Sub date vs no-date

[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.

[poppop1955]

No date all day long. I have a starbucks currently as I gave my sub to my son last year. Should be receiving my new one any day now. I also plan to trade my starbucks for a GMT.

[Generious]

I have a date on all my other watches but the Submariner is still my favourite by far.
Keep it simple, keep it original.

[OG1982]

The Submariner is one of the most iconic watches in the world.

For me, I much prefer the classic over the date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Phrank

I am now, as of tonight, firmly on the side of the Submariner ND.....

[alphadweller]

Aesthetically speaking, No Date is more pleasing, IMHO. However, I personally like having it. Since you don't need the date or don't want it, get the Sub.

[HL65]

I prefer Submariner over Submariner Date personally. It is just a clean and timeless look!

[Manamana]

Most here prefer No Date yet Rolex sells multiple more Sub Date. If there was such a demand for Sub No Date Rolex would've produced more. The reality is people outside this forum prefer Sub date more.

[Alex71168]

No date, it’s a classic

[belutak]

Originally Posted by ocb

Every single Sub, except the no date, has a date so that is the one that needs the further description. Ever heard someone say they got a full yellow gold Sub Date?

Common sense logic is not nonsense

Also, as I previously stated, Submariner sits by itself on the dial on all models. The description is oyster perpetual date, features apart from the model itself.

On the site it would be wrong to describe one a No Date because categories generally describe features and not the lack of.

In real parlance though saying the qualifier no date makes sense because it needs to be said far less often, a small fraction of the time.

Finally, both models are absolutely just Subs.

Sorry buddy but your logic does not stand its own logic test. Common sense is still (common) nonsense if incorrect in the first place.

Submariner has no cyclops.
Submariners with cyclops are called Submariner Date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[belutak]

Originally Posted by ocb

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.

🤣🤣🤣, all true, but, that vast majority have little clue about most things in life that really matter.

Who cares about mediocre views?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[2loaded]

Originally Posted by belutak

Sorry buddy but your logic does not stand its own logic test. Common sense is still (common) nonsense if incorrect in the first place.

Submariner has no cyclops.
Submariners with cyclops are called Submariner Date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here here! Agreed, not sure why this is difficult for some to grasp.

[Calatrava r]

May have already been said, but the Date is easier to get from an AD if that is a concern. ADs get far more Subdates than Subs.

[123Blueface]

It’s amazing how many in the responses say Sub No Date when they can eliminate the last two words and just say Sub.

If you don’t need a date, no need to spend extra money on a Sub Date.

[worldofoyster]

Gotta go with the ND when it comes to the Submariner

[njlam]

I used to think that for a diving watch, why is the date needed? Who dives for multiple days, so I felt the Date version was for poseurs.

However, as the name of the watch is Submariner, I now think if I were on a submarine, where day and night can blend into each other, knowing the date would be helpful.

For those who have multiple Rolexes, if you have models that have the date like the DD/DJ/GMT, getting the Sub with ND is nice from a collection perspective.

If you only can have one Rolex, a Sub Date is a nice compromise.

Frankly, if I was spending a lot of time on a submarine, I would prefer the GMT to the Sub Date.

[ian.thomas]

Although I have a (2005) Sub Date, and (new) Sea Dweller date, the non-date is soooooo clean.

If I get a new Sub, it will be non-date.

[Kingcobb]

Sub all the way. Only reason I have dates on any of my watches is they don't offer the Hulk or Bluesey without it.

[georgew]

Originally Posted by Torshalla

The No Date for me.
I like the symmetri, it is easier to read.
It just looks perfect.
It is also a bit less ”obvious” as cyclops = Rolex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yep, this. And I have multiple versions of both (and wear both)

[mailman]

I prefer the clean look of the Submariner.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by njlam

I used to think that for a diving watch, why is the date needed? Who dives for multiple days, so I felt the Date version was for poseurs.

However, as the name of the watch is Submariner, I now think if I were on a submarine, where day and night can blend into each other, knowing the date would be helpful.

For those who have multiple Rolexes, if you have models that have the date like the DD/DJ/GMT, getting the Sub with ND is nice from a collection perspective.

If you only can have one Rolex, a Sub Date is a nice compromise.

Frankly, if I was spending a lot of time on a submarine, I would prefer the GMT to the Sub Date.

And there is one other issue.

The bezels don’t have the markers required by the ISO Standard to be called a diver.

You need to step up to one of the SD’s.

[Cassian739]

Originally Posted by ocb

Every single Sub, except the no date, has a date so that is the one that needs the further description. Ever heard someone say they got a full yellow gold Sub Date?

Common sense logic is not nonsense

Also, as I previously stated, Submariner sits by itself on the dial on all models. The description is oyster perpetual date, features apart from the model itself.

On the site it would be wrong to describe one a No Date because categories generally describe features and not the lack of.

In real parlance though saying the qualifier no date makes sense because it needs to be said far less often, a small fraction of the time.

Finally, both models are absolutely just Subs.

I actually completely agree with this. 95%+ of people familiar Rolex when you say "Submariner" they think of the classic Submariner Date (with cyclops). Before I got into Rolex I didn't even know Rolex made a Sub w/o a date.

If I tell one of my friends who isn't into watches, I have a Submariner Date, they would look at me like I have three heads "why are you telling me the obvious". I'm not knocking my friends, it's just the submariner date with cyclops is what most people associate with Rolex.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by 2loaded

Here here! Agreed, not sure why this is difficult for some to grasp.

Some people say nuclear and some people say nuc-u-ler. Just because some people choose to say it that way doesn’t make it right.

Rolex is the authority on the naming if their watches.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

Some people say nuclear and some people say nuc-u-ler. Just because some people choose to say it that way doesn’t make it right.

Rolex is the authority on the naming if their watches.

Right.

[Funkle]

50% of the people I have polled say they would not purchase Rolex because they are too expensive. The other 50% agreed but bought one anyway.

[TickTockChuck]

I agree the Submariner looks nice without the date, but ultimately I prefer to have a date function and like the cyclops window which is a distinct Rolex feature.