The Tudor Black Bay Pro

[NachoNeal]

Love it! But too thick for my sexy wrists.

[marc12]

i love it, im ordering one. wonder when they will start to hit

[Kenny Powers]

Originally Posted by NachoNeal

Love it! But too thick for my sexy wrists.

Unfortunately it is too sexy for my thick wrists.

[winst]

I like the pictures but will have to try it on and depending on that may be tempted to buy one as my first ever GMT.

[bestwatch1]

I will wait for the white dial version.

[ap1]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

I don’t think wrist size affects peoples’ opinions here. I’m a woman who has a 6 1/2 inch wrist. I wear a BB58 well, in my opinion. It’s about overall proportion. The BB58 was such a big hit because of its perfect proportions. To make that same case 2 mm thicker was a mistake by Tudor. They should have figured out how to fit the GMT complication into a thinner movement, and manufactured that movement. If they had, this new watch would have been something special. This Black Bay Pro is going to reside in “Flip City”.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You may be right, thankfully I visit flip city frequently

[Jackie Daytona]

I really really liked this one to the get in trouble with my wife territory and buy it……. then I saw this thread and how thick it apparently is. What a shame, I really like the vintage vibe but I think it looses it with added thickness

[R3-D9]

The BB Pro has nearly very similar dimensions to the 5-digit Sea-Dweller (1mm shorter lug-to-lug, 1mm narrower case and 0.1mm thicker).

Anyone who has owned the 16600 will tell you it is far from an oversized watch when compared to the majority of modern watches. Add in what will almost certainly be a heftier bracelet with the added bonus of micro-adjust), and I’m confident that the watch will balance nicely on a medium-sized or larger wrist.

Do I wish it was 1-2mm thinner? For sure.

But given my experience with the SD, and seeing live videos of the watch that show thin case-sides, I’m very excited about this one and will definitely be picking one up.

That they used the 1655 as inspiration for the design is a major plus for me personally.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

I don’t think wrist size affects peoples’ opinions here. I’m a woman who has a 6 1/2 inch wrist. I wear a BB58 well, in my opinion. It’s about overall proportion. The BB58 was such a big hit because of its perfect proportions. To make that same case 2 mm thicker was a mistake by Tudor. They should have figured out how to fit the GMT complication into a thinner movement, and manufactured that movement. If they had, this new watch would have been something special. This Black Bay Pro is going to reside in “Flip City”.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ogbeans]

Is it true you can adjust the bracelet on the go ?

[cuibono]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

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

100% agree.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

[Lol-x]

More than anything else a what has to be comfortable on ones wrist.
A DSSD can work on my wrist, but it has a nicely contoured case/lugs.

It remains to be seen whether the BB Pro at 14.6mm thick will be comfortable as I did find the Harrods Black Bay did not sit very well on my wrist and maybe that will be true for the BB Pro.

[JohnGingerwood]

One of the better releases between Rolex and Tudor this year.

[Tricolore66]

I requested one from my AD this morning. It's a shame they chose yellow for the GMT hand. If you're going to create a 1655 homage you might as well go all in and make the GMT hand orange.

[JimSnyder]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

More than anything else a what has to be comfortable on ones wrist.
A DSSD can work on my wrist, but it has a nicely contoured case/lugs.

It remains to be seen whether the BB Pro at 14.6mm thick will be comfortable as I did find the Harrods Black Bay did not sit very well on my wrist and maybe that will be true for the BB Pro.

I did not have a issue with the height on the Black Bay 41, it was the length Steve. I think this will work I am loving this watch plus the 20mm lug width and the bracelet taper is just more symmetrical.

[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.

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by 14060man

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

You don’t have to go that far to the 5513. The venerable Rolex Submariner 1680 is 14in thick and 39mm diameter. A time and date only watch. The honest truth is, it’s a Tudor and that’s why it’s getting lambasted by Rolex zealots who just don’t have a clue...

[importstunna]

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.

100% agree! Very valid points.

[Tqmb79]

I have the bb gmt Pepsi and don’t find it too tall at all. That depth takes into account the doomed sapphire crystal. I still have to see how this works on a 39mm but I’m fairly certain it will sit nicely on wrist. If so, I’m buying it. Will ask for one tomorrow. Thanks to all who posted about the thickness of previous subs, didn’t know that! Great info and why I will be requesting one (and if I get it and sits nicely will be a buyer).

[WilsdorfNDavis]

I like it but 39mm is too small for my wrist.

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by WilsdorfNDavis

I like it but 39mm is too small for my wrist.

But a perfect size for me….

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kenny Powers]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

You don’t have to go that far to the 5513. The venerable Rolex Submariner 1680 is 14in thick and 39mm diameter. A time and date only watch. The honest truth is, it’s a Tudor and that’s why it’s getting lambasted by Rolex zealots who just don’t have a clue...

14 inches thick?? Yikes, sounds like a planet ocean.

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers

14 inches thick?? Yikes, sounds like a planet ocean.

(From: Fratellowatches article)

[Lew Archer]

I like it.

[RolexPD]

It’s the most interesting of all the new releases to me. Hopefully I’ll actually be able to see it in person at an AD sometime in the relatively near future.

[cardiel]

Would prefer it with a magnified date window.

[Blue Fin]

Valid comments 14060 man regarding the dome vs case thickness.
5513 sits low and nicely, the thickness being attributable to the curved dome.
Quite possible that the new Tudor GMT will wear similarly.
I love the dial, not sure about the fixed bezel though.

[knighty88]

I like the PR pictures and videos... but will reserve judgement until I've tried one on :)

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by R3-D9

The BB Pro has nearly very similar dimensions to the 5-digit Sea-Dweller (1mm shorter lug-to-lug, 1mm narrower case and 0.1mm thicker).

Anyone who has owned the 16600 will tell you it is far from an oversized watch when compared to the majority of modern watches. Add in what will almost certainly be a heftier bracelet with the added bonus of micro-adjust), and I’m confident that the watch will balance nicely on a medium-sized or larger wrist.

Do I wish it was 1-2mm thinner? For sure.

But given my experience with the SD, and seeing live videos of the watch that show thin case-sides, I’m very excited about this one and will definitely be picking one up.

That they used the 1655 as inspiration for the design is a major plus for me personally.

100% - see my post #133 above

[petay993]

Picking one up later, and my Hulk is back from service ready for collection.

Should be a fun day!