Mate, you and I did a lot of research on those models, both did comprehensive analysis and you took it to a new level.
However, having done more 'in the field' research since, I am 100% positive there have been variations in this dial. I know a guy in the UK here who owns THREE ceramic tonas, two white dial (2018,2019) and one black. Having seen them side by side there is unquestionably a difference in the two white dials, not necessarily in the subdial thickness but perhaps the finish of the subdial outer ring giving the perception. Whether it is down to perception, production tolerance, milieu, I don't know, but these were both unequivocally gens.
I've also seen the red DAYTONA on a 2016 model with a marginally different font!
I wish I could have introduced you to be honest!!
Thanks for your reply and for your kind words
ssouthall6.
I certainly can not dispute the years of first hand experience and the knowledge that come from being able to make side by side comparisons in person.
Having worked in Industrial Design for over 35 years, my experience with design and tooling cost make it seem unlikely to me that a detail like the sub-dial thickness would be changed one year and then changed back another. However, changes in color or finishes are an entirely different story. Rolex is a company with a certain amount of perceived perfection, but it seems that we are learning that some details can vary in production runs, or batches. We would like to think that Gens are consistent and perfect, but we are learning that is not always the case.
Wow wow, calm down guys you both are experts that helped us a lot.
Don’t ruin that on who is more right.
Don't worry, I have tremendous respect for
ssouthall6 and his years of experience.
Sometimes we see things from a different point of view, but he has pushed me to go research and learn more of the details that make this hobby interesting and fun.
I don‘t post much and I try to add value and I hate to push my postcount up with stupid posts....but
At over 11000 posts so far... I'm thinking you may have made one or two stupid posts before ;-)
I don‘t post much and I try to add value and I hate to push my postcount up with stupid posts....but I agree with you, the first released models of 116500 had smaller subdial. I still have pictures of the first release. The difference is so small that you do not see it with a normal eye, only if you do a comparison like M Scott did. Btw, thanks for that.
I like the first release better because the subdial look close to my 16520 Zenith model.But that is just me...
It makes sense that the first released 116500 models had slightly smaller or thinner sub-dials.
Rolex made all of their Silver sub-dials the same thickness, but the Black sub-dials on the 116500 Pandas are thicker for a reason...
ARF incorrectly made all of their sub-dials the same thickness, and when you look at the picture below of all of them together, the Black sub-dials appear visually slimmer. Just as some women like to wear Black to appear slimmer. It is also why the White Dial Daytonas visually "wear larger" on the wrist.
Rolex made the Black sub-dials on the 116500 Pandas are thicker so that they would visually appear closer to the thickness of the Silver sub-dials.
Right click and open image in a new tab to see these ARF pictures larger...
Apparently someone at Rolex decided after the first production run in 2016 that the Black sub-dials on the 116500 Panda needed to be slightly thicker.
Personally, I prefer the slightly thinner sub-dials of the ARF and if I was going to build a White 116500 Daytona, I would use an ARF dial just as
ssouthall6 and
guru have done with their's.
Some may decide that this is just more needless nitpicking, but to others it is Appreciation for the Precision, the Details, and the Craftsmanship that go into the Genuine watches.
It is also Appreciation and Studying just how close these Replicas continue to come to the Gens.
