Rolex Subs - date or no-date?
Discussion
Right, with the announcement of the new ‘ugly’ larger case Subs recently, I’m quite seriously considering trying to get a new 'traditional style' 16610 while you still can, and have even talked to an AD that has one in stock.
However, during the phone conversation it came out that they also have a no-date 14060M in stock as well.........bugger
now I’m a bit undecided as the appeal of the classical lines of a new no-date Sub is starting to make me think about one of those instead. A bit of net searching says that the 14060M are rarer as well, as the date Sub is much more popular (and a fraction thinner without the date mechanism) .... is that true??
Probably best to go and have a look at both in the flesh and see which feels the more right, but did anyone on here choose a 14060M over a 16610 for whatever reason?
Typical me, just when I think I’ve made my mind up about something, someone lobs an unexpected spanner into the works.
However, during the phone conversation it came out that they also have a no-date 14060M in stock as well.........bugger
now I’m a bit undecided as the appeal of the classical lines of a new no-date Sub is starting to make me think about one of those instead. A bit of net searching says that the 14060M are rarer as well, as the date Sub is much more popular (and a fraction thinner without the date mechanism) .... is that true?? Probably best to go and have a look at both in the flesh and see which feels the more right, but did anyone on here choose a 14060M over a 16610 for whatever reason?
Typical me, just when I think I’ve made my mind up about something, someone lobs an unexpected spanner into the works.
If it was for me and a daily wear then it would have definitely have to be the date. I can never remember what the date is and refer to my watch a couple of times a day.
But if you aren't a muppet like me then the none date has better lines for not having the cyclops.
Its a tough decision but a nice situation to be in.
But if you aren't a muppet like me then the none date has better lines for not having the cyclops.
Its a tough decision but a nice situation to be in.
I would get the 16610 and have the cyclops removed or a new crystal fitted.
There are a few piccies over on TZ-UK of people who have Sub Dates with no cyclops. I have a feeling Blowers maybe able to do the work for you.
In which case, the 'right' watch (as above, couldn't have a daily-wearer that didn't have the date) and no cylcops. Job done.
There are a few piccies over on TZ-UK of people who have Sub Dates with no cyclops. I have a feeling Blowers maybe able to do the work for you.
In which case, the 'right' watch (as above, couldn't have a daily-wearer that didn't have the date) and no cylcops. Job done.
LukeBird said:
I would get the 16610 and have the cyclops removed or a new crystal fitted.
There are a few piccies over on TZ-UK of people who have Sub Dates with no cyclops. I have a feeling Blowers maybe able to do the work for you.
In which case, the 'right' watch (as above, couldn't have a daily-wearer that didn't have the date) and no cylcops. Job done.
Hmmmm..... There are a few piccies over on TZ-UK of people who have Sub Dates with no cyclops. I have a feeling Blowers maybe able to do the work for you.
In which case, the 'right' watch (as above, couldn't have a daily-wearer that didn't have the date) and no cylcops. Job done.
That's right......add to my confusion by chucking another ball in the air
Without a date, the classic sub look imho.
A sub looks right this way; doesn't look right to me with a date and a Cyclops or with a date without a Cyclops etc etc
There is no way I would consider a Cyclops sub.
Personal choice though as you have seen from the replies already (people will never agree on this subject). The only way is to go and try each watch on and see which you prefer.
.
A sub looks right this way; doesn't look right to me with a date and a Cyclops or with a date without a Cyclops etc etc
There is no way I would consider a Cyclops sub.
Personal choice though as you have seen from the replies already (people will never agree on this subject). The only way is to go and try each watch on and see which you prefer.
.
Thanks chaps, I've been having a nose around the web and found the following post about the difference between the two which maybe upon trying on sway my decision towards the date, as I too have a slim wrist.
[i]
Date has solid end link, non hole case.
Non-date retains bracelet used for years, and has split end link with hole case.
The bracelets differ slightly, apart from the end pieces.
The non-date model has the old-style bracelet that's been around for years. Having a small wrist I had problems adjusting the '6' side; I couldnt get it short enough and consequently the clasp sat unevenly on the wrist for me. I ended up selling the watch, partly for this reason because it never felt comfortable.
Comparing the Date and non-Date bracelets, the link connecting to the clasp on the 6 side is different; on the non-date it is much longer, thus excacerbating the problem I had. On the date model the connecting link is smaller and allows the 6 side to be shortened by 3-4mm more more. This enables the clasp to be centralised better because the 12 side is lengthened by the same amount.
