Can't beat a no date Sub

[Jumpingjackflash]

Good Morning,

I am starting to think that the Non date Sub is the most attractive and best value watch Rolex makes. It is a good size, clean, classic and good value???

After yesterdays announcement of the new Sea Dweller I am still undecided if I really like it. Even the new Daytona's are not perfect. However I can not think of much wrong with the Non Date Sub.

[13m]

Jumpingjackflash said:

Good Morning,

I am starting to think that the Non date Sub is the most attractive and best value watch Rolex makes. It is a good size, clean, classic and good value???

After yesterdays announcement of the new Sea Dweller I am still undecided if I really like it. Even the new Daytona's are not perfect. However I can not think of much wrong with the Non Date Sub.

The pre-ceramic model is better IMHO. The last one with the chronomater movement ideally. Rattly (but tough) bracelet, otherwise a perfectly proportioned tool watch.

[audidoody]

I've got the "old" 14060M (2008) and the newer 114060 (2015).

The former gets much more wrist time.

More comfortable, lighter and the classic Rolex rattle from the tuna can bracelet.

In a house fire I'd grab the 14060M.

[Jumpingjackflash]

Hi guys that is a few comments about the pre ceramic models. I agree that the pre ceramic are nicer but I was referring to the current models.

[Rich_AR]

I agree too. My Sub ND ceramic is the favourite watch for sure. Even after 4 years, I still admire it for its simplicity.

As for the older Sub. I could never get past that tuna can bracelet. Newer bracelets feel far superior in my view.

[CardShark]

It's highly subjective as to how good the current NDc looks OP, for me it's too chunky despite being the same case diameter as the previous model. If you like it then go for it, plenty of people will share your opinion.

Clean, classic and good value? It's certainly clean, it might not be quite as classic as the previous generation, and I'd say "yes" to it being good value on the basis that it's a well engineered watch that should last a lifetime and retain a high percentage of its retail value - and it's that last part that nails home the value element even if the initial cost price is high.

The bracelet certainly is better on the current model, night and day compared to the 14060.

[pikeyboy]

The bracelet on my sea dweller is the only thing that gets on my pip. Non of my omegas planet ocean and speedmaster are blessed with such an irritating noise every time you move.

[immigrant]

Jumpingjackflash said:

Good Morning,

I am starting to think that the Non date Sub is the most attractive and best value watch Rolex makes. It is a good size, clean, classic and good value???

After yesterdays announcement of the new Sea Dweller I am still undecided if I really like it. Even the new Daytona's are not perfect. However I can not think of much wrong with the Non Date Sub.

I like mostly everything about it bar the blinginess. It is very noticeable but less so on the exorbitantly priced rubber strap I bought for it. At least the bracelet is a huge improvement on the tinny rubbish they fitted on the pre-ceramic model.

[traffman]

My 70's Pre Comex .

[traffman]

My 14060.

[traffman]

And my 114060 Ceramic.
I guess i like no date's.

[traffman]

I do have one Date sub. 16800 . Mk1 dial.

[Jumpingjackflash]

I rest my case. Lovely!

[Globs]

It's true that the no date does have an elegance. Very nice.

It is less useful though, one thing I like about the Seiko and Orient automatics is the day+date feature.
My problem is my Seiko 5 sports desert military is the easiest watch to see (day or night) and quite slim to wear.

I'll get my coat...

[HaiKarate]

I love my 114060. Remember Submariner's never had a date function historically as seen above by some gorgeous references.

[13m]

HaiKarate said:

I love my 114060. Remember Submariner's never had a date function historically as seen above by some gorgeous references.

It's true, the Sub is the best looking sports Rolex. But the date is bloody useful.

[gregd]

Yes, I'd agree on this too. I tried one on (Ceramic, current model) at the Rolex store in Geneva airport last week.. really liked it. Is 5,500GBP a good price.. that's what they were offering it for (a massive 27GBP discount for me apparently!)?

[raceboy]

Since buying one I've found it's made a lot of my other watches redundant, I think I could actually get by with just the Sub and a G-Shock to cover all my horolgical requirements.

[Globs]

raceboy said:

Since buying one I've found it's made a lot of my other watches redundant, I think I could actually get by with just the Sub and a G-Shock to cover all my horolgical requirements.

True, This in a way makes Rolex more affordable.

People buy lots of watches - skirting around buying a Rolex - and end up spending far more time and money than if they'd just gone out and bought a Rolex for everyday use in the first place LOL.

The only problem I've had actually doing this with Rolex is that whenever I go look all the bling ones are at the front (for the shallow minded people with more money than taste I assume) and the nice subs are quite difficult to find. Can't recall where I last looked - perhaps near or in Selfridges - but I never managed to locate the place where they kept all the elegant designs. Seems easier to find good looking Tudors now which is a shame as for me, it's still not a Rolex. Still fancy a nice date Sub or Yacht-master.

[Buster73]

Wear my non date sub most days , but really like swapping on a weekend to my Rhodium Yachtmaster.

Both subtle watches imho.