Sub date vs no-date

[60sec]

Hi guys. Looking for some help. I have no need for a date on my watch so just asking purely on esthetics and resale is not important. Which do you prefer, Sub date or no-date? I’m having a hard time decided and curious to hear some different lines of reasoning. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guppydriver]

No date.

If you have no need for a date, no need to spend the extra money. Also, I love the perfect symmetry of the 124060.

[SAAS]

Sub!

[Funkle]

No date, just because I don't like the cyclops. If the Sub date was like the Sea Dweller I'm all in but still, when I look at my calendar in the morning, I can remember what day it is all day long.

[Zach69SS]

No Date, because of clean look, the original, I was always a fan of date but lately I’ve been leaning towards the no date model.

Cheers,

[AF_Rob]

Originally Posted by 60sec

just asking purely on esthetics

No date.

[Jake Sully]

I had a no date and the dial is very clean and symmetrical. You also dont have to worry about AM/PM. However I did miss the date window so I went back to the cyclops.

[Tools]

There is no wrong choice, however, the Sub is the original and stayed true to it's looks/function for the longest time of any model. The Sub Date is fine, but it doesn't have that clean look of an original Sub.

[JRell]

1 Rolex watch - sub date. 2 + Rolex watches - sub and others with the cyclops date. Gotta have at least one with the cyclops, it is what makes Rolex iconic.

[Lesnerelli23]

Originally Posted by JRell

1 Rolex watch - sub date. 2 + Rolex watches - sub and others with the cyclops date. Gotta have at least one with the cyclops, it is what makes Rolex iconic.

Almost completely agree!

I had the choice and went with the date as my first luxury piece. Of course I thought it would be my only but I have added an Explorer and I think Sub Date + Explorer is the perfect 2 Rolex collection.

I ended up covering my desire for a non date diver with a couple BB58’s!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jb335]

Originally Posted by JRell

1 Rolex watch - sub date. 2 + Rolex watches - sub and others with the cyclops date. Gotta have at least one with the cyclops, it is what makes Rolex iconic.

What he said


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mgsooner]

Originally Posted by JRell

1 Rolex watch - sub date. 2 + Rolex watches - sub and others with the cyclops date. Gotta have at least one with the cyclops, it is what makes Rolex iconic.

I tend to agree.

[JRell]

Originally Posted by mgsooner

I tend to agree.

I mean what more does one need? They look fantastic.

[mgsooner]

Originally Posted by JRell

I mean what more does one need? They look fantastic.

Thank you my friend. What one "wants" and what one "needs" are two different concepts. I'd ultimately like to add a couple more watches to round out my collection but I'm taking it slow. Definitely want to have a chronograph and while I love the Daytona...it's likely going to be a Speedmaster of some variety. lol However for now, as you said, these two cover just about any base I personally need to cover.

[mailman]

I prefer the clean look of the Submariner.

[Funkle]

It's no wonder it made the book cover.

[0nly5iv3Digits]

Both. 16610 for the date. 5513 for that no-date dial symmetry

[S’portEye]

Sub. Cleaner. Perfection.

[Krash]

If we're talking about stainless steel, black dial Submariners, I prefer it without a date.

If we're talking about a blue dial, town-tone Submariner (126613LB), then that's a different story altoghter. I'd love one of those. That might be my next watch, and that comes with a date...

[subtona]

Prefer no date. More of a purist.

[ocb]

Between Sub and no date I’d go Sub.

[majidessa]

Originally Posted by ocb

Between Sub and no date I’d go Sub.

You got this wrong

The term Sub is used for the no ND version (OG), and then you have the Sub Date.

[ocb]

Originally Posted by majidessa

You got this wrong

The term Sub is used for the no ND version (OG), and then you have the Sub Date.

They are both just Subs but no date is far less popular so it deserves the qualifier.

[majidessa]

Originally Posted by ocb

They are both just Subs but no date is far less popular so it deserves the qualifier.

In fact the Sub is more popular among watch collectors and afficionados since it is more symmetrical and a diver. As for the Sub Date, it might be more useful for people with the need for such complication or if it is their only watch.

[ocb]

Originally Posted by majidessa

In fact the Sub is more popular among watch collectors and afficionados since it is more symmetrical and a diver. As for the Sub Date, it might be more useful for people with the need for such complication or if it is their only watch.

That’s only your opinion, as you’re simply calling those with the no date version aficionados and collectors.

[Deppe]

Originally Posted by ocb

They are both just Subs but no date is far less popular so it deserves the qualifier.

No, they are both not just subs - there are the Submariner and there are the Submariner Date. Don’t believe me? Well, ask Rolex then.

[cop414]

I definitely prefer the Submariner

[ocb]

Originally Posted by Deppe

No, they are both not just subs - there are the Submariner and there are the Submariner Date. Don’t believe me? Well, ask Rolex then.

Haha hilarious both are Subs! Thanks! Gee, Rolex don’t say No Date how intriguing lol

So, if you look at the dial it actually says Oyster Perpetual Date, then way below that it just says Submariner, just like the no date version.

The date version is the Sub imagined by the vast majority when they hear the word, hence it makes much more sense to say Sub and no date Sub.

[CarlOver]

The clean look without the date is so very nice. Not that it makes much difference, but that watch at night it lume perfection. Don’t know if it’s true, but it’s been said that the no date to date ratio is about 1:10.

[daysky1]

I have both I like both i wear both.