This may sound like a minor detail but it makes quite a difference when adjusting for a small wrist (6.75" in my case). This problem affects all older-style Oyster bracelets to some extent, including the Explorer 1. It isn`t an obvious issue until you compare the two and anyone who has an average/large wrist wouldn`t have this problem.
[/i]
[i]
Date has solid end link, non hole case.
Non-date retains bracelet used for years, and has split end link with hole case.
The bracelets differ slightly, apart from the end pieces.
The non-date model has the old-style bracelet that's been around for years. Having a small wrist I had problems adjusting the '6' side; I couldnt get it short enough and consequently the clasp sat unevenly on the wrist for me. I ended up selling the watch, partly for this reason because it never felt comfortable.
Comparing the Date and non-Date bracelets, the link connecting to the clasp on the 6 side is different; on the non-date it is much longer, thus excacerbating the problem I had. On the date model the connecting link is smaller and allows the 6 side to be shortened by 3-4mm more more. This enables the clasp to be centralised better because the 12 side is lengthened by the same amount.
This may sound like a minor detail but it makes quite a difference when adjusting for a small wrist (6.75" in my case). This problem affects all older-style Oyster bracelets to some extent, including the Explorer 1. It isn`t an obvious issue until you compare the two and anyone who has an average/large wrist wouldn`t have this problem.
[/i]
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 8th April 13:30
For me it would have to be the no-date, I love the classic looks and Steve McQueen's sub was a no-date (if that matters to you).
http://www.antiquorum.com/eng/press/2009/209106/pd...
In fact I spent half of yesterday wandering around London to try one on but failed to find one.
http://www.antiquorum.com/eng/press/2009/209106/pd...
In fact I spent half of yesterday wandering around London to try one on but failed to find one.
Edited by Debaser on Thursday 8th April 13:50
LukeBird said:
I would get the 16610 and have the cyclops removed or a new crystal fitted.
There are a few piccies over on TZ-UK of people who have Sub Dates with no cyclops. I have a feeling Blowers maybe able to do the work for you.
In which case, the 'right' watch (as above, couldn't have a daily-wearer that didn't have the date) and no cylcops. Job done.
I have seen a sub date with a no cyclops glass and after a moment of confusion I actually said, "wow". Lovely watch.There are a few piccies over on TZ-UK of people who have Sub Dates with no cyclops. I have a feeling Blowers maybe able to do the work for you.
In which case, the 'right' watch (as above, couldn't have a daily-wearer that didn't have the date) and no cylcops. Job done.
andy tims said:
SD is clearly the answer, as long as pre-owned is not a problem for the OP as I can't imagine there being many NOS still available.
Not my pics, but how perfect is this?
Same as my decision - wanting the date without the lumpy bit was a significant factor in getting the SD.Not my pics, but how perfect is this?
Edited by andy tims on Thursday 8th April 17:53
Debaser said:
For me it would have to be the no-date, I love the classic looks and Steve McQueen's sub was a no-date (if that matters to you).
http://www.antiquorum.com/eng/press/2009/209106/pd...
[pic]http://www.connectingwatches.co
m/news_related/Steve-McQueen-Rolex-5512.jpg[/pic]
In fact I spent half of yesterday
wandering around London to try one on but failed to find one.
[footnote]Edited by Debaser on Thursday 8th April
13:50[/footnote]
Imagine owning his actual watch. Worth every penny.http://www.antiquorum.com/eng/press/2009/209106/pd...
[pic]http://www.connectingwatches.co
m/news_related/Steve-McQueen-Rolex-5512.jpg[/pic]
In fact I spent half of yesterday
wandering around London to try one on but failed to find one.
[footnote]Edited by Debaser on Thursday 8th April
13:50[/footnote]
I've just adjusted the bezel on my SD to be in the same position of McQueen's. Yes, it is a bit sad
I'm here to help! Debaser said:
For me it would have to be the no-date, I love the classic looks and Steve McQueen's sub was a no-date (if that matters to you).
http://www.antiquorum.com/eng/press/2009/209106/pd...
In fact I spent half of yesterday wandering around London to try one on but failed to find one.
Quarter of mil dollars nearly .......... 'kin 'ell http://www.antiquorum.com/eng/press/2009/209106/pd...
In fact I spent half of yesterday wandering around London to try one on but failed to find one.
Mind you....if I had that sort of disposable cash, I'd have bought it as well....along with the $1.2m I would have needed to buy McQueens Ferrari Berlinetta Lusso that was sold at auction back in 2008/9
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 8th April 21:55
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff