Tudor Heritage BlackBay and the Triplock crown

[Blackdog]

People have asked before if the new Blackbay and Pelagos do have a Triplock crown.

The external o-ring gasket on the tube of the Pelagos is visible when thr crown is unscrewed, and I believe it has been confirmed that the design of the Pelagos crown and tube is the same as the modern 703/7030 Rolex Triplock. Like this (these drawings have been posted in this forum before, I borrowed them from an old post):


It was sort of assumed so far that the Blackbay would have a twin-lock type of crown/tube.

I have a Blackbay and was curious too, so I decided to pop the hood open and take a look.


I unlocked the stem and found that, apart from the obvious cosmetic differences of the crown and the aluminum cosmetic ring, the design of the crown and tube is that of the early Triplock that was orginally fitted to the early 5513/1680s. The design is just like the 702/7020 Triplock crown and tube as seen here:


Here’s the crown, with it’s internal gasket.


Here’s the tube with it’s two o-rings inside, and the seating for the round gasket that's inside the crown:



The Twinlock crown design has only one gasket inside the tube, and the crown gasket is flat as it seals right against the top the tube, as seen here:


I didn’t remove the tube, but I think it’s safe to assume that there is a gasket between the tube and the case too.

The colored aluminum ring on the tube seems to have no function in the crown locking and to be purely cosmetic.

So to the question: Does the Blackbay sport a Triplock crown ? IMO the answer is yes, one like the early 702/7020 Triplock crowns in fact.

[nyyankees]

That's fascinating. Thanks for posting.

[ssultan]

Cool!

[handsfull]

Very nice of you to post pics! HELPFUL! Thank you

[Rogdogg]

Cool thread. Thanks for taking the time and sharing your findings with us.

[Old Expat Beast]

Thank you, that's an interesting and well presented post.

[Blackdog]

Thanks. Glad you found it at least interesting.

Right now I'm fighting the temptation of opening it again and unmount the tube this time… I'd love to check if a Rolex type Triplock tube and crown could be fitted in there…

So far common sense has prevailed...

[Swearengen]

Just wondering if temptation has got the better of you yet?
I am curious to see how it would look with a Rolex Triplock Crown in place.

Originally Posted by Blackdog

Thanks. Glad you found it at least interesting.

Right now I'm fighting the temptation of opening it again and unmount the tube this time… I'd love to check if a Rolex type Triplock tube and crown could be fitted in there…

So far common sense has prevailed...

[Blackdog]

Originally Posted by Swearengen

Just wondering if temptation has got the better of you yet?
I am curious to see how it would look with a Rolex Triplock Crown in place.

No. Opening the back and removing the stem to have a look was rather non-invasive and I felt comfortable I could do it without breaking anything.

Now unmounting the tube is a bit more involved than I'm prepared to go with an expensive piece like this. I'm not a watchmaker/technician, just an amateur. I don't have access to genuine parts. Common sense tells me I better leave it well alone.

I do not have a Rolex tube to test anyway, so I'll stop the investigations here.

Now, if I ever have problems with corrosion on the cosmetic tube ring again I will consider getting the crown/tube replaced with a standard Triplock by a properly qualified (independent) watchmaker.

[adzman808]

Great post, I wondered how the TBB crown functioned, there's more to it than I'd realised (not that I realise much) and after reading your post, I'm impressed that Tudor have got the crown to visually screw down to the red collar, considering there's actually a gasket in there!

One unrelated question you may know the answer too....

How is the bezel held on? Is it similar to the modern ceramic rolex divers, or can it safely be prised off and re-applied like the older subs?

[NKflyer]

Originally Posted by adzman808

How is the bezel held on? Is it similar to the modern ceramic rolex divers, or can it safely be prised off and re-applied like the older subs?

It's similar to the Rolex ceramic bezels.

[Blackdog]

Originally Posted by adzman808

Great post, I wondered how the TBB crown functioned, there's more to it than I'd realised (not that I realise much) and after reading your post, I'm impressed that Tudor have got the crown to visually screw down to the red collar, considering there's actually a gasket in there!

Thanks, I found it hard to believe that Tudor would downgrade the BlackBay specs to a Twinlock-like crown. After all it's the descendant of the Mighty Sub !

On a Triplock-like design the crown gets screwed down until the top edge of the tube bottoms against the inside of the crown, thus compressing the crown gasket against the tube recess just a predesigned amount. The red collar is short enough so that it never actually touches the crown. Pretty much like on a Rolex Triplock the crown never actually touches the case.

I have to admit that I am not a fan of the red collar. I would have preferred a thicker crown. I guess I'm too used to the "form follows function" concept, and the color ring is essentially useless.

Originally Posted by adzman808

One unrelated question you may know the answer too....

How is the bezel held on? Is it similar to the modern ceramic rolex divers, or can it safely be prised off and re-applied like the older subs?

I presume that NKflyer is right, the bezel assembly design seems to be like the one in the newer Subs.

[NKflyer]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

I presume that NKflyer is right, the bezel assembly design seems to be like the one in the newer Subs.

Yeah, I actually had my bezel pop off so I got to see the inner workings first hand. Had to send to RSC New York to have it repaired and this was well before Tudor came to the USA. They were like "what the heck is this thing" .

[Blackdog]

Originally Posted by NKflyer

Yeah, I actually had my bezel pop off so I got to see the inner workings first hand. Had to send to RSC New York to have it repaired and this was well before Tudor came to the USA. They were like "what the heck is this thing" .

OK, that confirms it then. Thanks for the info NKflyer.

In my opinion the TBB has two weak points as a serious diving instrument, that the older Tudor Sub did not have.

The new bezel design, if it is like the new Rolex ceramics, relies on glue to hold the insert in place. The older design of the aluminium bezel that snaps in place and is held put by elastic tension is pure genius. It’s been in use for 60 years, how many old Subs have you seen with a missing insert ? People tends to worry about cracking the new ceramic bezels, I would be more worried about them becoming unglued.

The function-less (hence unnecessary) cosmetic colour ring. Like I mentioned before, due to the crown/tube design, there is a very small gap between the aluminium colour collar and the crown when the last is screwed down. This creates a spot where sea water will accumulate and will be difficult to rinse after a dive. I had problems with said ring, it got corroded after just two diving holidays an was replaced under warranty. If I could have it my way I would loose the ring completely or replace it with a stainless steel one. But even this problem is just cosmetic. The crown and tube are still perfectly safe and functional even if the colour collar completely rots to dust.

So that’s still pretty good for a serious diver's watch. Others are doing much worse in my book (don’t even get me started on Omega’s He valve…)

[shofzr]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

OK, that confirms it then. Thanks for the info NKflyer.



In my opinion the TBB has two weak points as a serious diving instrument, that the older Tudor Sub did not have.



The new bezel design, if it is like the new Rolex ceramics, relies on glue to hold the insert in place. The older design of the aluminium bezel that snaps in place and is held put by elastic tension is pure genius. It’s been in use for 60 years, how many old Subs have you seen with a missing insert ? People tends to worry about cracking the new ceramic bezels, I would be more worried about them becoming unglued.



The function-less (hence unnecessary) cosmetic colour ring. Like I mentioned before, due to the crown/tube design, there is a very small gap between the aluminium colour collar and the crown when the last is screwed down. This creates a spot where sea water will accumulate and will be difficult to rinse after a dive. I had problems with said ring, it got corroded after just two diving holidays an was replaced under warranty. If I could have it my way I would loose the ring completely or replace it with a stainless steel one. But even this problem is just cosmetic. The crown and tube are still perfectly safe and functional even if the colour collar completely rots to dust.



So that’s still pretty good for a serious diver's watch. Others are doing much worse in my book (don’t even get me started on Omega’s He valve…)

Glue is NOT used to hold the ceramic inserts in place, they are held in by friction.

[adzman808]

Thanks to both NKflyer and Blackdog for your answers!

I guess that explains why the aftermarket bezel insert brigade haven't jumped on the TBB!

The coloured ring annoyed me a lot less when I saw the watch in the metal than I thought it would, but that said your confirming of it being functionally useless, does match my opinion of its aesthetic purpose!

