Poll Time. SubC no date vs Tudor Black Bay

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Cdn328is

I will extrapolate on the extent of my experience with both watches (my apologies for the wall of text) even though the OP made his choice in case someone ever finds themselves in the same dilemma again:

Movement:

The 3130 is apparently much better, though I would not know of personal experience, both watches ran a little over 2 seconds fast per day and I've never had an issue with the 2824. Having an in house movement does little for me, but I will take the 3130 over the 2824 if I can, serves me longer and is more consistent. If the watch had a transparent case back I'd definitely want the 3130 :)

Case and Dial:

I found that on bracelet, the Tudor case blended in a bit too much with the band as the lug width is 22mm and the lugs are very slim and long. It looks more like you're wearing a bracelet that has a watch face in the middle because the watch head does not pop out as much.

The finishing was amazing though, the precision of finishing and machining was astounding. It's made by rolex and it shows.

At the end of the day the subc wins it for me as the watch head really pops over the bracelet, like a diamond on a ring if that makes any sense. It's like as though the bracelet was a stand to display the watch head, hard to explain.

I will say that I preferred the bezel action on the BB, but thats personal preference (it was definitely stiffer than the subc). The lack of crown guards annoyed me when looking at the watch from the crown side profile though, and I found that the bezel isn't quite shiny but isn't quite mat, which is kind of weird. It certainly doesn't pop like the ceramic bezel and deeper coin edge of the submariner.

The dial was fine and the lume great, but I prefer a glossed dial over the BB's mat dial. I also prefer mercedes hands to snowflake hands, though I liked the snowflakes better than I thought I would. Overall the case was superbly crafted, I just prefer the style of the maxi case to the more classic BB case.

Bracelet:

The bracelet on the tudor was superbly built and finished. I would say on par or close to the sub bracelet. I found it to be too wide for the watch though, without enough taper. Im also not a fan of the split SEL design of the BB, where an inner link connects the end link to the first link of the band. It looked off and felt weird. I also found the center links to be too wide, which made the proportions a little bit out of whack. Everything about the rolex bracelet's design is perfect in my eyes.

I have to say though, the BB looked AMAZING on the fabric strap. It was simply stunning, and I'm not a strap guy usually. I might buy the black bay and wear it on the strap down the road just to rotate with the sub. I absolutely loved it on the strap. However, I prefer the steel bracelet for every day wear which brings me to the biggest difference between the two:

The clasp:

The clasp on the BB was a bit disappointing. It was a bit rattly, almost looked stamped was too easy to engage/disengage. Worst of all though, it wasn't properly adjustable. There are only 3 micro adjustments in the clasp and no half links. The fit was okay when my wrists were swollen in the hot and humid summer air, but inside in the air conditioning the watch was very loose and nothing frustrates me more than a floppy fit when it comes to watches. Removing a link and going to the outmost hole was too tight. Even worse was the lack of on the fly adjustment a la glidelock. There is no comparison between the two, the clasp design and quality are miles ahead. If the BB had the pelagos's clasp, it would be closer.

I have to disclose that I've been wanting a submariner for years and that I thought that getting the black bay would scratch the itch. It just made it worse because it was so close, yet so far. Buy the sub, if that's what you want, you won't regret it.

Good post and some fair comments

[ragingcao]

Rolex over Tudor. Always

[liuk3]

Why not both?

[Malbolge]

On paper and to a layman they may appear comparable. In reality put them side to side, on your wrist and you will see they are very different.

They wear very differently. The BB is a tall watch that sends contradicting messages. I wanted to love it but on a wrist I didnt care. It is too big to be vintage designed. It is too tall for it to fit under cuff well enough (compared to sub). I really don't get why it is so thick, probably to balance out the larger case but I dont think it works too well. It is best on a leather or nato strap, bracelet is too wide. Oh, and the dial... round markers, pointy 12 oclock marker, square snowflake hands... it is a mishmash of styles. The Tudor snowflake sub with squarish markers looks a lot more balanced and original IMHO.

Submariner is much more elegant next to it, but that is deceiving. On its own it is a very balanced watch.

So while they are tempting to compare, I would actually consider the Tudor Pelagos vs Submariner as two own identity tool watches. Then it is a matter of taste, as both now have inhouse movements and Tudor has a superior power reserve and price proposition. If you dont lust over a sub, i can see easily how one might pick a Tudor.

