Sub date vs no-date

[dmash]

Originally Posted by xrole

If wear multiple watches per week and the power runs dry between wears then a date quickly becomes the most annoying and inconvenient complication to to own. I strongly prefer no date on all my watches, the cyclops is so ugly. A Sky Dweller would look so much better without the cyclops.

I tried to tell myself this wasn’t annoying for so long, but it really is (the date, if power runs out). Starting to appreciate no date everything, more and more for the better symmetry and ease of use.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by dmash

I tried to tell myself this wasn’t annoying for so long, but it really is (the date, if power runs out). Starting to appreciate no date everything, more and more for the better symmetry and ease of use.

Having multiple watches with the date function compounds the problem. It does get annoying after a while. If I’m in a hurry, and I see a bunch of watches not running, I grab a watch without the date function. I’m seriously considering a winder because of this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

No date it’s the GOAT in my opinion

[Yobber76]

I prefer having a date function on my watches.

[1clubman]

Sub (no date)

[Harry-57]

I prefer a date on a Sub. If you don't want one or need one you have that option. Choice is good. I see where you are coming from: I have a BB Heritage and to me it looks perfect. In my eyes a date would spoil it.

[60sec]

Thanks all. I have a Batgirl and a Daytona, so I do have a Rolex with a date and without. I really don’t miss the date when I wear the Daytona. I also find it annoying to reset the date and often don’t even bother when I put on the GMT. With all that said, I like the simplicity and symmetry of the no date sub, but I am so used to the cyclops on the submariner that without it I almost feel like something is missing—a face without a nose. That is my dilemma. I appreciate all your opinions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xrole]

Originally Posted by dmash

I tried to tell myself this wasn’t annoying for so long, but it really is (the date, if power runs out). Starting to appreciate no date everything, more and more for the better symmetry and ease of use.

Yup, it seems like such a small thing, changing the date, but like many of life's little inconveniences it becomes a bugbear over time.

For an example of the perfect data check out the Tudor Pelagos OG... the date window literally looks like a dial marker so even if you don't change it you will never notice.

[TruthBalance]

The Original Sub, no date. Love the symmetry without the date/cyclops clutter.

[EL Diablo]

My first Rolex was a no date Sub.
Love the clean look.

[whatsthetime?]

Originally Posted by 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!

You've answered your own question above in bold. And as far as aesthetics - the Submariner is perfect symmetry.

[1William]

The Submariner in any form is a great watch. Some say it is too bland and I can understand that point of view but don't agree with it. I currently own the 124060 and the 116610LV, one with a date, one without. If I had to pick it would be the ND. The Hulk is great and a lot of fun but the ND could be a one and only for me, the Hulk, not so much.

[travisb]

The classic (no date) Sub is pretty much the perfect watch.

[Shadow Play]

I prefer the look of a Submariner date when viewed on another person’s wrist i.e. from a short distance. I prefer viewing the Submariner when on my own wrist. So for me it easily has to be the Submariner.

[rod727]

Im biased as my first Rolex was a sub date

[L_S_SHOE]

To me, the Sub date is the classic.

The cyclops is a beautiful piece of perfect asymmetry.

Not that popularity or resale matter, but I don’t know anyone with a no date Sub. My dad, my grandfather, my uncle, and pretty much every other professional I’ve ever known had a Sub date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gearjockey]

My first Rolex was a sub-date.
I loved that watch, but then some people told me that it was inconvenient to reset the date when it lost power and I started to get sad cause I don’t like adjusting my watches. I only want trouble free operation with no hassle. Maybe that’s why I like electric cars. Adding petrol and all that stuff is a pain.
I do find it interesting how everyone loves (or claims to) no-date, yet sub-date outsells ND 4-1?
��

[DoubleDeac]

Date. Aesthetically, I like that there is more visually going on with the cyclops and the date than the plain look of the no-date.

Also, after I saw the sub with the date, I just couldn’t shake the thought that the no-date was missing something.

[NachoNeal]

No date.
Thankfully, I almost always know what date it is without having to look at my watch.

[enjoythemusic]

No Date, classical visual balance. Plus Rolex puts the date on pretty much everything else, so if you plan to have two Rolexs, odds are the other will have date.

[slide13]

Both great classic options, can’t go wrong.

I’ve had a 14060M and an 114060 in the past. I put my name down for a new 12xxxx Sub and said I had no preference between Date or no-date, got the call for a 126610. It’s not my first Rolex with a date but it is my first Sub with a date.

Having owned both versions in one form or another now, my preference is for the Date. I find it a little more visually interesting and I just find the date function useful. It’s not necessary, I could get by without it (the other watch I wear is an FXD so I do), but when I have it I use it.

I’m not a collector though, I currently have 3 watches, wear 2, and can keep both wound and running by wearing them no problem. I get resetting the date would be annoying in a larger rotation where the watches stop. Great argument for a no date.

[IBJanky]

My first Rolex was a Sub Date.

I eventually got rid of it and now have the regular no date Sub.

I couldn't be happier with my decision.

[luvsub]

I like both, if you don’t need date function then Sub makes sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[georgekart]

I prefer date over no date both aesthetically and functionally (I actually probably check the date more frequently than the time). But the no date is the original so it has that going for it.

[swils8610]

Date for me. I use my watch to check the date several times a day


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Jefferyasher]

I have had a 14060m (sub without date) as my only Rolex and my primary watch for 20+ years now. No complaints.

[Gerry62]

no date

My first Rolex ever. 14060M Ser V new from A.D. (January 2010)



Today still 14060M Ser Z

[NigeG]

I’ve had a 14060M 4 Liner. Currently have a 16610 Sub Date and a 124270 Explorer - so I have Date and Non Date bases covered.

I would say Sub ND. I love the symmetry of the dial. I regret moving my 14060M on. I’d love to get my hands on another at some point. Either the new 124060 or a 14060 2 liner or a 5513.

I do really like my 16610 and I do actually use the date function more than I thought I would, possibly as a lot of my collection has a date complication so I’m used to it being there.

It does surprise me that I miss it when wearing the Explorer or my PAM 609.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rockmastermike]

I've been lucky to own both Sub and Sub Date in 5 series and both in 6 series

if I were to grab another it would be, without hesitation, the Sub

[Spoonage]

Prefer no dates on my watches.