Tudor Blue Pelagos arrival with a niggling complaint

[RTG]

Originally Posted by golden_time

This is mildly entertaining.

The Pelagos is a fantastic watch, sorry that it isn't made to your specifications..

Originally Posted by jvb.nc

+1



the whole thing is ridiculous.

a ceramic or aluminum bezel insert doesn’t glow except for that wee pip.

the pelagos bezel is fully lumed.

you’re comparing apples to monkeys and being pissed off the monkey isn’t a fruit.

I was going to chime in but you guys have this covered.

[iTreelex]

just when I thought TRF can't get anymore pretentious... Here we are lol. We understand your frustration. Drill and crack the bezel to mount a silly pip or just get a different watch altogether.

[jvb.nc]

sorry, had to.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GONZO2LR]

dude, just get a refund and remember, it's not a Rolex, its a Tudor...

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by GONZO2LR

dude, just get a refund and remember, it's not a Rolex, its a Tudor...

Not to worry, Rolex will up their game soon enough.
dP

[smym18]

Originally Posted by larryccf

Yeah if i had more carefully inspected it with a loupe (my eyes ain't what they used to be) i would have seen that - but the responsibility isn't all mine. Why would tudor bother painting a small circle in the triangle, to emulate a pearl? Plus at the time i was more focused on the "chapter ring" on the outside edge of the dial and noticing how it shrouded each hour marker. That was a nice design execution to me.

Tudor needs to put out a disclaimer and salespeople need to notify potential buyers of this wannabe pearl.

[Ivan Drago]

Originally Posted by larryccf

sorry bud, but a painted on pearl i don't view as a solution or improvement in any sense of the word. A painted on luminova "pearl" is a cost cutting measure plain & simple. Tell me how you replace it when the painted on faux luminova "pearl" has died other than to replace the bezel insert? And yeah it glows but not nearly as bright as a pearl - and will be degraded from any abrasive contact, much easier than a real pearl.

Yeah, i bear some of the fault for not having gone over the watch with a loupe when looking at it in the store so I do feel some anger at myself for not thinking to adding "check the pearl carefully" to my checklist when viewing even a new watch.

Y'all's defense of it, though, seems purely subjective like it's a given that it's an improvement. And that's an assumption that isn't borne out factually. Since this is so innovative, i'll wait to see if Rolex adopts it. If Rolex doesn't, which i really don't expect them to, ..... that will say something in itself.

Buy a sub then and not a Tudor

[danyvw]

The Pelagos is this way, if you didn't do your homework before buying, is not Tudor's fault. If you can't live with this just sell it at your own loss and buy another piece but this time, please, check all the specs and characteristics of the watch beforehand.

[gsteve]

best value diver made.... i loved mine. That bracelet is amazing , R should have those features.

[zapokee]

I bought a new car, and it had fresh black tires. I wanted vintage white-walled tires. What the hell?? Very disappointed.

[larryccf]

come on bud you can come with a more biting remark than that, can't you??

bring your game up some

[frank4242]

It looks nice actually..

[bezler]

Originally Posted by mui.richard

Having worked in the fashion industry for 3 decades I'm fully aware what silk screening is.
Which is why I think he has no idea what he's complaining about.

Then why did you pretend that he said "silly screening," and act like he had some strange sense of humor?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

[ninjin]

Originally Posted by larryccf

alright so the watch arrived Tuesday, and i figured i'd live with it a couple of days before posting (plus i hoped i would have my photo cabinet back up by now)

Was looking at it this afternoon and noticed the pearl in the bezel insert was rather small compared to other diver's pearls. Then got to looking at it real close and it's not even a real pearl, it's part of the silk screening on the insert, so it's a faux pearl. I mean really?? What do these luminova pearls cost them, maybe $1 - maybe $2?

I'm sure someone has already posted about this, but i kind of needed to vent. I've actually toyed with the idea of having the insert drilled and installing a real pearl. But i didn't buy this watch to re-manufacture it. Don't get me wrong, i still like the watch, it's just an irritating dis-appointment. But it makes me wonder - what's next - are they going to engrave the image of a gas escape valve on the side of the case to give the illusion of one on the next model?



FWIW

As owner of said watch and numerous Rolex with 'Pips' I never noticed it didn't have a Pip unitl you mentioned it.

However, the difference between you and me, I knew what I was buying, a Pelagos and what it offered.

Now I know it doesn't have a Pip, does it bother me? No one bit because I bought a Pelagos for the design and materials. The watch to me is still just as appealing.

If you want a Pip by all means, mod it and post your journey on the forum, many like myself will read with interest.

To summarise, you should be complaining more about yourself for making a mistake and not the Pelagos. Ultimately, you decided to buy it.

Here's a pick of mine, as it should be without a pip.

[mui.richard]

Originally Posted by bezler

Then why did you pretend that he said "silly screening," and act like he had some strange sense of humor?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

I didn't realize I had a typo in my first response. Either way, I really couldn't care less. A silly post deserves silly responses.

[jeorge]

A pip protruding out like on all refs rolex dive watches are a weak link in terms of durability. Tudor's design ends the possibility of the pip being nocked off !

[larryccf]

ninjin - i'm sorry, but i'm getting tired of responses telling me what i should buy and what i should feel. You discredit your own stmt when first you state "I never noticed it didn't have a Pip unitl you mentioned it." and then in the next breadth state "However, the difference between you and me, I knew what I was buying," and oddly don't even realize it, but yet go on to offer me an opinion. REALLY?

I'm really sorry if i didn't drink the kool-aid and think like everyone else. I'm realizing what a shock to your and quite a few others that i might have different expectations and opinions. For the love of everything holy, get a grip - there are going to be folks with different opinions out in the real world. Talking to someone in a patronizing & insulting manner is not justified because their opinion differs from yours,

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by mui.richard

I didn't realize I had a typo in my first response. Either way, I really couldn't care less. A silly post deserves silly responses.

that's your opinion, i could be equally insulting of it -

and you base your infallible expertise on "Having worked in the fashion industry for 3 decades I'm fully aware what silk screening is.
Which is why I think he has no idea what he's complaining about." Really? 30 years in fashion makes your opinion in the watch industry infallible and un-approachable?

Maybe you should put that "30 years in fashion" in your signature so folks know your opinions & expertise are infallible. That would be a convincer, for sure....but if i need advice on what gown to wear to the ball or what to accessorize it with, i know who to turn to.

[larryccf]

Mods - can you guys shut this thread down - i didn't join to be insulted, especially by pontificating / pompous self appointed experts on what my opinions should be.

[jvb.nc]

Originally Posted by larryccf

Mods - can you guys shut this thread down - i didn't join to be insulted, especially by pontificating / pompous self appointed experts on what my opinions should be.

i haven’t tried to insult you at all, man; i can only speak for myself.

but this IS the internet. these things tend to happen whether one wants them or not.

i was just trying to be funny.

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by jvb.nc

i haven’t tried to insult you at all, man; i can only speak for myself.

but this IS the internet. these things tend to happen whether one wants them or not.

i was just trying to be funny.

jvb.nc - i have no issue with your post and actually smiled when i first saw it. That's one thing - but it's the self appointed pompous infallible pontificating "geniuses" that seem to feel they have the right to insult me. And most speed read my posts and read into them statements i never made. One tried to argue with me over the color of the lume, when i hadn't even thought about much less discussed lume color.

I'm sorry most seem to feel the need to jump on the band wagon and attack because they feel someone doesn't worship the same god (Tudor) that they do. lt's almost on a Scientology or Jim Jones/Guyana cult level.

[eco8gator]

The Pelagos bezel is more useful than any Sub bezel before or current. The markings and numbers on the bezel should glow at night.

[eco8gator]

The Pelagos bezel is more useful than any Sub bezel before or current. The markings and numbers on the bezel should glow at night.

[mui.richard]

Originally Posted by larryccf

that's your opinion, i could be equally insulting of it -

and you base your infallible expertise on "Having worked in the fashion industry for 3 decades I'm fully aware what silk screening is.
Which is why I think he has no idea what he's complaining about." Really? 30 years in fashion makes your opinion in the watch industry infallible and un-approachable?

Maybe you should put that "30 years in fashion" in your signature so folks know your opinions & expertise are infallible. That would be a convincer, for sure....but if i need advice on what gown to wear to the ball or what to accessorize it with, i know who to turn to.

Nope, doesn't make me anything in the watch industry at all. But it's obvious you have no idea how that bezel is made when you referred to it as silk screening.

And honestly I don't think I have insulted you in anyway by referring to this thread as silly. I mean, have you not looked at the watch before buying it? Complaining that it has no pip after the fact, if not silly, I wouldn't know of a more "polite" way to put it. Didn't call you stupid or anything have I?

If you read my first response I gave you benefit of the doubt didn't I? By suggesting you're probably just trying to be humorous?

But whatevs, reverting to name-calling only shows who you are, not what I am.

