Tudor BB Pro thickness

[14060man]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

If the BB Pro is going to be like the old 5-digit Explorer II, the bezel looks too busy with the vertical lines.

Even Christopher Ward's new-ish 39mm Sealander GMT looks a little better than the BB Pro, IMHO.

The Christopher Ward logo is gaudy and too prominent. The Ward design language looks he put a Grand Seiko, 16570 and 1655 in a blender and cased up the mutation with an ETA GMT module. More importantly, the Sealander 12 hour hand can’t be jumped in one hour increments like Rolex and Tudor.

[HMHM]

I’ve tried one one today at the AD. Pleased to say that the thickness isn’t really a true 14.6mm. It’s more like a 14mm feel on the wrist and look.

[gsg]

Not only is the BB Pro a thick brick, but the mid case helps to further increases that perception with its flat slab design.

See this video review of the watch. Everything looks fine and dandy in all the frontal shots, but wait until the reviewer flips it sideways @ 2:02:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WPBj59LIEg

[Krash]

Originally Posted by gsg

Not only is the BB Pro a thick brick, but the mid case helps to further increases that perception with its flat slab design.

See this video review of the watch. Everything looks fine and dandy in all the frontal shots, but wait until the reviewer flips it sideways @ 2:02:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WPBj59LIEg

LOL.

I don't know how people can say that's not an issue. I have 42mm divers that aren't that thick, and they can dive up to 1000 ft.

[14060man]

LOL. The guy in this video (see link below) developed an Algebraic formula to convince himself the Black Bay Pro is not too thick.

https://youtu.be/LQW_jVxYpTA

[Stevec14]

Originally Posted by 14060man

The 3570.50 Speedmaster moonwatch and 1680 Submariner are both about 14.5 mm in thickness. And many folks consider them to be classic references.

The difference being that the watches you mention have case details that take away from the thickness. The issue with Tudor is that their watches are slabs. I guess the case detail is where the money goes, but aesthetically the others wear (and feel) a lot thinner than the tudors.

I have a speedy which is 42mm by 14.5mm. I used to own the Tudor gmt which is the same thickness and 1mm less in diameter, but the speedy wears much smaller and slimmer. The Tudor is also considerably heavier.

So it’s not just about stats. It’s the design of tudors cases which can make them feel bigger than they are. That said, I’m intrigued to try the pro on, as I can’t wear the 41’s and liked both versions of the 58 when I had them.

[Jamhot]

The only way to know for sure if it's too thick (for yourself only) is to try it on. All this speculation is much ado about nothing. The only opinion that matters are from people who have tried it. And it still might not be what you want.

[14060man]

Originally Posted by Stevec14

I have a speedy which is 42mm by 14.5mm. I used to own the Tudor gmt which is the same thickness and 1mm less in diameter, but the speedy wears much smaller and slimmer. The Tudor is also considerably heavier.

So it’s not just about stats. It’s the design of tudors cases which can make them feel bigger than they are. That said, I’m intrigued to try the pro on, as I can’t wear the 41’s and liked both versions of the 58 when I had them.

The Speedmaster Pro isn’t really 42mm across the diameter of the bezel. The Speedy bezel is actually 40mm. The 42mm advertised size includes the distended case girth from the asymmetrical crown guards. That’s why the Speedy wears like a 40mm watch! Because it is!

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by 14060man

The Christopher Ward logo is gaudy and too prominent. The Ward design language looks he put a Grand Seiko, 16570 and 1655 in a blender and cased up the mutation with an ETA GMT module. More importantly, the Sealander 12 hour hand can’t be jumped in one hour increments like Rolex and Tudor.

You're right. The CW logo is a little big. And plain. They need better branding. But these companies don't even operate in the same space.

I was just looking at the CW hands, hour/minute markers, and bezel as being cleaner than the Pro. Its really the bezel lines on the Pro I don't like.

