This year at Watches and Wonders, Tudor released the Black Bay Pro, a 39mm true GMT with the brand’s MT5652 movement. It also boasts 200m water resistance and features hour markers made entirely of molded lume. Plus, due to its yellow hand and steel 24-hour bezel, the BB Pro has an uncanny resemblance to the Rolex Explorer II 1655 “Freccione.”
Despite all those lovely things, what a lot of people seem to be focusing on is how thick it is. Watch observers [read: those who aren’t at Watches and Wonders and have not handled the watch] are saying it’s bafflingly, dealbreakingly thick at 14.6mm. While not completely unfounded, this is more reactive than it is considered, and the entire response warrants some analysis.
Dimensions are relative…
The first thing that must be established is that watch dimensions are relative. The only way to really know how a watch wears is to wear it. The spec sheet only tells you the raw numbers, and that only goes so far (that’s one of the reasons why hands-on reviews are helpful: they translate the spec sheet into experiential terms for the reader or viewer). There are a number of unmeasurable factors that can make a watch wear bigger or smaller.
Thin bezels make a dial seem larger and will make a watch seem to take up more space on the wrist. Creative angles, curves, and lines on a case can make a seemingly bulky watch disappear—this is why Seiko divers tend to wear better than they have any right to. Anyone who has worn a Panerai can tell you that while they knew it would be larger, it seems larger than they imagined, which is down to the effect of the cushion case (a similar effect is had with the square case of the Cartier Santos). Basing our reactions on the spec sheet, much less a single measurement, means we are willfully ignoring the intricacies of a watch’s design.
…but not when the case is a known entity.
While it’s important to assess watches beyond their measurements, the Black Bay Pro presents a bit of a wrinkle. You see, it a case that is identical in design as the Black Bay GMT. What this means, above all else, is that people know how the case wears. While they may not have had an issue with the Black Bay GMT, there’s a diameter difference that causes problems for the Pro: 39mm to the GMT’s 41mm. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that the Pro is going to wear chunkier because it’s got the same height on a narrower case (just go and try out the new 36mm Rolex Explorer I—even at 11.5mm thick, it sits high on the wrist compared to its 41mm predecessor).
The Tudor Black Bay Pro also has to contend with the fact that there are numerous other GMT watches out there with slimmer profiles. Mido’s Ocean Star GMT is just 13.3mm with the same water resistance. Sinn has its 105 UTC that is 11.9mm thick—identical to the day-date version of the same watch. Grand Seiko’s SBGE275 measures in at 14.5mm but has the benefit of Seiko’s case magic allowing it to wear more compactly than the old ETA-powered Black Bays (so I’ve been told); the Black Bay Pro, on the other hand, receives no aid from its slab-sided case.
There are also a number of more affordable brands making GMTs that make the BB Pro bloated by comparison. The Lorier Hyperion has an all-in thickness of just 10.9 mm and the Christopher Ward C63 Sealander GMT just 11.85mm! And let’s not forget the elephant standing right down the road, the Rolex GMT-Master II, which also has an in-house true GMT caliber but comes in at 12mm.
To be sure, not all of these watches are the same in every other regard, so you could argue the comparisons are inapt. We’re still left with this: in an industry where there are a multitude of thinner options, why has Tudor made its GMTs markedly thicker than much of the competition? Other brands are proving it’s possible to make a more svelte GMT even without an in-house movement. With an in-house movement and millions of dollars available, it’s unclear what excuse Tudor can make.
Tudor Doesn’t Care What You Think
It may simply come down to the fact that Tudor does not and does not need to care what the watch enthusiast community thinks. Not that the critiques made by the community are invalid or weightless, and certainly not that the discussion isn’t worth having, but it’s helpful to remember that the community makes up a somewhat insignificant fraction of the watch market. The average buyer of a Tudor Black Bay Pro isn’t involved in the community. He or she doesn’t know that any watch could or should be anything it’s not. The idea that a watch should be thinner or could have a more forgiving case isn’t part of the consideration in purchasing a watch. If anything, there’s just the terminal realization that it doesn’t fit on the wrist—done, move on. Tudor is making watches that capitalize on the success of the ever-expanding Black Bay collection and they’ve got no reason not to. The Black Bay Pro is just a continuation of that, and only poor sales—not post-release clamoring on the forums—will have any effect on its design decisions.
2 Comments
Comments are closed.
Hi Mike, good read thanks. I have one and love it, on the hybrid strap. I also have the Rolex GMT and side by side they actually wear very similarly. I put this down to the raised crystal on the Tudor – that is what gives it the extra girth. It’s also more slab sided, but then so are all the BBs. I haven’t taken mine off since picking it up on 1 April, and a highly recommend trying one on, the thickness is a non issue for me in real life wear, and it’s a stunning watch. I’ve owned the 41mm GMT and found it too bulky, this one is not, and yet wrist presence is up there.
Thanks for reading, Johnny! Glad you’re enjoying it and glad to hear some owner experience.