Proof that the Speedmaster is superior to the Daytona

Posts
35
Likes
99
I’d still rather have a Daytona. It never went to space.
Many would argue that the speedy didn't either.
 
Posts
248
Likes
50
To me it’s the charm. Rolex models have lost all charm for the originals over the years. Omega is better at balancing the charm while modernising it for materials and tech.

arguably Tudor is now taking the charm on for Rolex but it’s not Rolex.
 
Posts
6,303
Likes
11,664
::facepalm1:: well by now we know what the Apollo-era astronauts really wanted (Feedback 1968)
 
Posts
199
Likes
848
If you could walk into a Rolex AD and buy a Daytona on the spot, far fewer people would want one.
 
Posts
9,104
Likes
47,555
Many would argue that the speedy didn't either.
Say what!?!
 
Posts
1,613
Likes
3,784
I assumed that this is what was being referred to. It staggers the imagination that there are so many people walking the Earth that are actually this, um, uninformed (I prefer galactically stupid).

Darwin will win through.
 
Posts
481
Likes
711
I love my Speedmasters but the water resistance is a big issue for myself.
I love a wear and forget watch especially when traveling and the Daytona for fills that requirement.
For legibility the Speedy wins hands down.
I'm in both camps.
 
Posts
27,804
Likes
70,619
I love my Speedmasters but the water resistance is a big issue for myself.
I love a wear and forget watch especially when traveling and the Daytona for fills that requirement.
For legibility the Speedy wins hands down.
I'm in both camps.

Do you regularly go to depths greater than 50m?
 
Posts
3,132
Likes
8,183
That the Speedmaster is better than the Daytona is certainly debatable, but there's no argument that Rolex makes a better diver and a GMT. And Omega has no real answer for a Day Date. Or Sky Dweller. But as the old saying goes...De gustibus non est disputandum.
 
Posts
6,510
Likes
26,451
I post this picture whenever someone says a Speedy isn’t suitable for swimming. If you maintain it properly, 50m is more than enough for most people.
 
Posts
9,104
Likes
47,555
Depth ratings for watches are pretty useless beyond a certain point. The watch may be able to tolerate the water pressure, but YOU can’t. The vast majority of individuals who wear dive watches are confined to desk diving only.
 
Posts
1,613
Likes
3,784
Depth ratings for watches are pretty useless beyond a certain point. The watch may be able to tolerate the water pressure, but YOU can’t. The vast majority of individuals who wear dive watches are confined to desk diving only.

But what about the rotational pressure applied to a dive watch which can render it useless at shallow depths?



I was pond-ering this earlier.
 
Posts
2,878
Likes
5,368
I post this picture whenever someone says a Speedy isn’t suitable for swimming. If you maintain it properly, 50m is more than enough for most people.

Thanks, I was actually looking for this photo just the other day for a similar conversation... saving it now 😎
 
Posts
2,379
Likes
4,058
If I find myself in the water, either by accident or intention, as a general rule I try to stay pretty close to the surface…… preferably on it!
Call me strange, but I’m addicted to breathing!
So if I’m beyond 50 meters, I’ve probably got more on my mind than my damned watch!
 
Posts
777
Likes
1,343
I actually like both. They each have their uniqueness that make them special for me. Admittedly, I've never owned a Daytona...one day I hope to if I can get one at MSRP.
 
Posts
2,056
Likes
4,182
The Daytona, like all Rolex watches, is very well made. Personally, I just can't get into the aesthetics of the watch, but that's just me. The Submariner is attractive. The Daytona, not so much.

Same. As boring as a basic speedy is, it is more of a tool watch than a Daytona. In my eyes anyway. 😉 it's much easier to read and use for timing and many other things. Most people probably would get mugged for a Daytona faster than a Moonwatch. Seems like a toss up.