But to say that the Ancient of Days is the Father would make more sense here. I don't mind calling Christ the Ancient of Days given His divinity. But within the context of the verse, and what seems to be a patristic consensus of the interpretation, sounds like the Father to me.
The patristic evidence certainly seems to favour such an interpretation, even if they consider it a reference to the Son elsewhere. However, in the context of what is rather abstract imagery, I don't necessarily think one has to view the vision in adoptionist terms were one to understand both as refering to the Son.
I don't know. Perhaps my views are anachronistic.
Revelations is interesting. I would add that we should keep in mind that Revelations is unfulfilled yet, although rich with spiritual imagery for our lives today. Therefore, it's okay to consider a certain mystery into the image of Christ as the Ancient of Days, and quite more vivid than the picture given by the book of Daniel. The Ancient of Days seems to be a description of something more eternal, like "Pantocrator." In the Creed, Pantocrator is referred specifically to the Father, even though elsewhere we say the Son is also Pantocrator. So context should be important.
Nevertheless all good questions, and would be interesting to read more about.