[larryccf]

mui.richard: so you want to criticize my stmt based on my using a term from the 60s? Silk screenedm painted, inked, applied - the gist was or the focus was not the actual technique employed in applying what i thought were graphics

When Bezler pointed out your typo, instead of just saying, "typo - my bad", you chose to term this thread a "silly thread" - from appearances it would seem you don't like to admit when you're wrong, so you chose to steamroll past it by throwing an insult out. Sorry, but if it wasnt insulting then neither was my post addressing your 30 yrs in the garment industry

And this is where i find myself mentally challenged - if your 30 yrs garment industry experience lend no expertise, why did you proffer it like it did?

I did try to make it clear i wasn't attacking the God of Tudor, or rubberishing the Pelagos, but venting a complaint, which i still think has validity. And with another poster admitting he wasn't aware it didn't have a pearl until i mentioned it makes me feel less foolish re not noticing it. But that little circle in the 12:00 triangle - what was the point? Only adds to the complexity of bezel assembly and as someone showed pix, gave for something else vulnerable to falling out.

[mui.richard]

Originally Posted by larryccf

mui.richard: so you want to criticize my stmt based on my using a term from the 60s? Silk screenedm painted, inked, applied - the gist was or the focus was not the actual technique employed in applying what i thought were graphics



When Bezler pointed out your typo, instead of just saying, "typo - my bad", you chose to term this thread a "silly thread" - from appearances it would seem you don't like to admit when you're wrong, so you chose to steamroll past it by throwing an insult out. Sorry, but if it wasnt insulting then neither was my post addressing your 30 yrs in the garment industry



And this is where i find myself mentally challenged - if your 30 yrs garment industry experience lend no expertise, why did you proffer it like it did?



I did try to make it clear i wasn't attacking the God of Tudor, or rubberishing the Pelagos, but venting a complaint, which i still think has validity. And with another poster admitting he wasn't aware it didn't have a pearl until i mentioned it makes me feel less foolish re not noticing it. But that little circle in the 12:00 triangle - what was the point? Only adds to the complexity of bezel assembly and as someone showed pix, gave for something else vulnerable to falling out.

As you said to another poster, get a grip. And I stand by my comment that this is a silly thread to begin with, and judging from the other responses your getting, I'm not alone.

Now as to your question, I'm no expert but traditionally watches from the Rolex/Tudor stable had a pip within the triangle for their divers, and a solid triangle for their GMTs. So I'll chalk it down to a design choice, and to show that it's a true, modern interpretation of their divers and it's lineage.

Which would also explain why there's a solid triangle on their Black Bay GMT, and a pip within the triangle in the original Black Bay 41 and the Black Bay 58.

And while you maybe right that it makes the bezel more complicated to construct, since when has Rolex ever shy away from "complicated"?

[crazycarlitos]

Dude u still don’t get it ??

We are giving u hard time because u should have known about the lack of a pearl before u bought it. Lol

Some members are nice enough to point out some of the advantages of the pelagos bezel so u can feel little better... but u don’t seem to care.

Like I stated before, do ur due diligence and u would not have had such a silly problem. Yeah I said silly.

First search I do of pelagos shows a hodinkee article...
Under bezel, this is what it says: see pic below
Took me less than two minutes.

If I was gonna spend $4-5k on a watch, I would do some research beforehand.
I definitely would not come here and complain about something I should have known to begin with.

If u started a thread about which bezel is better between two watches..
or ur disappointment about the bezel in real life usage, that one thing... (and I am sure the thread would have been a nice discussion.)

But u lost all credibility when u basically stated u did not even know it was faux-pearl and complained about that.
Than u made it worse with ur defensive accusation that everyone here is a Rolex homer and unable to take any negative comments about it. Lmao

Yeah, this thread should be closed now. It’s useless.

[larryccf]

bud, your avatar reminds me of Gov Dukakis when he ran against George Bush, the shot where he was photographed with his head sticking up out of a tank with a goofy helmet on and then you talk to me about silly

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by mui.richard

........
And while you maybe right that it makes the bezel more complicated to construct, since when has Rolex ever shy away from "complicated"?

taken from franktentank post #45

[crazycarlitos]

Originally Posted by larryccf

bud, your avatar reminds me of Gov Dukakis when he ran against George Bush, the shot where he was photographed with his head sticking up out of tank with a goofy helmet on and then you talk to me about silly

It is a silly avatar. Lol

What can I say.. I thought Robert Downey jr was hilarious in Tropic Thunder. Lol

Or were u not aware, again?