Watch this before you buy a Tudor Black Bay Pro. Is the Black Bay Pro too thick?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- This video covers my initial thoughts on the Tudor Black Bay Pro GMT, and we discuss the inspiration behind Tudor's new release. An explorers watch is a field watch on steroids. The thickness is one of the primary design elements in a useful field watch.
Talk without the watch... save your time and skip this video
I have one, and the thickness doesn’t bother me at all though if they do make it thinner it would be perfect. It’s a fab looking watch I also have a LHD Pelagos that’s a thick watch
Price mate; price ! If you want it all, then you have to pay a lot more than Tudor asks. Plus, I think bigger, heftier watches feel like you’re getting something substantial for your money. I find some of Rolex’s offerings too dainty
I had one for a few days (had to flip it because stocks were so cheap and I needed as much cash as possible to invest :D)
This watch for me is the best value for money you can get right now (close 2nd is the new longines zulu time).
It is absolutely gorgeous and doesnt wear too thick at all on the wrist. If you can get one for retail price this watch is a steal.
dont just look at the numbers - wear it on the wrist. It wears MUCH smaller than the "normal" Tudor GMT
Exactly, so many people are calling this watch too thick without trying it on, it wears chunky but not unlike most Omegas or Grand Seikos. This video is silly, nobody is going rock climbing in a Tudor BB Pro it’s a lifestyle watch for travelling and casual hikes not expert level climbing & expeditions you’d wear a Garmin for that.
Hi… wondering did you see the BB pro in person? Did you try the BB pro in person?
Dang!!! What a banger of a video!! The only problem is the boom mic in the shot.
Ya. I got a piece coming that will fix it.
I appreciate this video. Well done
Can’t wait to see it on your wrist Bear.
I have the heritage BB, Tudor GMT, panda and Royal 41, I think your take on the pro without watch in hand is off base. Also, your “misses” as you call them on previous Tudor models are your opinion and subjective but as a Tudor fan boy I think they are hitting the ball out of the park with their models. I’m on the wait list for the BB pro and can’t wait for the call
I agree that Tudor is doing very well overall. I own 4 myself and do think they offer a good value. I’m merely pointing out where they could do better. Many of their changes are so minor, but if they made them I would probably prefer my Tudor watches to my Rolex pieces.
So enjoy your video, and you nailed it buddy completely agree with everything you said, bb58 is out 4 years now, and Tudor still makes slab sided watches . Looking forward to seeing your next video and will subscribe 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Appreciate the kind comments. It definitely motivates me to make another one 💪
Here is another new sub. Enjoyed your honest and take on the bb58 pro. I will wait when Tudor release a thinner version hopefully not too long in the future
Insightful video, thank you. I like the look of the BB Pro, but it simply is too thick. I tried it on at my AD and the watch suits me just fine… I have a 7.5” wrist. The problem for me is that the Pro is too small for its thickness … it really looks really odd and top-heavy. Either make it 40mm or make it thinner. My Tudor Black Bay GMT wears its thickness much better. As a homage to its great grandparent,Tudor could have made the Pro so much better.
Agree 💯. A pilots watch, which is what the Tudor BB GMT is based on can stand to be larger and thicker than a field watch IMO. My Tudor BB GMT is thicc, but handles the thickness for the purpose the watch was originally intended.
@@burbinghard Good point! I did not even think of the pilot-vs-field watch relationship.
Great extemporaneous video on the BB Pro. Although I haven't seen the BB Pro in person, in theory I totally agree- this one is so close, but just too thick. This is just based on my experience with Tudor. I've been through several of the Tudor BB 41mm heritage divers, and they all felt like a heavy slab on the wrist. I finally ended up with the Pelagos FXD, which is much thinner, lighter, and the perfect rugged beater ...IMHO.
(Quick note- you might want to adjust the furry wind sock when shooting the video...it's a bit of a distraction in the upper frame.)
Thanks for the thoughts. The older Pelagos was so close as well but a little too thick. I'm glad they trimmed down the case on the FXD!
Are you really watching when playing this?
Great vid as usual my man. I can’t wait to check it out in person and see if it’s too thick or not!
‘Too thick’ is subjective. For some yes and for some no. I am the former.
Excellent video and very good points Captain America 🇺🇸 👊👊👊
That means a lot coming from you Showcase Watches!
I agree with your thoughts a 100%.. they have to f it up..
Well, the 'dead cat' mic cover visible in the frame wasn't nearly as distracting as the repetition of 'right', right? Right.
...sorry but I had a lot of watches and this one is really top. I sold the Tudor GMT, too bulky, but this one wears great.. greetings form Zürich
Congratulations on picking it up then. Hard to get piece at the moment.
Perhaps a bit thick, nevertheless the watch is nowhere to be checked yet.
Waiting for the AD call. Not a great customer experience have to say.
