The Tudor Black Bay Pro

[WilsdorfNDavis]

Originally Posted by garyk

Seems like a bunch of guys are hung up on the thickness. My Porsche design chrono from 50 years ago is thick and the coolest watch I've had all these years...

I'm not, I have a 43.5 Planet Ocean that wears perfectly at 52.5 and 16.5; I'm concerned with the smaller width and lug to lug of the Pro on my big wrists...

[garyk]

41mm x 15.5mm thick. The thickness was always one of the coolest aspects of this watch!!! The new Tudor is thinner and I think one of the best intros so far this year. Just my opinions…




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[garyk]

Originally Posted by WilsdorfNDavis

I'm not, I have a 43.5 Planet Ocean that wears perfectly at 52.5 and 16.5; I'm concerned with the smaller width and lug to lug of the Pro on my big wrists...

I have thin wrists but have no problem wearing large watches like my Panerai 104. I do get your point though.

[14060man]

Originally Posted by Lu..

The color of the "200m/660ft" water depth rating print on the BB Pro is the same as the GMT hand.

I like it....kinda a nod to Tudor's North Flag.

Attachment 1283119

Yes, it’s color coordinated. The point I was making is on the current reference Explorer II, it’s the model name “Explorer II” that is printed in orange on the dial. On the vintage Subs, it’s the model name “Submariner” that’s printed in red on the dial.

But on the Tudor “Black Bay Pro” the watch name is missing altogether on the dial and it’s the depth rating that is highlighted in orange. That’s presumably because Rolex doesn’t want to dilute the Explorer II trademark with a lesser priced sister brand.

By highlighting the depth rating in orange on the BB Pro, its like the Tudor design team is saying the depth rating is the most important feature about the watch. I would argue the most important feature is the GMT complication since there is no dive bezel.

Couldn’t Tudor have just called this watch the “Tudor Adventurer” or something similar since they are forbidden from using the Explorer branding? Instead, there is no model name on the dial and it feels like another Tudor “red headed stepchild” no-name Rolex spin-off. The marketing name “Black Bay Pro” doesn’t really convey the spirit of the watch.

But don’t get me wrong, overall, I like the “Black Bay Pro.”

[14060man]

Originally Posted by WilsdorfNDavis

I can't get over how the GMT hand extends past the markers...does that bother anyone else or is it just me?

On the original 1655, the GMT hand extended past the hour markers. It’s a non-issue for me and doesn’t bother me.

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by 14060man

On the original 1655, the GMT hand extended past the hour markers. It’s a non-issue for me and doesn’t bother me.

(From Lunar Oyster)

Picture to illustrate.
People are pulling monkeys out of thin air now

[Beginner]

It is REALLY growing on me!

Will make a great companion to my 16570 Polar.

[Tqmb79]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

On the contrary, releasing 2 more GMT models indicates to the me the issue has been solved.

I read somewhere the reason it took a while to find a solution was the problem could not be replicated on an open movement. It wasn't until the movement was cased that the issue was replicated and resolved.
dP

I can tell you first hand it has not been solved. I have a 2022 Tudor gmt that switched the date at 10PM then again at 12PM the next day…twice. And it was a new watch, AD got it in the day before I bought it. Regardless, I don’t care. I love it. I’m not sending it in yet will watch if and have 5 years to do so , hence not concerned.

[LSA916]

yawn. underwhelming imo compared to Tudor's other releases.

[mdtddd2007]

This is really nice...can't wait to add.

[WilsdorfNDavis]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

(From Lunar Oyster)

Picture to illustrate.
People are pulling monkeys out of thin air now

I don't like that either...good thing we all don't like the same thing, huh?

[sechsgang]

Originally Posted by 14060man

Isn’t a 5513 Sub 14.5mm in thickness? It’s considered a classically-dimensioned reference.

While Tudor may have “cheaped out” and not bothered to retool the BB Pepsi GMT movement and make it thinner for the Pro, think about all the other classic watches that have a 14.5mm thickness.

For example, the 3570.50 Omega Moonwatch, the Rolex 1680 Submariner and five digit Sea-Dweller were also in the 14.5mm thickness range.

And the original 1655 Explorer II, which the Pro is modeled after, was reportedly 13.5mm in thickness. If so, the new “Pro” is only 1 mm thicker than a 1655 and everyone is freaking out.

The reason the five digit Explorer IIs were thinner is they had a “low-rider” flat sapphire crystal. The new Pro has a dome. Aesthetically, I think the domes look better than the flat crystals. The trade off is more height.

Personally, I like the Pro. Sure the “Pro” naming Tudor is using is illogical, unimaginative and goofy, but at least they don’t put it on the dial.