Finally, if you are a fun of Rolex/Diver watches / picking a Tudor over Rolex first will probably cost you later, as you will eventually get the Rolex too.

Rolex first, Tudor second is my advice.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Malbolge

On paper and to a layman they may appear comparable. In reality put them side to side, on your wrist and you will see they are very different.

They wear very differently. The BB is a tall watch that sends contradicting messages. I wanted to love it but on a wrist I didnt care. It is too big to be vintage designed. It is too tall for it to fit under cuff well enough (compared to sub). I really don't get why it is so thick, probably to balance out the larger case but I dont think it works too well. It is best on a leather or nato strap, bracelet is too wide. Oh, and the dial... round markers, pointy 12 oclock marker, square snowflake hands... it is a mishmash of styles. The Tudor snowflake sub with squarish markers looks a lot more balanced and original IMHO.

Submariner is much more elegant next to it, but that is deceiving. On its own it is a very balanced watch.

So while they are tempting to compare, I would actually consider the Tudor Pelagos vs Submariner as two own identity tool watches. Then it is a matter of taste, as both now have inhouse movements and Tudor has a superior power reserve and price proposition. If you dont lust over a sub, i can see easily how one might pick a Tudor.

Finally, if you are a fun of Rolex/Diver watches / picking a Tudor over Rolex first will probably cost you later, as you will eventually get the Rolex too.

Rolex first, Tudor second is my advice.

Not a mishmash. That combination was produced in the 1970s for a while. http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=326991

[Cdn328is]

Originally Posted by rebel_1

Cdn328is



Although I've made the decision for the SubC ND, I appreciate your comments. Way more than the "Comparing a Rolex to a Timex?" type of replies. Those types of post make me question whether to post again. Your type of post shows that there are other members that interesting in really adding to a thought.

Thank you, glad I could help! Not sure if I mentioned it but I had the black bay blue.

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Good post and some fair comments

Thanks!

[Scholar]

Great post!

Originally Posted by Cdn328is

Movement:

The 3130 is apparently much better, though I would not know of personal experience, both watches ran a little over 2 seconds fast per day and I've never had an issue with the 2824. Having an in house movement does little for me, but I will take the 3130 over the 2824 if I can, serves me longer and is more consistent. If the watch had a transparent case back I'd definitely want the 3130 :)

Are you sure about that, though? :) As we've seen with the North Flag, Rolex's movements, though technically excellent, have a very spartan look.


The ETA on the other hand has a fair bit of nice decoration to it, as you can see compared to the 3130 below.

[Cdn328is]

Originally Posted by Scholar

Great post!







Are you sure about that, though? :) As we've seen with the North Flag, Rolex's movements, though technically excellent, have a very spartan look.





The ETA on the other hand has a fair bit of nice decoration to it, as you can see compared to the 3130 below.

Thanks!

Absolutely sure! I love the look of the balance bridge on the 31xx series of movements, even if the movement has less decorating overall!

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Cdn328is

The clasp:

The clasp on the BB was a bit disappointing. It was a bit rattly, almost looked stamped was too easy to engage/disengage. Worst of all though, it wasn't properly adjustable. There are only 3 micro adjustments in the clasp and no half links. The fit was okay when my wrists were swollen in the hot and humid summer air, but inside in the air conditioning the watch was very loose and nothing frustrates me more than a floppy fit when it comes to watches. Removing a link and going to the outmost hole was too tight. Even worse was the lack of on the fly adjustment a la glidelock. There is no comparison between the two, the clasp design and quality are miles ahead. If the BB had the pelagos's clasp, it would be closer.

This is extremely important for me today. Not talking about a Tudor or any less expensive brand, but a new Rolex without this feature is not interesting for me anymore. I know that leaves me with the LV-C and SD-C as options, but I'm not in a hurry to get a new watch (if I get).

[fluxcore]

Originally Posted by Malbolge

Finally, if you are a fun of Rolex/Diver watches / picking a Tudor over Rolex first will probably cost you later, as you will eventually get the Rolex too.

Rolex first, Tudor second is my advice.

I agree whole heartedly.

I didn't even like dive watches let alone the ubiquitous Rolex Black/Stainless sub. Then I saw the black bay and had to have it. I bought it and love it still, but it has opened me up to a SubC.

