Why is the no date sub so uncommon?

[Sub King]

It seems at least as popular as the sub date on this awesome forum, plus it's less expensive than the sub date! Nevertheless, they seem extremely rare in the wild when compared to the sub date. I thought this could make for an interesting conversation, so tell me what you guys think!

[dr35mm]

This watch is kind of my grail, I mean, when this will be the watch that substitute my YM. Such a pure and simply piece, understated class and it's just about everything I really need. I think its an enthusiast's watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sub King]

Originally Posted by dr35mm

This watch is kind of my grail, I mean, when this will be the watch that substitute my YM. Such a pure and simply piece, understated class and it's just about everything I really need. I think its an enthusiast's watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I couldn't agree more. It really is an absolute beauty! It is going to be my first Rolex soon in the future, and I know I'm going to cherish it everyday.

[Quailhunter]

I think that most people, including me, want a full featured watch if they are going to buy an expensive watch, Rolex. While collectors might prefer the symmetry of the no date,lots of buyers see the date and magnifier as Rolex trademarks.

[kd_submariner]

love the functionality of the dated version. but being a new owner of a subc no date, i wanted to also add that i love the simplicity of it, as well as its legacy and timeless style.

photos of steve mcqueen wearing his sub in casual and rugged situations made me realize i couldn't wait anymore to pull the trigger.

i'm 8 days in and loving every minute wearing it.

[slide13]

I'm not really sure either. Date can be nice, but I love the clean dial of my 114060. From a functional/aesthetic standpoint I found it a wash...but the 114060 was $1000 cheaper, which isn't insignificant. In the end I decided I liked the clean ND dial better and the savings was a bonus. Surprised it's not more common....damn good value for a really classic model.

[Sub King]

Originally Posted by slide13

I'm not really sure either. Date can be nice, but I love the clean dial of my 114060. From a functional/aesthetic standpoint I found it a wash...but the 114060 was $1000 cheaper, which isn't insignificant. In the end I decided I liked the clean ND dial better and the savings was a bonus. Surprised it's not more common....damn good value for a really classic model.

My thoughts exactly. Very nicely articulated

[Boothroyd]

I love this watch, but took a detour and got a Tudor Black Bay a couple of years ago. Idea was to get a watch that was congruent with the original Sub. But I could certainly see adding a Sub C one of these days.

[dhmrs]

Personally I like the no date, but have always enjoyed having the date at my wrist. It is very convenient

[droptopman]

Couple things. The date models are offered in YG, TT and different color combos and the Sub is only offered in classic black.
Going back to the 50's the Submariner was a simple no date version for many years.
I believe the 5513 outsold the 1680 by a large margin. Date Subs really didn't get popular until the 80's. And for whatever reason the date seems more popular since then.
Personally, still prefer the classic Sub from all eras.

[arguetaoscar]

Most people have 1 watch, and the cyclops (date magnification) is a Rolex signature, so most people want the Sub date, however the original Sub has no date, the simplicity and symmetry can't be beat... often imitated, never duplicated...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GradyPhilpott]

Most people can't seem to get by without a date, which I understand, but I think calling a date complication full-featured is comical.

Some of my favorite watches have no date, including my 14060M.

[Etschell]

Two words, james bond

[jon_jon]

Originally Posted by slide13

I'm not really sure either. Date can be nice, but I love the clean dial of my 114060. From a functional/aesthetic standpoint I found it a wash...but the 114060 was $1000 cheaper, which isn't insignificant. In the end I decided I liked the clean ND dial better and the savings was a bonus. Surprised it's not more common....damn good value for a really classic model.

At the $7000-$8000 price level, a $1000 price difference is significant.

However $1000 cheaper than the Sub No Date is the Explorer, and then a few hundred less than that is the Air King and Oyster Perpetual, all without the cyclops date. The Exp/AK/OP probably compete with the 114060 for the most popular and reasonably price no date Rolex.

[Bigsykedaddy]

The 114060 is my favorite for sure, it's just so gorgeous

[Mystro]

It's a clean look but to many the "cyclops" is a Rolex icon and many of us can't live without a date function. I totally get the symmetry appeal of the dial. I am not sure $1k makes a different at the Rolex price point for it to be a factor.

[KingRichard]

In the wild it's rarer because it lacks the date - something that a lot of people in a business position want in a watch. I personally think the sub date looks a whole lot better than the no date, along with the practicality of a date feature, but I respect the opinions of others and still think that the no date sub is certainly a classic and a beauty.

[Shamorai]

The date is very useful, and that's what a 'tool' watch is about.

