotor & movement:

Old rep rotor & movement (still pictured on most dealers sites, sadly--even though the old one's not the one currently used in the watch):

And now for the gen to rep comparison. The only mod done to my watch was a slight trimming of the CGs. There will be some slight color variations on the steel & on the dial due to differences in lighting, but side by side the quality is exact in crispness & color. (gen pic on top of the pairings, rep on the bottom):

[scoobs1971]

Great comparison, Gio!

I'm not a real Rolex fan, but this is THE Rolex watch I'd have if the movement would be more reliable...

[freddy333]

Gio - Nice work. I posted something similar several months ago, the main point being that there are at least 3 different versions of 116520 reps floating around. It looks like you have the one with the 'F520117' serial number between the lugs at 6 (this is same one that Ubi and Stephane have & which By-Tor recently reviewed) and I have an earlier version with 'X41900' between the lugs at 6. Mine has a more correctly proportioned case (narrower CGs & a lower profile, which translates to a more accurate rehaute), but a more pointy 'A' font in Daytona

(As you can see, the rehaute depth is quite accurate on this case)

Here is a quick & dirty pic showing the profile/depth of each case ('F520117' on left & 'x41900' on right)

(Although the thickness of the 2 cases only differ by 1-2 mms, it makes a noticeable difference in the way the watch sits on your wrist)

I did some work on one of the third versions several months ago, but I forgot to take pictures before it left. As I recall, it had the same (thicker) case you have, but with the same dial I have--it had the worst features of both, but it had a very realistic/accurate rotor.

[gioarmani]

Interesting--I was unaware of other models with the seconds @ 6 & functioning chronometers that had a different case profile. Speaking purely observationally, the main complaint I would have about the aesthetics of the other model you have pictured would be that the 5 minute markers seem a bit large (& possibly the wrong color lume), and the crown doesn't sit against the case.

I wonder if it's possible to swap the whole dial & movement to the thinner case, or just the dial perhaps?...Hmmm...

Where was yours purchased?

[rek001]

Gio, thanks much for this review, very interesting.Your pix always make me want to buy the watch, they have such an approachable feel.Actually, I've been lusting for a Daytona forever, may be I should just do it & hope for the best.When you fire 'er up to wear, what is your winding method?Gio, thanks much for this review, very interesting.Your pix always make me want to buy the watch, they have such an approachable feel.Actually, I've been lusting for a Daytona forever, may be I should just do it & hope for the best.When you fire 'er up to wear, what is your winding method?

[rek001]

Wow, I just read my post and everything is running together, took out my paragraph breaks, repeated some phrases.

I didn't set it up that way.

[freddy333]

Gio -- I bought mine on CQout a few years ago (you can find alot of additional & very useful info here).

The crown (and pushers) is gen on my watch and I purposely countersunk the gen tube so the crown would not sit flush against the case because I have a number of gen pictures (from TZ) having returned from Rolex service that way. I could have installed it normally, but I like the look and do that with all my watches (with CGs) when I upgrade crowns/tubes.

I am not seeing what you are seeing about the 5 minute markers. I have compared my watch to many gens and have never noticed any difference between the markers, but these all are reps and Rolex is well known for having dial variations. So anything is possible.

[By-Tor]

Great post Gio.

Yes, the rep is very good.

I'm quite sure that the subdial circles on the rep are shinier, and more "matte" on the gen. Here's rep vs. gen dial comparison that I constructed for my Daytona Guide & FAQ (gen photo by J.Holmbrook).

[gioarmani]

Thanks for the dial close-ups. i wonder how old that rep dial is because mine is pretty matte. Maybe I should click on the link...