Now, the sub is a watch that must be mine.....

[Malbolge]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Not a mishmash. That combination was produced in the 1970s for a while. http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=326991

This makes no sense. It is NOT a mishmash because they made it before?... That literally is not a reason it is not a mishmash. I get what they tried to emulate, but like I said, to me the Pelagos dial or squarish marker/square snowflake hour hand looks more resolved.

Stylistically speaking the squarish markers suit the hands better. If you wanna argue about it is OK, you won\t convince me but it is OK. You might find the style quirky without losing a Rolex connection. However I will disagree every day and twice on Sunday. The fact that Pelagos looks great as is is because its hands and markers match very well. I much prefer it. Rolex has a mercedes hour hand that matches well to round markers, and IMHO the snowflake hand matches better to squarish markers. Try to compare the snowflwake sub with round and square markers / I much prefer the square style over the mismatch.

[Elan]

Originally Posted by fluxcore

I agree whole heartedly.



I didn't even like dive watches let alone the ubiquitous Rolex Black/Stainless sub. Then I saw the black bay and had to have it. I bought it and love it still, but it has opened me up to a SubC.



Now, the sub is a watch that must be mine.....

I'm with you. My BB made me love divers when I had no interest in a Rolex diver before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Munch520]

Sub no contest, but the Tudor puts up a good fight. I see now reason why the Tudor should be as thick as it is, or why the lug holes are drilled as low as they are on the lugs. Those are my two main gripes with it. Great watch though.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Malbolge

This makes no sense. It is NOT a mishmash because they made it before?... That literally is not a reason it is not a mishmash. I get what they tried to emulate, but like I said, to me the Pelagos dial or squarish marker/square snowflake hour hand looks more resolved.

Stylistically speaking the squarish markers suit the hands better. If you wanna argue about it is OK, you won\t convince me but it is OK. You might find the style quirky without losing a Rolex connection. However I will disagree every day and twice on Sunday. The fact that Pelagos looks great as is is because its hands and markers match very well. I much prefer it. Rolex has a mercedes hour hand that matches well to round markers, and IMHO the snowflake hand matches better to squarish markers. Try to compare the snowflwake sub with round and square markers / I much prefer the square style over the mismatch.

When you said it was “a mishmash of styles” I took that to mean that you considered it to be taking various elements from other watches. I was just pointing out that that the BB dial/hand setup does have a historical precedent.

Stylistically the snowflake hand probably does suit square markers better, although on the BB it matches perfectly, symmetrically even, with the 3, 6 and 9 markers (photo 1). But the snowflake hand was designed for better visibility in low light than the Mercedes hand (at the request of French navy divers as I recall), and style took second place to functionality. Round plots also usually have brighter lume than squared ones (yes, the Pelagos is an exception).

Also, Rolex also uses Mercedes hands with squared markers and a triangular 12, but no-one seems to complain (photo 2) about that ‘mishmash’.

Anyway, have a great weekend.

[Mr. K]

Really good post. I went back and forth between the ND sub C and a BB-red. Finally settled on the sub. Tried to like the BB, and I still do, but for me, I would still long for the sub.

Is it because it is a Rolex, probably in part. But in the end buy what sings to you, that is what I did. Just something about a Rolex on the wrist.

I've had other UN, Cartier, Tag, Omega, Corum...... but still nothing like the feel of a Rolex. I like what I like, glad I realized that before I pulled the trigger.

[ronin_ph]

Sub should always be first IMO.

BB is a great, great watch... if you already have the staples.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using Tapatalk

[MG288]

Everyone has a sub. Be different. I have never seen someone else wearing a black bay in public

[Cdn328is]

Originally Posted by MG992

Everyone has a sub. Be different. I have never seen someone else wearing a black bay in public

While the black bay is not technically a sub...it's an modern take on vintage Tudor subs, which were just another version of a Rolex sub! And considering how many sub homages or inspired watches are floating around, I'd propose that if you truly want to be different neither the sub or black bay are the way to go...

[Evad3]

I personally would go Sub!

[brandrea]

If at all possible it would be ideal to have both. I think I'd tire of the red as an everyday piece, but honestly, the dial is quite pleasing to my eye.

[Abdullasaif]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Watcheroo]

Originally Posted by rebel_1

Thanks for the replies. Decision is made! I was thinking the same.

Good call 👍