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.

[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.

[davek35]

Submariner

[Texasjim]

Like em both… If I HAD to choose, it would be a no date.

[spinnaker226]

“No date”
The only sub I like with the date complication is the Starbucks, but it really comes down to personal preference.

[Kenny G]

Love them both but prefer the sub (no date).

[ltmgeller]

I’m mental so id say 1 of each. I know I’m obsessed.

[Zach69SS]

My 2nd reason for the for the No Date, is I don’t worry about the date anymore, if the watch I’m wearing has a date complication great ? If not that’s fine too.

The only other one for me would be the LV or LB green or blue bezels because of the contrast with the black dial.

Cheers,

[jb335]

Like many people, when I bought my first Rolex it was a Sub Date (116610LN, gone but not forgotten). I thought it was going to be my one and only nice watch (lololol) so I decided I needed a date and I thought the cyclops would give the full Rolex experience.

Now that I am a watch fiend, I would only own a Sub without a date. I have my GMTs and others for when I want a watch with a date.

The Sub does look best sans date.


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

[Mr. Superlative]

I prefer the Submariner to the Sub date. There is something about the balance and symmetry of that dial that makes that piece incredibly appealing and versatile. If you don’t require to know what the date is every time you look at your wrist, I’d opt for thr Submariner.