Submariner Date vs Non-date
Discussion
Guess this is largely a matter of personal preference, but I'm planning on buying stainless submariner once I decide best sourcing option (keep passing through H'row and checking Mappin & Webb who few weeks ago quoted me £2950 for a Sub-date, but they never seem to have in stock).
Hoeever, am struggling to decide between date/non-date ..... IMO the appearance seems "cleaner" on non-date (and it's c.£300 less but this not a major factor), but date model seems more prevalent (maybe more the "classic sub ?) and maybe is more likely to hold value etc ?
Hoeever, am struggling to decide between date/non-date ..... IMO the appearance seems "cleaner" on non-date (and it's c.£300 less but this not a major factor), but date model seems more prevalent (maybe more the "classic sub ?) and maybe is more likely to hold value etc ?
For me the non-date looks like something is missing compared to the rest of the Rolex range within the dial.
If you won't to compare them side by side. Goldsmiths in Chelmsford have both in there window display next to a shockingly expensive rose gold Daytona.
For me it was a choice of a LV SUB or normal black SUB. I had the chance to compared them side by side and classic combination won.
If you won't to compare them side by side. Goldsmiths in Chelmsford have both in there window display next to a shockingly expensive rose gold Daytona.
For me it was a choice of a LV SUB or normal black SUB. I had the chance to compared them side by side and classic combination won.
The solution is straightforward-ish......another virtually identical model....
....a SeaDweller has a date but doesn't have the cyclops magnifier like the sub. Reason being the glass is thicker so the usual size cyclops wouldn't work. So you get the best of both worlds I reckon. They look virtually identical to a Sub except the SD case is slightly heavier duty by a mm or two.
The problem is finding one but I got one last week, within your budget 2008 model worn once, from a reputable jeweller, as new.
A few dealers may still have one knocking around. Non-ADs have some but at prices 3500+
However, consider...as far as holding value the SD is a better bet as they've just stopped making them and the replacement is IMHO whilst technically brilliant, it is also ugly, overstyled and too big for most. Many share this view. An 'old' SD will be more desirable than a sub in years to come. You will get the extra back at resale time.
Does this tick all the boxes?
....a SeaDweller has a date but doesn't have the cyclops magnifier like the sub. Reason being the glass is thicker so the usual size cyclops wouldn't work. So you get the best of both worlds I reckon. They look virtually identical to a Sub except the SD case is slightly heavier duty by a mm or two.
The problem is finding one but I got one last week, within your budget 2008 model worn once, from a reputable jeweller, as new.
A few dealers may still have one knocking around. Non-ADs have some but at prices 3500+
However, consider...as far as holding value the SD is a better bet as they've just stopped making them and the replacement is IMHO whilst technically brilliant, it is also ugly, overstyled and too big for most. Many share this view. An 'old' SD will be more desirable than a sub in years to come. You will get the extra back at resale time.
Does this tick all the boxes?
Yes sounds like it does - thanks. Would want to try on ideally as I have fairly slim wrists - just in case the extra mm or two tips the balance for me size-wise - but expect it will be okay.
Now just need to find one, somewhere in the North-East preferably, or London alternatively....
Now just need to find one, somewhere in the North-East preferably, or London alternatively....
beedj said:
Yes sounds like it does - thanks. Would want to try on ideally as I have fairly slim wrists - just in case the extra mm or two tips the balance for me size-wise - but expect it will be okay.
Now just need to find one, somewhere in the North-East preferably, or London alternatively....
If you can wear a sub you'll be fine - I have average wrists - 6.75" and it looks perfect.Now just need to find one, somewhere in the North-East preferably, or London alternatively....
I have a recent sub non-date (chronometer). It's personal preference but I really dislike the look of the cyclops, and prefer the symmetrical uncluttered face compared to the sea-dweller. Have a good look at all 3 and see which appeals most. There's talk of the chronometer non-date possibly being relatively more collectible in future because it's likely to only be in production for a short time before replacement, but I wouldn't buy any mass-produced watch like this if you're after a genuine investment.
Gary.
Gary.
Hedgeman said:
I have a recent sub non-date (chronometer). It's personal preference but I really dislike the look of the cyclops, and prefer the symmetrical uncluttered face compared to the sea-dweller. Have a good look at all 3 and see which appeals most. There's talk of the chronometer non-date possibly being relatively more collectible in future because it's likely to only be in production for a short time before replacement, but I wouldn't buy any mass-produced watch like this if you're after a genuine investment.
Gary.
Rolex have one of the most robust resale values (certain models, admittedly) of any watch brand - while not expensive, in the grand scheme of things.Gary.
Not that it was a worry of mine - my SD was an engagement pressie from the missus and will never be sold.
Bit of a newbie re Rolex so bear with me ... but are you deliberately making a distinction when you say "sub non-date (CHRONOMETER)" - are there two types, chrono & non-chrono ?
I notice the Sub 16610 (with cyclops) has the "superlative chronomtere" wording on the face, whereas the 14060 non-date does not have. Is there a non-date version which does have these words ?
I notice the Sub 16610 (with cyclops) has the "superlative chronomtere" wording on the face, whereas the 14060 non-date does not have. Is there a non-date version which does have these words ?
beedj said:
Bit of a newbie re Rolex so bear with me ... but are you deliberately making a distinction when you say "sub non-date (CHRONOMETER)" - are there two types, chrono & non-chrono ?
I notice the Sub 16610 (with cyclops) has the "superlative chronomtere" wording on the face, whereas the 14060 non-date does not have. Is there a non-date version which does have these words ?
The vintage 5512 is a crono certified, dateless sub. 5513 isnt certified, but otherwise looks the same. I'm not sure if there is an equivalent with the modern subs, but I don't think there is.I notice the Sub 16610 (with cyclops) has the "superlative chronomtere" wording on the face, whereas the 14060 non-date does not have. Is there a non-date version which does have these words ?
uriel said:
I'm thinking of getting a sub as a daily beater, but only really like the non-date.
What's the cheapest I could reasonably expect to pay for a shabby (but perfectly functional), chrono or otherwise, non-date sub? Not bothered about papers, boxes or anchors.
£1600 at Greys in London, so maybe £1500 if you pay cash and drive a hard bargain?What's the cheapest I could reasonably expect to pay for a shabby (but perfectly functional), chrono or otherwise, non-date sub? Not bothered about papers, boxes or anchors.
beedj said:
Bit of a newbie re Rolex so bear with me ... but are you deliberately making a distinction when you say "sub non-date (CHRONOMETER)" - are there two types, chrono & non-chrono ?
I notice the Sub 16610 (with cyclops) has the "superlative chronomtere" wording on the face, whereas the 14060 non-date does not have. Is there a non-date version which does have these words ?
There is a 14060M non-date chronometer (with the "superlative chronometer.." writing on the face) which is the model I have. It was introduced some time in 2007 I think.I notice the Sub 16610 (with cyclops) has the "superlative chronomtere" wording on the face, whereas the 14060 non-date does not have. Is there a non-date version which does have these words ?
Some pics here.
http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=1991...
Asterix said:
Hedgeman said:
I have a recent sub non-date (chronometer). It's personal preference but I really dislike the look of the cyclops, and prefer the symmetrical uncluttered face compared to the sea-dweller. Have a good look at all 3 and see which appeals most. There's talk of the chronometer non-date possibly being relatively more collectible in future because it's likely to only be in production for a short time before replacement, but I wouldn't buy any mass-produced watch like this if you're after a genuine investment.
Gary.
Rolex have one of the most robust resale values (certain models, admittedly) of any watch brand - while not expensive, in the grand scheme of things.Gary.
Not that it was a worry of mine - my SD was an engagement pressie from the missus and will never be sold.
The steadily increasing above inflation list prices do seem to have ensured second hand prices steady/rise over time, but I do wonder how long that can go on for as prices seem to be firmly encroaching on manufacturers such as JLC from the tier above. I certainly wouldn't pay the list price - or anything close to it - for the current sub.
Gary.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff