Dial-Ruining Date Windows - A Rant

I'm with you, date windows should be approached with caution.  My thoughts:

1. every single 4:30 date window looks like a mistake. Yes Patek, even when you do it.
2.  date windows should almost always be matched to the dial color.  And I say that as a person who's begun to have to wear reading glasses.  Screw legibility, stop making them an eyesore.
3.  I actually think that Minase looks good.  I think it's because it's so clearly part of the design, it's not something they just threw in or tried to hide too much.  It's there in a purposeful manner.
4.  date is the most overrated complication.  I just don't think it's that important, especially on a tool watch that has a real purpose.  Nobody's at the bottom of the ocean trying to remember the date.  
5.  6:00 is almost always the best location.  Once in a while, somebody does a decent job of putting it at 3 and faking symmetry, but mostly it makes a watch look lopsided.

Yeah, if the date complication hadn’t been invented, I wouldn’t have missed it. I don’t mind a date at 6 at all, but 3 and 4:34-ish dates don’t do it for me, but I tolerate it at 4:34-ish over the date at 3. None of these are a deal-breaker tho. The 4:34-is date is at that position because companies use a 3-o’clock date wheel, not one set up specifically for 4:30 which requires a specially designed date wheel, so when I see a dial matched date they sits right on 4:30, I actually appreciate the thought and care behind it. 

#notalldatewindows

I feel you pain! And don't even start about the cyclops...

I loved the Black Bay GMT when first released and jumped to an AD to try on a few months after release…. But I couldn’t get past the bright white-f*@king date wheel at 3 o’clock! Markers, hands, and bezel markings are all white as well… but the date just hit me in the face in person. 

I tried on many times and watched many reviews after but I never could get over the date wheel color. 
 

Outside of white dials, Tudor still only color match dates to lume on the BB Pro and Pelagos LHD. It shouldn’t , but still bothers me. 

honestly I think the white date wheel works for this one to even out the visual weight with the whitish lume hour marker at the 9 o clock position.

Rant indeed!

My only issue with date windows is I'm too old to read them.  lol.  

Oh yeah, I’m not reading those without the varifocals on 🤓 😂

My hot take: Any watch with a date window is more appealing to me than any watch without one, no matter where the manufacturer puts it and no matter how they do or do not color match it. But again, that's just me.

I think a poorly executed date window ruins a watch, but my idea of a poorly executed date window likely differs from many. I hate when a marker is replaced by a date, it makes the watch look unfinished to me. Rolex and Tudor do it all the time, and I hate the look. 

I think a date window that fits inside a marker is ideal, like below.

If that isn't possible, a half marker is preferred.

For a tool watch, I completely disagree with @thekris, I find from experience a date is extremely important. When in the field, or at sea, the days blend into one another, it's very easy to lose track of the date, but dates are still important for losts of admin work. I actually prefer my tool watches to have a 4:30 date...

I find a 4:30 date to be almost ideal, particularly on busy dials like the El Primero, it allows you to add functionality without compromising the legibility of the watch. 

The best date windows I've seen are at 6 o clock and are color matched (mostly) with the dial. I'm not often reading the date from my watch, so I prefer it to blend in when I am not looking for it...

I don't feel like I'm missing out without a date window until the day I'm wearing a watch without it and look down for the date.
 

Not to pick on one person,  but since this covers many of the usual complaints, I'll take these one by one. And to state my own presupposition, I like a date, I want a date, and will always take a date given a choice.

1.  There's nothing inherently wrong with a date at 4:30; as all things, it can be awkward, and it can be well done. I actually think Zenith, mentioned by the OP, does it well. The date can't be at 3 or 6 because of the subdials. The date at 4:30 is neatly tucked away, there when you need it, unobtrusive when you don't. The objection to the "odd" date placement is about tradition and familiarity. 
2.  Color match is often good, but not always. In the Tudor pictured, the white date window date window might better match the large, light colored numerals. Black with small small white date numerals might have left a void. The real sin here is the date pushed towards the center, that doesn't line up with the hour markers, but that's a function of the size of the  movement, so this is a bit of a cludge. 
3.  Agreed. The Minase might not be for me, but it's interesting and thought out. 
4.  The date is the most necessary complication. I can't keep a date in my head, and I double check myself all the time. You may not need the date at the bottom of the ocean, but you might when you get back on the boat. And let's face it, who actually wears a dive watch to the bottom of the ocean these days? 
5.  I also like a date at 6. But symmetry is overrated. Asymmetry can be awkward, and symmetry can be boring. Asymmetry isn't inherently bad. As a lefty, I figured out why the date is usually at 3. It's the best placement for righties with watch on the left wrist under a cuff. You can see the date just by peeking out the edge of the watch.  At 6, you have to uncover half the watch. We lefties with the watch on the right wrist have to uncover the whole watch. The traditional placement of the date at 3 is functional.  

It does not sound weird to me at! From a design perspective this makes total sense. And I'm with you, now I'm avoiding cyclops, but maybe I just haven't found the right combination. We share the same OCD... 😄

Same here brother... 🙄🤓

Interesting points. I understand that 4:30 is sometimes the only place for a date window that won’t interfere with something else, but it just looks like a mistake to me. i agree that asymmetry can be good, but to me that means putting the date at 3 or 9 for you lefties, or maybe a big eye dial. 
 

I agree sometimes colormatch isn’t better if it throws off the symmetry of the markings. 
Who wears a dive watch to actually dive?  Nobody. But they are still designed to do the job and part of the attraction is that they could, so I would argue designing it for the rigors of diving is part of the DNA here. 

What about 12o'clock and 1 o'clock?

For watch enthusiasts with multiple watches, it is awful to have a date window because we don’t care about the date and every time we pick up a watch we haven’t worn in a while, we have to re-set it. I have one watch that doesn’t have quick-set and I have to do two revolutions to move it up one day. It’s a disaster.

From a power user design perspective, such as a watch for a travelling businessman or someone out in the field for extended periods of time, the 3pm position makes the most sense because you can glance at your watch quickly for the date without stopping what you’re doing and pulling back your sleeve.

I would say the Minase is an exception because it is such an industrial watch, they are really banging home the design language. It’s not for everyone but it’s distinct and certainly gets the brand out there.

4:30 is by far the easiest and most functional position for the date window.

Using the absolute minimum of motion, turn your wrist towards your eyes until the dial just comes into view.  What date position is facing you?   It’s 4:30.  It is the most natural place to see the date without having to move your entire arm to bring the entire dial into full view.

The main objection I see to this position is that it doesn’t look right or its ugly.  Cool.  When you are looking at a watch in an image straight on from the front, it may seem off.  Like so many other things, pictures don’t do it justice because on the wrist, it’s the easiest and most natural date to use.

For those who claim the date is important to them and they use it regularly, I urge you to try a 4:30 date to see how much more comfortable it is to use.

Cyclops are more than useless. They are an actual hindrance to seeing the date unless you actually crank your whole arm up and around parallel to your face to see the dial straight on.  Looking at any sort of angle, the date is completely refracted out of view.  

Symmetry is for people who want to look at pictures of their watches.  You arm is anything but symmetrical to your face.

For pure function and ease of use, we should all be wearing offset dials like the Vacheron Constantin Historiques American 1921 or the Longines Avigation Type A7.  Both of these watches apply the same principle of natural comfort and ease of use not just to the 4:30 date window but to the whole watch. 

I get that sone people want a clean dial but I can’t really use a watch without it. so yes 4 or 4:30 looks terrible. 

A date window has to be at 3, 6 or another creative solution like a pa nodate or a pointer date 

I posted this in another thread, but I think it is relevant.

It might be just me, but when a date window butchers the ”3” like that I do find it a little jarring. I think a few of the Longines Spirits were guilty of it as well (42mm non-GMT, non-chronograph). This is why I think a small number of people do not like date complications outright as they break up the continuity in the dial - it does make a case for windows at 4:30 as a standard, or to just forego a numeral of marker at that location. Perhaps, on a global scale, it makes the case for not having certain size and movement combinations if realisation of the end product looks like this, but I think that is another discussion for another day. 
On the contrary, with older watches (and the Naoya Hida posted above) I do not seem to mind the sub-second dial cutting into the numerals - why is that acceptable to me? I have no real answer to this, both are related to where the complication sits within the movement itself, but one is tolerated by me and the other is criticised. Does a punched hole for a date feel more deliberate and final whereby a under layer for a seconds dial feel more nuanced? Does the constant sweep of a sub-second hand delight rather than the static totem of a date? Again, this makes me an unreliable narrator, and I would understand if you disregard my opinion.

Anyway, glean what you wish from that. I agree that if a date window is adopted then it should complement the dial, and I have seen some egregious examples of where this has not been considered.

I disagree about 4:30 as they do allow for less destruction, but it also depends on how complicated the piece is. There was a vintage Navitimer posted recently with the 4:30 date but the number orientated north-south, and it looks infinitely better rather than at an angle. I. quite like 6, and it might be due to familiarity with that zone of the watch being where the butchery happens in vintage military and field watches, so could just be down to conditioning.