[JR16]

I think the majority of people not on this forum prefer a date when the two options are available. Probably why there are so many variations of the sub with a date, and no variations of the no date sub.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[AK797]

I think most other people like the Cyclops for the date and for the Rolex signifier, whereas we are just bunch of cheapskates.

[mtgjr]

Originally Posted by arguetaoscar

Most people have 1 watch, and the cyclops (date magnification) is a Rolex signature, so most people want the Sub date, however the original Sub has no date, the simplicity and symmetry can't be beat... often imitated, never duplicated...

Who has tried to imitate the no date Sub? Just curious, as all the knock-offs and homages I've ever seen have had a date.

[Will1979]

Originally Posted by JR16

I think the majority of people not on this forum prefer a date when the two options are available. Probably why there are so many variations of the sub with a date, and no variations of the no date sub.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I'd love to see the hulk or smurf in a no date option.

[Jaycnyp]

If you check out the date vs no date thread the no date is actually the current winner. A no date is my next watch...I'm just not sure what reference yet.

[MCO1]

I think it tends to be more of a cognoscente watch! Most wanting a Sub for Rolex or Sub sake go for the date model and feel like they are settling for the non date version. It is the purist Sub one can own. I like it because of the symmetry and how it flies very much under the radar.

[mtgjr]

Since joining this Forum, I've familiarized myself with, and gained an appreciation for, the heritage and history of the no date Sub. That said, when I was coming of age in the 80's and early 90's, the Rolex Sub Date was simply THE Rolex Submariner, and it was THE Rolex to own. I wasn't aware they even made a Sub without a date and I guarantee you many, many other aspirational Rolex fans (and owners) weren't aware either.

Now that I know the place in Rolex history held by the no date Sub, I wouldn't mind owning a 14060M (I have no desire to own a six digit Sub). However, given the choice, I would much rather own a 16610 because, a) I find the date feature very practical and useful, and b) to me, that's THE Rolex Sub to own.

One thing this Forum does is give those with a limited budget an easy rationalization for buying the no date Sub (the true classic Sub, the symmetry, the simplicity, etc), when if money were not an issue they would likely have chosen the Sub Date. Not all no date owners, of course, but I assure you they're out there.....just don't expect them to admit it. And don't dare call it the entry level Sub!

[CYKBC]

Symmetry is overrated. No Rolex is symmetrical to begin with since you have this thing called a crown.

McQueen only matters to old people.

To me the no date looks plain Jane as if something is missing cheapening the look.

But I'm not going to cast aspersion on someone sporting no date. It's no biggie.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rebel]

Originally Posted by dhmrs

Personally I like the no date, but have always enjoyed having the date at my wrist. It is very convenient

This.

[mtgjr]

Originally Posted by CYKBC

Fisher rose to fame in a backcourt shared with Kobe Bryant, the longtime Laker teammate who was selected alongside Fisher in the 1996 NBA draft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, I was just wondering about Fisher.

[CYKBC]

Originally Posted by mtgjr

Thanks, I was wondering about Fisher.

Haha sorry. Wrong paste. The idiot flipped his SUV and was arrested on a dui charge recently. Heard he hates rolexes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bigsykedaddy]

Originally Posted by mtgjr

Since joining this Forum, I've familiarized myself with, and gained an appreciation for, the heritage and history of the no date Sub. That said, when I was coming of age in the 80's and early 90's, the Rolex Sub Date was simply THE Rolex Submariner, and it was THE Rolex to own. I wasn't aware they even made a Sub without a date and I guarantee you many, many other aspirational Rolex fans (and owners) weren't aware either.

Now that I know the place in Rolex history held by the no date Sub, I wouldn't mind owning a 14060M (I have no desire to own a six digit Sub). However, given the choice, I would much rather own a 16610 because, a) I find the date feature very practical and useful, and b) to me, that's THE Rolex Sub to own.

One thing this Forum does is give those with a limited budget an easy rationalization for buying the no date Sub (the true classic Sub, the symmetry, the simplicity, etc), when if money were not an issue they would likely have chosen the Sub Date. Not all no date owners, of course, but I assure you they're out there.....just don't expect them to admit it. And don't dare call it the entry level Sub!

I hear ya, and I know you said not all no date owners chose it because it was cheaper. A lot of us here do in fact like the history behind it and the way it looks. I have a LVc for my date version and I also had a BLNR to go with it. The 114060 gets almost all my wrist time so I sold the BLNR and kept the LVc but still I mostly wear the 114060 just because I love the look of it, price had nothing to do with it in my case