ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Chris the Greek · 26 October 2010, 02:44 AM

Am I the only person that thinks the NON-DATE version of the Sub is looks so much nicer than the date version. I have had both and I just love the clean lines of the non-date, so much fresher and clean looking.

The date version just remninds me of kids at school with glasses that were too thick. And if you wear it everyday, is the corner around the magnifier ever really visually clean?

The irony of it is that when people look at my 14060 which is my everyday watch, the first thing they say is "You got the one without date? You Cheapskate!! Just a few quid more you could have had the date one."

moviefreak · 26 October 2010, 02:49 AM

if you like no cyclops and clean lines.. a SD will do the trick anytime....

jeremyam · 27 October 2010, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moviefreak

if you like no cyclops and clean lines.. a SD will do the trick anytime....

totally agree the Sea Dweller is perfect compromise between function and cleanliness. great comment.

PhilM · 26 October 2010, 02:49 AM

That's why I got the SD

Aspirin · 26 October 2010, 02:50 AM

Nope, no, you're not the only one!

DRAWTOOL · 26 October 2010, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris the Greek

Am I the only person that thinks the NON-DATE version of the Sub is looks so much nicer than the date version.

No, Chris, no you are not.

Chris the Greek · 27 October 2010, 12:23 AM

I am impressed, I thought I'd be greatly outnumbered.

Something about the non-date looks so bold and reflective, cant quite put my finger on it.

Bedrock · 26 October 2010, 02:56 AM

No, you're not alone. I have a friend who heard of a guy who thought the same thing.

rpryan55 · 26 October 2010, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bedrock

No, you're not alone. I have a friend who heard of a guy who thought the same thing.

To the OP: Nope. I love the ND Sub!

B. Doggy · 26 October 2010, 03:08 AM

Melikes the cyclops....

SCA · 26 October 2010, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b. Doggy

melikes the cyclops....

+1

They both look great, but for my needs I need the date.

SaddleSC · 26 October 2010, 03:08 AM

That is exactly why I bought a 16600 Sea Dweller!!!

Nicko · 26 October 2010, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Am I the only person that thinks the NON-DATE version of the Sub is looks so much nicer than the date version. I have had both and I just love the clean lines of the non-date, so much fresher and clean looking.

No you are not...

chris russell · 26 October 2010, 03:33 AM

I'm a greeble. Always had an aversion to the cyclops, (though the AR coating on the new Sub-c and GMTIIc has improved things markedly). That's why I went for the SD even before the Sub. Glad to have it.

EchoBlueUK · 26 October 2010, 04:09 AM

I like the date but sometime think the date wheel would be better black and the date lettering white. I also like the old sea dweller without the cyclops.

Shade · 26 October 2010, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EchoBlueUK

I like the date but sometime think the date wheel would be better black and the date lettering white.

I had that thought in mind too! I bet it would great.

Rebel · 26 October 2010, 04:26 AM

Agreed. But, it's only an opinion. A matter of taste.

α-ψ! · 26 October 2010, 04:58 AM

i like the date version!! without a cyclope it looks empty..

Frogman4me · 26 October 2010, 05:03 AM

If you want clean and simple nothing beats the non cosc 14060, an absolute classic

GradyPhilpott · 26 October 2010, 05:21 AM

You're in good company.

Art 1 · 26 October 2010, 06:18 AM

You are not alone.

rdGOnoles · 26 October 2010, 06:54 AM

clearly there are a lot of us

Bullyterrier · 26 October 2010, 07:13 AM

I personally prefer the date. Had a non date, and sold it shortly after getting my LV.

TSW · 26 October 2010, 07:19 AM

Love both of mine equally

dnagwhogas · 26 October 2010, 07:34 AM

Stop it guys....I might start looking at the SD.....Hmmmm.....

Dilemma · 26 October 2010, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Am I the only person that thinks the NON-DATE version of the Sub is looks so much nicer than the date version.

Nope.

johnbeth · 26 October 2010, 11:49 AM

You are not alone !

John

Jaymesymonds · 26 October 2010, 12:26 PM

cheapskate...lol...$6200 or $6000...

right... whats their watch?

Zed Homme · 26 October 2010, 12:28 PM

Not alone. The SD may not have the cyclops, but it still isn't clean like the 14060...

sleddog · 26 October 2010, 12:33 PM

What's not to love?!?!

26 October 2010, 02:44 AM	#1
Chris the Greek Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: London Posts: 47	Am I the only person???? Am I the only person that thinks the NON-DATE version of the Sub is looks so much nicer than the date version. I have had both and I just love the clean lines of the non-date, so much fresher and clean looking. The date version just remninds me of kids at school with glasses that were too thick. And if you wear it everyday, is the corner around the magnifier ever really visually clean? The irony of it is that when people look at my 14060 which is my everyday watch, the first thing they say is "You got the one without date? You Cheapskate!! Just a few quid more you could have had the date one."

26 October 2010, 02:49 AM	#2
moviefreak "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: in my house... Posts: 5,524	if you like no cyclops and clean lines.. a SD will do the trick anytime.... __________________ Cheers, Eduardo Be a WIS not a WUSS... and remove all the stickers..

26 October 2010, 03:08 AM	#10
B. Doggy "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Real Name: Bryan Location: Oregon Posts: 7,399	Melikes the cyclops.... __________________ Rolex / Panerai / Omega

26 October 2010, 03:08 AM	#12
SaddleSC "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: Charles B Location: GMT -7 Watch: Hulk 116610LV Posts: 6,131	That is exactly why I bought a 16600 Sea Dweller!!! __________________ Hulk 116610LV + GMT II 126710 BLNR + Explorer 124270 + Air King 126900 + Submariner 16613LB

26 October 2010, 04:26 AM	#17
Rebel "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Dr Mark R Nail Location: New Albany Watch: Tudor Sub 75090 Posts: 8,241	Agreed. But, it's only an opinion. A matter of taste. __________________ ------------------------------- Member of the Nylon Nation

26 October 2010, 02:49 AM	#4
PhilM "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Real Name: Phil Location: London Watch: Sea-Dweller Posts: 1,765	That's why I got the SD

26 October 2010, 02:50 AM	#5
Aspirin "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: at home Posts: 1,330	Nope, no, you're not the only one!

27 October 2010, 12:23 AM	#7
Chris the Greek Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: London Posts: 47	I am impressed, I thought I'd be greatly outnumbered. Something about the non-date looks so bold and reflective, cant quite put my finger on it.

26 October 2010, 02:56 AM	#8
Bedrock Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Real Name: George Location: No. Calif. Watch: TT Datejust Posts: 53	No, you're not alone. I have a friend who heard of a guy who thought the same thing.

26 October 2010, 03:33 AM	#14
chris russell Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Peterborough, ON Watch: your mouth. Posts: 1,023	I'm a greeble. Always had an aversion to the cyclops, (though the AR coating on the new Sub-c and GMTIIc has improved things markedly). That's why I went for the SD even before the Sub. Glad to have it.

26 October 2010, 04:09 AM	#15
EchoBlueUK "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,543	I like the date but sometime think the date wheel would be better black and the date lettering white. I also like the old sea dweller without the cyclops.

26 October 2010, 04:58 AM	#18
α-ψ! "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Real Name: tolis Location: athens Watch: daytona tt Posts: 194	i like the date version!! without a cyclope it looks empty..

26 October 2010, 05:03 AM	#19
Frogman4me Banned Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Maryland Posts: 6,268	If you want clean and simple nothing beats the non cosc 14060, an absolute classic

26 October 2010, 05:21 AM	#20
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK050 Posts: 34,453	You're in good company. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

26 October 2010, 06:18 AM	#21
Art 1 Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Florida, Canada Watch: Rol/Seik/Tud/Omega Posts: 30,244	You are not alone.

26 October 2010, 06:54 AM	#22
rdGOnoles Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: NY Posts: 67	clearly there are a lot of us

26 October 2010, 07:13 AM	#23
Bullyterrier "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: . Posts: 1,343	I personally prefer the date. Had a non date, and sold it shortly after getting my LV. __________________ So Mote it be.

26 October 2010, 07:34 AM	#25
dnagwhogas "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: MauiBacerdo Location: Chicago Watch: N :Learn Posts: 902	Stop it guys....I might start looking at the SD.....Hmmmm.....

26 October 2010, 11:49 AM	#27
johnbeth "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: John Location: Australia Watch: Depends on mood. Posts: 9,536	You are not alone ! John

26 October 2010, 12:26 PM	#28
Jaymesymonds Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Canada Watch: 14060m Submariner Posts: 41	cheapskate...lol...$6200 or $6000... right... whats their watch?

26 October 2010, 12:28 PM	#29
Zed Homme "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Chris Location: usa Watch: Rolex Posts: 6,962	Not alone. The SD may not have the cyclops, but it still isn't clean like the 14060...

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