The Black Bay Pro is for all intents and purposes a classically sized Explorer II that puts the modern oversized 42mm Rolex to shame. Love the matte dial and lack of white gold surrounds on the Pro. In contrast, the 42mm 2021 Rolex Explorer II has a gloss black dial, white gold surrounds and flabby 50mm lug to lug span, plus protruding end links—not to mention obnoxious wait lists and contrived scarcity to generate perceived exclusivity and justify the recent $1,000 Rolex price increase. No thanks!

Ideally, Rolex would reissue their classic references under the Rolex name like Omega has done, but I don’t see Rolex doing that. They are too busy chasing Patek. Tudor is as close as we will get in terms of Rolex homages of classic Rolex designs.

Rolex is so protective of the Explorer II and Submariner trademarks that their Tudor counterparts have a missing spot on the dial where the watch name should be and instead are forced to come up with goofy marketing names like Black Bay 58 and Black Bay Pro to sell the product, although the names are nowhere to be found on the watch.

This...its AMAZING to hear the amount of hardened opinions on something literally within 1mm of most of the sport watches that many of those complaining about thickness have 😂😂. This thing is a killer piece, can't wait to see in the metal!

[ogbeans]

Y’all tripping about the thickness blah , blah , blah.



Spend a weekend in vegas you will see plenty of cheap huge watches.


Tudor thickness ain’t a problem, even for small wrist smhhhh

[beetleything]

I like it ! They did a good job on keeping it pretty close to the 1655.

[cpercon]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Best release from Rolex/Tudor for a while. Hope they fixed the date issue once and for all.

Thickness should similar to the BB GMT

[ainterian]

According to Hodinkee, thickness is 14.6mm including the domed sapphire, and lug to lug is 47mm.

[KatGirl]

Sounds like it could be blocky, if you know what I mean. I have the BB58, which fits so well, do to it’s thinner profile. …. Love the looks of the Pro, though.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Smittyswatches]

It’s very nice in person I will post a few pics later to night it’s not to thick in my opinion

[Smittyswatches]

Originally Posted by Smittyswatches

It’s very nice in person I will post a few pics later to night it’s not to thick in my opinion

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rolexperfect]

It’s so amazing I can forget about how thick it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deepseadog]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

Sounds like it could be blocky, if you know what I mean. I have the BB58, which fits so well, do to it’s thinner profile. …. Love the looks of the Pro, though.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agreed. I had an EZM13 which was 41.5mm x 15mm and it was like a hamburger on the wrist. Had to part ways with it as the proportions were all wrong. I'm fine with the thickness, but the Pro should be 42mm. I wear a Deepsea which is of course thick by anyone's standards, but the 44mm case accounts for it.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

Sounds like it could be blocky, if you know what I mean. I have the BB58, which fits so well, do to it’s thinner profile. …. Love the looks of the Pro, though.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm in the same boat. I think it looks great top-down, but, while the BB58 has great proportions, the other BBs look way too blocky on the wrist for me. This one maybe even more so, since it's the diameter of the BB58, but with the thickness of a regular Black Bay.

Some are saying it's no big deal and simply chronograph thick...but that's also why I don't generally wear chronographs as a daily. Plus, this thing weighs nearly as much as a modern Sub, so it's a kinda still a big watch in some ways.

This watch nearly had me, but I guess I'll just keep hoping for a 39mm Pelagos someday.

p.s. and I'm 6'2" 190lb, so it's not because I'm tiny.

[e dantes]

A 39mm Pelagos would be amazing!

I am on the list for a BB Pro. Hopefully it will be in next month and the height will be okay. Otherwise I will just wait until next year's W&W for the introduction of the 39mm Pelagos.

[JR16]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I'm in the same boat. I think it looks great top-down, but, while the BB58 has great proportions, the other BBs look way too blocky on the wrist for me. This one maybe even more so, since it's the diameter of the BB58, but with the thickness of a regular Black Bay.

Some are saying it's no big deal and simply chronograph thick...but that's also why I don't generally wear chronographs as a daily. Plus, this thing weighs nearly as much as a modern Sub, so it's a kinda still a big watch in some ways.

This watch nearly had me, but I guess I'll just keep hoping for a 39mm Pelagos someday.

p.s. and I'm 6'2" 190lb, so it's not because I'm tiny.

Amen!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[inadeje]

I personally love this release.

A year or so ago I actually bought as a beater the STEINHART OCEAN VINTAGE GMT to get that 4 digit explorer II look. It’s a great watch, but of course the Tudor is way better.

[Bsmith73]

I just picked one up on the rubber strap....

[Lu..]

https://youtu.be/AdcNDKN4X8w