Sub date vs no-date

[Serif]

I own 2 Tudor date subs a 14060 Sub, BB58 and an Explorer II. In my watch rotation I find the date versions are used more frequently- I like to check the date, like the cyclops and like to hear the date change if I’m up late🙂.
When not in use the no dates are easier to get going as well so they tend to stay off my wrist longer than the date versions.

[StanCho]

Over time, I found that my preference is to keep things simple. So, comparing the ND with either Exp2 or GMT II as these are the only ones I have alongside the Sub, the answer is simple...

[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.

[london_v]

ND all day long :)

[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.

[Jefferyasher]

I think Rolex did a tremendous service by increasing the no-date models when they added the OP line. Prior to, most people had two realistic options - Explorer and sub (one look and model) as the Daytona was relatively expensive and unavailable. I think people are now more accepting of no-date models.

[Jonny8]

Was always the Sub for me. Now I have a Sub date and have to say I think I prefer it. It has a little more visual interest and another really useful complication.