Some of us are luckier though 👍
Good video and good points here. Thx
You're evaluating a physical trait of an item without having the item in your hands? How is this supposed to be helpful? Skip this video.
Great take Burbs… I couldn’t agree more and although I’m a Tudor fanboy, I’m tired of Tudor seemingly messing up one or two things in a watch on purpose🙄
Where’s the watch?
It looks good. I actually would likely prefer the thickness of the pro over the current profile of the BB58.
BB58 feels a lot more like an explorer 36mm, hiding whenever it can behind the cuff. But I want a beefier experience with the spelunker watch, in this regard you could look at it as having presence like the 42mm explorer II, but without the gargantuan looks.
Due to how relatively thin the Explorer II is, it actually has a lot of wrist presence but doesn’t feel too big on the wrist.
@@burbinghard yes, it looks huge, but it wears pretty well for its size.
i think the pro was great release. it shows us they are listening by moving down in size and giving us the t clasp.
Can you explain with the casio pro tek is 13.5mm to 15mm thickness lol
@@Ranghocsing my Casio protrek is only 12.7mm thick, and that is including the elevated bezel which protects the flat crystal. Plus the protrek is solar charging, gives multiple time zones, compass, barometric pressure, temperature, elevation gain, timer, chronograph, etc. my opinion stands.
Totally agree on the T clasp, and them kinda listening. There’s room for improvement IMO. The finishing on the hands is awful though 😞
There many kinds of Casio protek but the point is it doesn’t matter that’s the thickness of the watch as long doesn’t goes beyond 15mm
Except they went waaaay up in size on the measurement that matters the most, the thickness!!
The Pro is not too thick. I try it on my wrist, it‘s wear very comfortable. The watch look really great, also on the Nato Strap. I orderd them for the next Year.
Greetings from Germany.
Bin ich absolut bei Dir ! Die Uhr ist top !!!
@@sascharohs9590 Freut mich zu hören!
Ja die Uhr ist die perfekte Toolwatch, die Farbabstimmung des Ziffernblatts sehr gut gelungen, passende Größe, T-Fit Schließe, GMT Funktion & Preis top. Für mich definitiv ein Daily! Die normale Tudor GMT mag ich natürlich auch, nur leider ist 41mm bei mir etwas grenzwertig! (17cm HGU)
LG
@@juliano.1867 Du sprichst für mich 🤣hab auch HGU 17 und liebäugelte lange mit der 41er weil Sie mir sehr gut gefällt nuuuur ist Sie nen Ticken zu klobig auch wegen Bauhöhe und Lug to Lug
@@sascharohs9590 haha wie geil! 😁
Ja genau wie du sagst, sie ist leider zu klobig! Bei der neuen GMT hat sich von den Abmessungen leider auch nichts geändert. Habe dieses Jahr auch meine Pelagos für eine BB58 in Zahlung gegeben. Bin so begeistert mit der Größe! 😌 Und jz hat Tudor quasi ein super Ersatz für die Pelagos rausgebraucht, also sprich Datumsanzeige/Glidelock Schließe, einfach nur perfekt & iwann kriegen wir vllt. auch unsere Pepsi in 39mm 😏
Greetings Julian, wear it in good health my friend!
You are absolutely missing the point mate, Tudor watches are built to a budget, the Black Bay Pro is virtually one third the cost of an Explorer 2 something has to give in a big way and in this case it’s the thickness of the watch.
Unfortunately for Tudor, there are plenty of caller GMTs that are thinner, have almost a 60 hour power reserve and use an ETA 330-2 costing under $1,000.
@@burbinghard you can’t compare a caller GMT to a traveller GMT one can’t really use a caller for travelling without having to reset the whole watch. With a traveller GMT you can jump the hour hand to the local time whilst the watch is still running accurate to the second. It’s a far more complicated watch function. Caller GMT watches are not competing with this watch and I don’t know why you say it’s ‘unfortunate’ for Tudor this watch is one of the biggest selling watches on the market and is likely outselling your inferior caller GMT’s by a ratio of 5 to 1.
@@Anonymouslyme1 I fully understand the advantage of a true GMT, and I’m not predicting people won’t buy the BB Pro GMT. I’m simply pointing out that I think it fails as a viable “field watch” due to the thickness. I’ll stick with my Explorer II, even though it’s more expensive. I generally steer people towards Tudor’s dive watches as I think they deliver on the essential functions in that class.
@@burbinghard you have the luxury of sticking with the Explorer 2 but the whole point of the Black Bay pro is to provide an alternative at the third of the price to those that can’t, so no sense in bashing it for its shortcomings it’s as close as you can get on a budget.
I have mine on my wrist , and I don’t find it thick
Now try tying a one handed bowline with it on.
