My thin case for a 116520 Daytona project

[ubiquitous]

Quite possible! Though, there have been a number of 16520's I've seen with the same bezel.

I do suspect that RSC's may replace with either/or as well. Probably depends on what they have at their disposal in the parts trays that particular day...

[ubiquitous]

For grins, here's the genuine bezel on my white dial 16520...

[freddy333]

For grins, here's the genuine bezel on my white dial 16520...

We may very well be at the point of looking for variations that fall within the normal Rolex range of watch-to-watch variability, but do you see a difference (in person) between the boldness/thickness/depth of the fonts on the 2 bezels? The bezel on the left looks to me like the correct 16520 bezel, while the 1 on the right looks like it is stamped with the bolder/deeper fonts on a 116520. Do you see that? Again, I may be over-detailing this whole thing. Hard to tell from here.

[freddy333]

You know, the bezels are probably fine. I am looking through my 16520 archives & there are definite variations in the bezel fonts (though not so much for 116520s), so I am sure they are fine.

___________

I also just checked my Daytona Legend is Born book & I see the same variations there. So never mind.

But if you come across another source for those flat, brushed casebacks, shout.

[ubiquitous]

There's no doubt that the gen bezel on my black lumi dial 16520 is bolder than the gen on my white trit dial 16520.

Is it correct? A and P serials most likely didn't come with that bolder bezel as new, though I am sure RSC's have used them as replacements. I've seen no less than 5 16520's with the same bezel.

Personally, I prefer the bolder fonts...

[freddy333]

There's no doubt that the gen bezel on my black lumi dial 16520 is bolder than the gen on my white trit dial 16520.

Is it correct? A and P serials most likely didn't come with that bolder bezel as new, though I am sure RSC's have used them as replacements. I've seen no less than 5 16520's with the same bezel.

Personally, I prefer the bolder fonts...

Me too & I think they are both standard issue gen bezels. I thought someone's book.....maybe Dowling's.....indicated that Rolex bolded the fonts for the in-house movement 116520, but I must have read that wrong. I have gone through more than 100 gen 16520s (not to mention the dozen or so in the Rolex book) & in addition to the 2 bezels you have on your watches, I am seeing other variations as well. For instance, look at the alignment of the 'P' & 'R' in PER HOUR. I found 5 different alignments on the gen 16520 bezels. I think I am going to run off & join a convent (that has no clocks).

[ubiquitous]

Indeed. There are numerous variations- flat 4, pointed 4, UNITS PER HOUR differences, 200, 225, 240 UNIT tachy's, bold, thin etc. Far more than the initial 3 that were once known as the typical a few years back...

[freddy333]

Indeed. There are numerous variations- flat 4, pointed 4, UNITS PER HOUR differences, 200, 225, 240 UNIT tachy's, bold, thin etc. Far more than the initial 3 that were once known as the typical a few years back...

Yes, but I was ignoring all of THOSE variations. So I think it comes down to the old watchmaker's line 'if it fits the case, it must be right'.

[Guest Sql_pl]

For me the fisrt thing to notice is the 6 and 9 font of the bezel- have a look at these - it looks like the one you have now on your black 16520 is a 116520 bezel - on every other 16520 I have seen in real life or in pics the 6 and 9 are taller and of a bit different shape - just like what you have in your white Daytona. Same thing is here with my bezel that came off a genuine 16520.