While it's sometimes seen as a compromise, the two-tone has an appeal all its own
The Daytona is a legend among luxury watches. Unfortunately, it's also pretty much unattainable.
This shouldn't be surprising given the fact that A) Rolex is the king of the Swiss watch industry; B) the Daytona is their most coveted model, and C) global watch demand (not to mention speculation) is through the roof.
With that disclaimer out out of the way, we can review the various versions of the Daytona. To oversimplify, there are three:
Stainless Steel
Two-tone
Solid gold
Truth be told, the stainless steel Daytona has become too popular. While they've been fetching premiums for years, prices have now entered the stratosphere. It's not uncommon to see price tags that are triple the MSRP. Sadly, speculators who merely want the watch in order to ‘flip’ it have made it impossible for mere mortals to ever get one.
While the stainless-steel Daytona is the clear favorite--and cult object--a strong case can be made for the two-tone model. But before going any further, it's worth examining two-tone watches in general.
Two-Tone: Tragedy or Triumph?
It must be said that watch enthusiasts are a picky bunch. In fact, they seem to savor finding faults (real or imagined) with watches--and an irrational hatred of two-tone watches, it seems, is in their constitution. Two-tone watches are often attacked for being a "compromise". OK, watch nerds may disparage them, but this mix of metals offers the best of both worlds--the light weight and durability of steel, with the gleam of gold. Back in the late 1980s, two-tone watches were all the rage. And nobody does it better than Rolex.
The reasoning is simple enough. Steel watches are more "pure," classic, and fit for purpose. They're also the collector's choice due to their rarity and desirability. As an added bonus, they're even more discreet--no bling.
In a vacuum, these arguments make sense. But we're not in a vacuum, and many of these points are outdated or irrelevant.
First, what is the "purpose" of a Rolex Daytona? It's undeniably a luxury chronograph, so what's wrong with gold? While the argument for a spartan, all-steel ensemble can certainly be made for, say, an Explorer or Sea Dweller, does that really apply to the Daytona?
Second, the market price--and hype--for these steel models is materially higher than the two-tone version. From a utilitarian perspective, the two-tone is actually the more sensible choice. As for discretion, anyone wearing a Daytona is clearly sending a signal. Let's not kid ourselves that this Rolex is an under-the-radar choice.
The Verdict
Like many great things, the two-tone Daytona is a child of the 80s. Specifically, it has been with us since 1988, which also, incidentally, is year they released the first automatic version. Here's a quick rundown of its charms:
Compared to its all steel/all gold stable mates, the two-tone is more versatile. It also brings a bit of life to a watch world dominated by stainless steel
The gold hour markers, hands, and subdials contrast perfectly
The traditional metal bezel, as opposed to the new ceramic one, is a classic
The touch of gold doesn't compromise wearability (the full gold version is too heavy and vulnerable to dings and scratches)
Amongst Daytonas, the two-tone has historically been a bit of an underdog. While it has often been overlooked, this watch is more than just a good value proposition--it's a grail.
Comments