Strange video, honestly. Walking through the desert and waxing poetic as if anyone is going spelunking or traversing the poles with these watches. This guy has not gone hands-on with the watch. I have small wrists so I am very sensitive to sizing, but even I think it’s a big overkill to complain about an “extra” 2mm above your ideal height when it is a heavily domed crystal that matches up to a smooth sloped bezel. I hesitated for years about buying the BB GMT, but that was due to the diameter and lug-to-lug; the thickness wasn’t really an issue in person. I put down a deposit on the BB Pro though. How thick is the Explorer II when you include the cyclops, anyway?
I climb mountains, rope off, rock climb, hike in the snow, and explore lava caves, where I shed and add layers/ gloves frequently. An extra 2 to 2.5mm makes a big difference. Just because I don’t scuba dive frequently doesn’t mean I would accept a dive watch with only 30 ATM water resistance. Tudor went cheap on this 1655 homage.
@@burbinghard I’m all for not babying watches, and I’m active and outdoors too. But I’m doing activities like those, I just grab a g-shock or seiko 5. To each their own I suppose.
But I do have a hard time taking the criticism seriously from someone who has not yet gone hands-on with the watch. Perhaps you could do a follow-up video after reviewing the watch itself and see if your cons materialize or not.
If you think this is a 1655 homage watch, you simply don’t know what “homage watch” means. The Steinhart is an homage. This is referential for the bezel only. Calling it an homage is a bit lazy, to be blunt.
Reviews without the watch in hand are utterly pointless, “the cheap route” it’s a true gmt for £3k - I’ve owned the 58 and the Tudor Pepsi - the 58 wore me down with it being so by numbers and got bored, the Pepsi is unwieldy and imbalanced, the Pro on the other hand is incredible, sits perfectly on a small wrist, has stature and substance as a good watch should have and, whilst there are a few cues from the explorer, I believe the piece is all of its own and only Tudor could make it, Rolex never would take chances like this, even if they eventually slim down the case and bring out some pretty coloured 58 style GMT’s, I genuinely feel it will go down as a classic, from the lacquered hands to the ceramic plots, it’s a tool, and by design and nature - it’s perfect
I would say the same thing about a person giving a watch review with the watch in hand, having never done the activities the watch was designed for. This is the explorers watch for posers. I’ll stick with my Explorer II. Homage watches rarely become classics in their own right.
@@burbinghard stick to making videos with booms in shot bro, apart from the fact the gmt hand is a different style and colour, it has no cyclops, and the dial is a totally different grain, it’s identical 😂. People seem to think the 58 is a modern classic but it’s much more of a homage than this I would say. By the by its quite obvious you’ve never handled the watch, and it’s a massive assumption I’ve never used the piece for its function
Ai, what is that, the microphone sock we see top of screen ?
Shame, good presentation but perhaps next time would be worth to reshoot than just post anyway.
Distracting and unpolished.
Cheers
I don’t take this hobby seriously enough. Not scripted, and quickly edited.
Is this available in the UK yet?
I think they are trickling in at ADs worldwide.
have yet to see it in person but it looks pretty compact all around. then again my iwc is ~16 mm thicccccccc hahaha
I don’t think a thin case matters nearly as much for a pilots watch as it does for an explorer/field watch.
Typically, I don’t mind thick watches either. My favourite diver, the Squale Drass Galeazzi, is also 16mm thick - it is a 42mm 500m diver.
@@burbinghard i suppose the real question is, how much does it weigh?
Tired of all the skinny wristed types complaining about thickness without even trying the watch on.
If you’ve never tried the watch on the. your opinion is invalid.
I own the Tudor BB GMT
I have tried the watch on at my AD, and the points raised are spot-on in my opinion. It is all subjective, but the Pro looks really awkward on my 7.5” wrist. I own the BB GMT and the thickness does not bother me much as the height is in better proportion to its size. It is still thicker than I would have wanted it to be, though.
The Rolex 1655 is the nicest watch ever made IMO. I have been wearing the Steinhart Olko 39mm for two years and really wanted to love the Pro, which I requested from my AD the minute I first heard of it… but the proportions are just wrong for me. If the watch was 40-42mm, the thickness would not have been a problem.
Wtf seriously??
Rehashing the opinions from other reviewers without the watch on wrist…. Glad you can afford the E2, but geez man, you don’t “get” Tudor. Peace.
I own 4 Tudors so I feel like I get the brand pretty well. They’re a Rolex homage brand, also owned by Rolex. The founder intended them to be an affordable option to Rolex. Historically they have used some Rolex parts and they use Rolex designs as their design inspiration. This “in house” GMT movement is just too thick IMO.
I am curious, what other reviewers pointed out the necessity for a field watch to be thin so it doesn’t interfere with climbing tackle, adding layers and donning and doffing gloves? I’m not sure many “watch RUclipsrs” actually use their high end mechanical timepieces for exploring. I genuinely thought I discovered this necessity while gutting a deer during hunting season 😂
😂😂😂