The Tudor Black Bay Pro

[KatGirl]

I have a BB58, also 39 mm, and though the thickness is the same as many of my other divers, it wears thinner. Something about the case shape makes it conform better to the wrist. From pics, I’ve seen this new BB Pro has the same case shape. I think I may need to try this one on, as I would love to add a nice, somewhat affordable, GMT to my collection.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AndersB]

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. ...

I think however that the 5513 had a thicker crystal than the BB Pro will have (see the pictures in the ad Tudor posted on Youtube). So, the BB Pro will probably have a thicker case than the 5513 and hence somewhat different proportions. But we’ll see.

[Reinhard in SA]

Originally Posted by ogbeans

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

Yes, same system as on the BB58 Bronze.

[fmc000]

The more I see it the more I think that this is the best W&W all-around watch regardless of the brand. Very, very cool model, kudos to Tudor.

[Devildog]

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

Kat, have you worn/tried a 5 digit Sea Dweller? I'm currently alternating between that and a BB58. The BB58 wears extremely flat on my wrist - to the point that I don't feel another 2.7mm would be disproportionate (using the similarly thick and sized 16600 which is closer to 39mm than 40mm in reality as a point of reference) particularly when taking into account the domed crystal.

[nick800]

Originally Posted by petay993

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

Should be a fun day!

How are you picking one up? I heard they aren't available for a while.

[Tikandtokalot]

Don't like the fake rivets but love the dial and I think they missed a trick not making the GMT hand red.

[samson66]

The problem is they used the same GMT movement as they did in the standard GMT. So you have a smaller diameter watch but the same thickness. I'd prefer this one in a 41. For a 39 come out with a thinner movement.

[-dustin]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

(From: Fratellowatches article)

Campy Colbalto brake calipers...always wanted a set of those. Link to article?

[watchwatcher]

As a big fan of the 1655, I think this is a really cool looking watch.

Would have to see it in the metal, though, to see if it's for me or not.

[14060man]

I like the 1655 too, but it has its faults, like the odd white printed dashes near the bezel making it hard to tell the time at a glance.

The 1655 was long considered the runt of the litter until some seller, apparently incorrectly, called it the “Steve McQueen” watch. Then the 1655 shot up from $2,000 to $25,000 on the used market trading on the false McQueen connection and scarcity.

Then celebrities like John Mayer thought they would be cool by acquiring a 1655 and wearing a so-called “cave-dwellers” watch illogically on an oversized pilot’s bund strap to highlight their vintage wabi and “renegade” non-Submariner watch selection.

As best I can tell, the only Rolex watch McQueen wore during his personal life from 1970-1980 was his 1967 5512 Submariner. During the 1960s, McQueen gravitated to the Hanhart 417ES.

I challenge any online vintage Rolex seller who markets 1655s as the “McQueen” watch to produce a real photo of McQueen wearing a 1655. Otherwise, I call BS.

Someone once claimed that McQueen’s likeness was used for a Rolex Explorer II print ad. Is there any truth to this? And if so, was it a posthumous ad?

Rolex really dropped the ball when they inflated the modern day Rolex Explorer II to 42mm. It diluted the understated coolness of the original four and five digit sizing.

The Black Bay Pro is probably as close as we will get to scratching the classically sized Explorer II itch.

On the plus side, the Black Bay Pro features a genuine GMT movement with independent jump hour hand which the 1655 never had.

But you would think that in 2022 Tudor could at least produce a movement with a GMT hand that passes the “wiggle test.”

Hey Tudor: 1983 is calling and they want their wiggly Rolex GMT Master II hand back.

The fact that Rolex forbids Tudor from printing the “Explorer II” name on the dial of the “Black Bay Pro” resulted in the Tudor designers highlighting the Pro’s water depth rating in orange print instead of the model name of the watch. That looks awkward from a design standpoint.

But on balance, even with the flaws, I think the “Pro” has a more honest tool watch vibe closer in spirit to the 1971 original than the modern day 42 mm Rolex Explorer II offspring.

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Kat, have you worn/tried a 5 digit Sea Dweller? I'm currently alternating between that and a BB58. The BB58 wears extremely flat on my wrist - to the point that I don't feel another 2.7mm would be disproportionate (using the similarly thick and sized 16600 which is closer to 39mm than 40mm in reality as a point of reference) particularly when taking into account the domed crystal.

I have not. I have always assumed it would be too large a look for my taste. I do wear other beefy, similar sized watches, though. I’m not sure any are as thick as this new BB Pro. Many of my Seiko divers are 13.5 mm thick, and they wear fine on me. I doubt one more mm would make much of a difference, especially if that difference is do to the domed crystal.

Kat

[Dan Pierce]

Caliper sales must be going thru the roof.
dP

[BNA/LION]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Caliper sales must be going thru the roof.
dP

If you can find them anywhere...

[14060man]

Originally Posted by BNA/LION

If you can find them anywhere...

“made in China”

[Tikandtokalot]

Hope it hasn't inherited the date wheel issue.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Tikandtokalot

Hope it hasn't inherited the date wheel issue.

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

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Lamontsanders

14.6 mm thick

That's thicker than my 42mm Seamaster Diver 300m, which is also the biggest, thickest and heaviest watch I have.

[Lu..]

Originally Posted by 14060man

.....

The fact that Rolex forbids Tudor from printing the “Explorer II” name on the dial of the “Black Bay Pro” resulted in the Tudor designers highlighting the Pro’s water depth rating in orange print instead of the model name of the watch. That looks awkward from a design standpoint.

But on balance, even with the flaws, I think the “Pro” has a more honest tool watch vibe closer in spirit to the 1971 original than the modern day 42 mm Rolex Explorer II offspring.

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.

[darrenho]

Love your perspectives and opinions, especially with the actual numbers of thickness on 5513, 3570.50, 1680 and 16600 as references.
Can't wait to see how it wears on a mid-size wrist (6.5").

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.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by darrenho

Love your perspectives and opinions, especially with the actual numbers of thickness on 5513, 3570.50, 1680 and 16600 as references.
Can't wait to see how it wears on a mid-size wrist (6.5").

it will wear exactly like a 16600

16600 is 40, 48 and 14.5
bb pro is 39, 47 and 14.6 (with more dome on sapphire)

[Goodfella54]

They just feel so.... antiquated. Can't get into it.

[WilsdorfNDavis]

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

[JR16]

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?

Agree - don’t like that decision at all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[NachoNeal]

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?

Well I never noticed it until you pointed it out. And now I can't unsee it.

[Gurneesh]

Tudors are in my favourites nowadays. Tudors are good in terms of quality, design and price as well.

[SuinBruin]

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?

That's because it's pointing to the hours on the bezel, not the minute track.

[hitman23]

Originally Posted by Etschell

it will wear exactly like a 16600

16600 is 40, 48 and 14.5
bb pro is 39, 47 and 14.6 (with more dome on sapphire)

I would bet the bb pro feels flatter on the wrist as it has a wider base. the profile of the 16600 makes it look thinner as the midcase is not as beefy, but wore "tall".

[garyk]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Won't you just be thrilled if they didn't?? What would you hang you're hat on? On second thought, I'm sure you'll find something.
dP

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...

[WilsdorfNDavis]

Originally Posted by SuinBruin

That's because it's pointing to the hours on the bezel, not the minute track.

Oh I totally get that but I still don't like it...