As far as your comment on the mechanics, no one in their right mind would even compare the mechanics of the CW to the other two watches. The CW isn't my cup of tea as far as a GMT watch goes. Just noting some design elements.

[14060man]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

I was just looking at the CW hands, hour/minute markers, and bezel as being cleaner than the Pro. Its really the bezel lines on the Pro I don't like.

Are you aware the bezel lines on the Pro are a nod to the original 1971 Rolex 1655 Explorer II?

From a design standpoint, I think Tudor knocked it out of the park with the Black Bay Pro. It takes the best elements of the 1655 and adds Tudor’s design language.

[subdownunder]

Most of the complaints are from those whose wrist is too small to accomodate this watch. 14mm height is fine if you have a wrist thats larger.

its not a dress watch to wear with a suit and shirt its a tool watch

Buy it if you can wear it, if you can't carry a slightly thicker watch pass on it.

Since when has a tool watch needed to be thin?

[gsg]

At the very least it needs to be proportionate.

[mobster600]

I totally agree. They look kinda odd for a side profile. The sides being polished don't help either. Tudor's look and feel like clunky top heavy watches. They feel so unrefined and crude. They need to change a lot to get them to appeal to the masses. A lot of people feel they are too thick. Happy I'm not the only one. I'd pick one up instantly if they improved their aesthetics. Until then I wouldn't even recommend one to a friend.

[Stevec14]

Originally Posted by 14060man

The Speedmaster Pro isn’t really 42mm across the diameter of the bezel. The Speedy bezel is actually 40mm. The 42mm advertised size includes the distended case girth from the asymmetrical crown guards. That’s why the Speedy wears like a 40mm watch! Because it is!

Well not really - that’s just the dial but the case is 42mm and wears smaller - I have both asymmetric and straight lugged speedies and the pro wears like a 42 in comparison. The main point was around the thickness and not the diameter anyway. The main issue is that they are slab sided and wear a bit brick like, accentuating the height. That’s the issue compared to more refined and detailed cases, which break up the height - despite being on a par specs wise.

[Chester01]

Just stop it with the thickness already. It’s a sport watch for god sakes. If you want thin, JlC makes many great watches. If you want a hell of a sport watch at great price point this tudor may be your option. So many people run right to slam tudor for thickness and have not even tried the thing on. Enough already. It’s the same with GS and the bracelets, the bracelets are fine it’s just drown out by the incessant knee jerk reactions.

[Stevec14]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Just stop it with the thickness already. It’s a sport watch for god sakes. If you want thin, JlC makes many great watches. If you want a hell of a sport watch at great price point this tudor may be your option. So many people run right to slam tudor for thickness and have not even tried the thing on. Enough already. It’s the same with GS and the bracelets, the bracelets are fine it’s just drown out by the incessant knee jerk reactions.

Not sure who you are aiming that at, but I’ve owned 5 41mm tudors and all have gone eventually for the same reason. So you are entitled to your opinion obvs, but let’s not pretend that anyone with an alternative view hasn’t tried the watch on eh…..

While they are not much thicker than other ‘sports’ watches, their construct makes them feel so. That’s my thinking

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by mquarter

Tudor is basically a one watch brand - the BB58.

Same goes for Royal oak and Overseas brands!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bizcut1]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

If mere millimeters are keeping you from a particular watch either move on or adjust your expectations.

Maybe all the pearl clutching could help build up enough girth on those dainty wrists.
dP

Laughed out loud at that one!

Thanks, I needed that!

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Just stop it with the thickness already. It’s a sport watch for god sakes. If you want thin, JlC makes many great watches. If you want a hell of a sport watch at great price point this tudor may be your option. So many people run right to slam tudor for thickness and have not even tried the thing on. Enough already. It’s the same with GS and the bracelets, the bracelets are fine it’s just drown out by the incessant knee jerk reactions.

