To mismatch hands or not. Rolex Day-Date content
Discussion
I've a got a DD which had this dial when I bought it:
It was probably the most legible dial on any watch I have owned, but I am not wild about Romans.
|https://forums-images.pistonheads.com/632472/20260101650383[/url]
So I got my pet watchmaker to fit this:
[url]
The watch now looks brighter and more sporty (if that is possible).
You can read the time perfectly well in that photo, can't you. But in anything but good light it is a nightmare to read. On the beach there is no chance at all. At the gym? Nope. As soon as the light starts to fade: invisible.
Given that I want a watch to tell the time I want to sort it out. My options are, I think:
Put the Roman dial back in.
Get a dial that has the non-lume hands as standard. Which would be diamond dots. I am not sure if I am pimp enough.
Find a non-sunburst dial. Maybe black or white.
Put the hands from the Roman dial on the baton dial.
The last option is the simplest, but I am not sure how I feel about mixing and matching dial and hands. Though I've seen a watch with that exact combo recently, I imagine for the same reason.
Thoughts chaps?
It was probably the most legible dial on any watch I have owned, but I am not wild about Romans.
So I got my pet watchmaker to fit this:
The watch now looks brighter and more sporty (if that is possible).
You can read the time perfectly well in that photo, can't you. But in anything but good light it is a nightmare to read. On the beach there is no chance at all. At the gym? Nope. As soon as the light starts to fade: invisible.
Given that I want a watch to tell the time I want to sort it out. My options are, I think:
Put the Roman dial back in.
Get a dial that has the non-lume hands as standard. Which would be diamond dots. I am not sure if I am pimp enough.
Find a non-sunburst dial. Maybe black or white.
Put the hands from the Roman dial on the baton dial.
The last option is the simplest, but I am not sure how I feel about mixing and matching dial and hands. Though I've seen a watch with that exact combo recently, I imagine for the same reason.
Thoughts chaps?
It’s a vintage watch, so embrace the quirks of a vintage watch. IMHO, put it back to the original dial and handset. I’ve got an 1803 DD with the champagne dial and baton markers. No it’s not the most legible Watch I own, and the double non quick set can be a PITA but I love it, and what it means to me. I certainly wouldn’t mix handset and dials if they weren’t an original option. But that’s just me.
Jinba Ittai said:
It s a vintage watch, so embrace the quirks of a vintage watch. IMHO, put it back to the original dial and handset. I ve got an 1803 DD with the champagne dial and baton markers. No it s not the most legible Watch I own, and the double non quick set can be a PITA but I love it, and what it means to me. I certainly wouldn t mix handset and dials if they weren t an original option. But that s just me.
Ah, you feel the same.TBH the sunburst dial it's got at the moment bugs me slightly because it's not correct for that year. And I am a bit OCD.
It's interesting how different the watch "wears" with the Roman dial. It looks a lot smaller and more "rounded" if that makes any sense.
But I too love the watch. It keeps exceptionally good time, is super comfortable and looks great with a shirt. It's just at the business of actually telling the time where it's compromised.
TrevorHill said:
I prefer the Roman numerals, but it s your watch and only you can decide which one you want to keep. Lovely watch either way.
Thank you.When I bought it, I thought it was going to be an easy job finding what I wanted. Not so! It took me a long time to find that, and then I had to compromise. It's about nine months since I bought it and the exact right watch has not yet come to market.
Jinba Ittai said:
It s a vintage watch, so embrace the quirks of a vintage watch. IMHO, put it back to the original dial and handset. I ve got an 1803 DD with the champagne dial and baton markers. No it s not the most legible Watch I own, and the double non quick set can be a PITA but I love it, and what it means to me. I certainly wouldn t mix handset and dials if they weren t an original option. But that s just me.
You own a Rolex made in 1803?Super Sonic said:
You own a Rolex made in 1803?
Try https://www.google.com/search?q=1803+dd+rolex&...Furbo said:
But I too love the watch. It keeps exceptionally good time, is super comfortable and looks great with a shirt. It's just at the business of actually telling the time where it's compromised.
I prefer originality. But it can sometimes mean a compromise. I have a Sky Dweller that I find very hard to read in anything other than decent daylight - but I like the watch for all sorts of other reasons. It is what it is. I'd go with the original set up.
Assuming you are planning to keep the parts anyway, I would just make it how you actually want it and enjoy it. If you ever sell it you can make it ‘correct’.
Rolex themselves will change dials for example to different colours if you pay for it so what you are doing here is not so radical and gets you exactly what you want.
Rolex themselves will change dials for example to different colours if you pay for it so what you are doing here is not so radical and gets you exactly what you want.
Miguel Alvarez said:
I like the batons more. The one I owned was batons so maybe that s why. The Roman is nice though. Can t go wrong with either. If I was forced to make a choice I d side with keeping it original and romans. If you re less fussed batons.
I WANTED an early unworn 118238 with champagne dial and batons, but bought this one because it is a tidy one with full Rolex history and it's still under service warranty.I intended to move this one on when the right watch popped up. But up it has not popped.
There has not been a single NOS one show up in the UK or Italy. One in the US, but they would not sell outside US.
Hence why I have been tampering with this one.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff