ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

nick c · 29 October 2012, 11:58 AM

ND

Eric88 · 29 October 2012, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kram

The trouble with a no-date version is that people may think you couldn't afford the
with-date version!

Really?

drhlau · 31 October 2012, 05:59 PM

I had the same decision. I decided on the date version and I haven't regretted it.

Ardalan · 31 October 2012, 10:02 PM

No-date looks more balanced and nicer. Personally I don't like that the cyclops.

00Seven · 31 October 2012, 10:44 PM

I prefer having the date.

Ardalan · 31 October 2012, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kram

The trouble with a no-date version is that people may think you couldn't afford the
with-date version!

LMFAO,

It shows that you are poor man who's trying to show others that is rich.

Dude, People always look at your house and the place that it is in, the Car you drive and the job you have to guess if you are rich or not. No one cares if your watch has a date or not and it doesn't show anything about your wealth.

Ridly · 31 October 2012, 10:54 PM

The date seems more interesting to me. At the same time I don't use a winder so every so often I have to re-set the date which is a monumental pain in the ass. Especially with the exp 2 42mm

kymwatchlog · 1 November 2012, 12:00 PM

ND! thats most classic imo :)

Roley · 1 November 2012, 12:52 PM

A date on a divers watch? SUBMARINER = NO, NOPE, NO WAY

A date on a Pilot's watch? GMT MASTER ll = YES, YES, and YES

BURP!!

herbalt · 1 November 2012, 02:08 PM

Always look down at my Sub for the date. Truly. Even though my iPhone is right in my pocket. I think of all possible complications in an automatic watch, a date function is by far the most useful after the time.

Dream99 · 2 November 2012, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kram

The trouble with a no-date version is that people may think you couldn't afford the
with-date version!

SO.............By following that theory, people who buy S/S Rolexes with a date function are looked down upon by people as they may think you cant afforded a Gold Rolex. ???????

Mike1066 · 2 November 2012, 03:48 AM

Go for the date. I tried the 14060M once - great watch but the lack of date KILLED me!

Dream99 · 2 November 2012, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike1066

Go for the date. I tried the 14060M once - great watch but the lack of date KILLED me!

Hello mike.
Have you tried the New Ceramic 114060, this is the one I loved and purchased today. at the moment its very hard to come by. its so classical in design and very very sharp looking with no Cyclops.

jshepard · 2 November 2012, 03:59 PM

If the date is essential to you then obviously date, but if its not a must have, then I'd suggest the non date! It's got, in my opinion, a much cleaner dial without the cyclops date, and i feel it looks more youthful and adventurous because the magnification lens reminds me of my grandpa's bifocals. However you could always get the sea dweller, date without the bump on the crystal.

31 October 2012, 10:02 PM	#64
Ardalan "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Canada Posts: 482	No-date looks more balanced and nicer. Personally I don't like that the cyclops. __________________ My Collection: -Rolex White SS Daytona -Rolex Submariner no-date -Omega Speedmaster Moon Watch -Omega Seamaster Professional

2 November 2012, 03:48 AM	#72
Mike1066 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: San Diego, CA Watch: 16600 Posts: 728	Go for the date. I tried the 14060M once - great watch but the lack of date KILLED me! __________________ V/R Mike

29 October 2012, 11:58 AM	#61
nick c Banned Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Canada Posts: 26,846	ND

31 October 2012, 05:59 PM	#63
drhlau "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Real Name: Hank Lau Location: Northern Cal Watch: Submariner Posts: 13	I had the same decision. I decided on the date version and I haven't regretted it.

31 October 2012, 10:44 PM	#65
00Seven "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Real Name: Nick Location: Kennesaw, GA Watch: Omega Posts: 825	I prefer having the date.

31 October 2012, 10:54 PM	#67
Ridly "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Real Name: Andrew Location: Ny Watch: Explorer ii 42mm Posts: 219	The date seems more interesting to me. At the same time I don't use a winder so every so often I have to re-set the date which is a monumental pain in the ass. Especially with the exp 2 42mm

1 November 2012, 12:00 PM	#68
kymwatchlog Banned Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: US Posts: 853	ND! thats most classic imo :)

1 November 2012, 12:52 PM	#69
Roley "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Real Name: Roland Location: GMT -4:00 Today Watch: Enthusiast Posts: 874	A date on a divers watch? SUBMARINER = NO, NOPE, NO WAY A date on a Pilot's watch? GMT MASTER ll = YES, YES, and YES BURP!!

1 November 2012, 02:08 PM	#70
herbalt "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: United States Posts: 476	Always look down at my Sub for the date. Truly. Even though my iPhone is right in my pocket. I think of all possible complications in an automatic watch, a date function is by far the most useful after the time.

2 November 2012, 03:59 PM	#74
jshepard "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: USA Watch: GMTII Posts: 1,180	If the date is essential to you then obviously date, but if its not a must have, then I'd suggest the non date! It's got, in my opinion, a much cleaner dial without the cyclops date, and i feel it looks more youthful and adventurous because the magnification lens reminds me of my grandpa's bifocals. However you could always get the sea dweller, date without the bump on the crystal.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)