It’s not worth it. No matter how much you inform or how many comparison pictures you present. The haters are as dense as their imaginary issue. Best to just leave them in their negativity. It’s their loss.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Stevec14

Not sure who you are aiming that at, but I’ve owned 5 41mm tudors and all have gone eventually for the same reason. So you are entitled to your opinion obvs, but let’s not pretend that anyone with an alternative view hasn’t tried the watch on eh…..

While they are not much thicker than other ‘sports’ watches, their construct makes them feel so. That’s my thinking

I hear that but have tried them on and feel the level of hype about the thickness well overblown. Yet, interestingly no one even breathes a word with the SD, Deep sea, and every singly valjoux chrono on the plant is at least as thick. I’m just saying, it’s too much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Innocenti]

Originally Posted by Cloud Palms

You need to be comparing the current Tudor version with the current Rolex version, not the absolute most rare and valuable version of that watch from decades ago. It would be like comparing the Chrono with one of the Paul Newman's.

Ok let’s compare the new Tudor to the current Rolex equivalent then .
Tudor wins . The Rolex is much too big for my taste .

[173rdabn]

I really like it. Don't care about a thickness difference of 2 or so millimeters.

[Stevec14]

Originally Posted by Chester01

I hear that but have tried them on and feel the level of hype about the thickness well overblown. Yet, interestingly no one even breathes a word with the SD, Deep sea, and every singly valjoux chrono on the plant is at least as thick. I’m just saying, it’s too much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is indeed a fair point. Christ, I don’t know what I’m complaining about, I owned a Monaco for a period of time Personally, I think it’s driven by case shape and any lack of trying to hide it, rather than actual thickness - and as you correctly point out there are many other thicker watches out there.

I’ll have to try to find one to try…..

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Stevec14

That is indeed a fair point. Christ, I don’t know what I’m complaining about, I owned a Monaco for a period of time Personally, I think it’s driven by case shape and any lack of trying to hide it, rather than actual thickness - and as you correctly point out there are many other thicker watches out there.

I’ll have to try to find one to try…..

I hear that and look. Sometimes it comes down to “feel” and that’s not something that boils down to measurement. Makes the journey a lively one!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by mobster600

I totally agree. They look kinda odd for a side profile. The sides being polished don't help either. Tudor's look and feel like clunky top heavy watches. They feel so unrefined and crude. They need to change a lot to get them to appeal to the masses. A lot of people feel they are too thick. Happy I'm not the only one. I'd pick one up instantly if they improved their aesthetics. Until then I wouldn't even recommend one to a friend.

You’ve never worn a BB58, have you?

Top heavy, clunky, unrefined and crude they are not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stevec14]

Originally Posted by Chester01

I hear that and look. Sometimes it comes down to “feel” and that’s not something that boils down to measurement. Makes the journey a lively one!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s true - I’ll have to find one to try on, as it ticks most of the boxes really

[derklink]

Tried one on on Saturday. They got one exhibit model (with leather/rubber strap) in on Friday and pulled it out of the box/coffin for the first time. I was (allegedly) the first one to inquire about it. Definitely on the thicker side for its size but somehow fits its character. I put my name down for one (bracelet or leather/rubber strap - no preference). Would be my first Tudor and since I'm not paying grey prices for Rolex, my only realistic AD option at a new watch that I like.

Reiterated my interest for a BLRO (they almost seemed surprised when I told them I had put my name down for one in 2018) and an OP 31 for my wife.

Let's see what happens...or doesn't happen.

[Tuma]

Tried this on today, i have a 58 and this didn't feel too thick at all.

[mobster600]

I haven't tried on a BB58 but I have seen them in a case. I have smaller wrists. People have made comments on how watches looked on my wrist, so I do have some bias towards thinner watches. I need a watch to be no more then 42mm and thickness is an issue to toppling over for me. If your a bigger person, by all means this watch will work for you. I can't speak for every wrist size. But if people who have larger wrists then myself complain about thickness, it's going to be an even bigger issue for me to wear it.

[nick800]

Tried one on. Doesn't seem thick to me.