[cajunron]

Great info. Thanks.

[RollieVerde]

I've always though the BB is not really for diver's as much as a fashion piece for those that wear diver's watches and don't dive. There's no wet suit extension on the bracelet, no crown guards, and the rating of 660 ft. is not exactly the accepted norm for true diving timepieces. The Pelagos is the real dive watch in the Tudor line now. You can dive with the BB certainly; but it's more concerned with form than function.

[Blackdog]

Originally Posted by RollieVerde

I've always though the BB is not really for diver's as much as a fashion piece for those that wear diver's watches and don't dive. There's no wet suit extension on the bracelet, no crown guards, and the rating of 660 ft. is not exactly the accepted norm for true diving timepieces. The Pelagos is the real dive watch in the Tudor line now. You can dive with the BB certainly; but it's more concerned with form than function.

I see what you mean, and I agree that the Pelagos is a more no-nonsense design.
I also agree that at least a simple diver's extension should have been included in the clasp.

But specifically regarding the 200m rating I believe it is more a market position strategy than a real limitation. "200m-660ft" certainly looks more "vintage" on that dial, but I'm pretty sure that the BB is capable to withstand much more than 20bar in real life. The design is pretty solid.

We know that the Triplock design crown is good for more than 10 times that, to begin with.

The caseback seals in exactly the same manner as any Sub Oyster case. Being flat-ish and larger (compared to a Sub's), it could be more prone to deformation under pressure, but the threaded area is seriously reinforced and thicker. The remaining thinner part is of a much smaller diameter.


Compare it to a Sub's case back and you can see what I mean (picture borrowed from the net):


The crystal is domed, and sgnificantly thicker than the Sub's. I had mine replaced by the RSC because it was scratched, and the watchmaker was very surprised to find out that it was almost Sea Dweller thick (his words).

All in all, it seems to be a seriously engineered piece. I'm pretty sure that 20atm is just a marketing decision to keep the vintage theme and to further distance it from the Pelagos spec-wise. But, in any case, it's all just speculation…

[RollieVerde]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

I see what you mean, and I agree that the Pelagos is a more no-nonsense design.
I also agree that at least a simple diver's extension should have been included in the clasp.

But specifically regarding the 200m rating I believe it is more a market position strategy than a real limitation. "200m-660ft" certainly looks more "vintage" on that dial, but I'm pretty sure that the BB is capable to withstand much more than 20bar in real life. The design is pretty solid.

We know that the Triplock design crown is good for more than 10 times that, to begin with.

The caseback seals in exactly the same manner as any Sub Oyster case. Being flat-ish and larger (compared to a Sub's), it could be more prone to deformation under pressure, but the threaded area is seriously reinforced and thicker. The remaining thinner part is of a much smaller diameter.


Compare it to a Sub's case back and you can see what I mean (picture borrowed from the net):


The crystal is domed, and sgnificantly thicker than the Sub's. I had mine replaced by the RSC because it was scratched, and the watchmaker was very surprised to find out that it was almost Sea Dweller thick (his words).

All in all, it seems to be a seriously engineered piece. I'm pretty sure that 20atm is just a marketing decision to keep the vintage theme and to further distance it from the Pelagos spec-wise. But, in any case, it's all just speculation…

Very interesting. I still wish we knew more about how Tudors are made, and if Rolex builds them along side the Rolex lines or if there's a dedicated manufacturing facility somewhere else. They seem more secretive about Tudor production than they are about Rolex manufacturing, which (recent tours of the plant in print aside) has always been pretty mysterious. The fact that the crystal is so thick is wild. Your retro marketing point could be exactly right. Thanks for the insight.

[Dalton]

Great write up! Im waiting for mine to arrive today. Can't wait! I settled on the TBB as my sole watch for the next 2 years.

[adzman808]

Re the earlier comments on TBB bezel removal and that it's basically the same as a SubC...

I found this on youtube, not something I'd personally do to mine, but shows it can be done at least!


[video=youtube_share;snSEaxqs5hE]http://youtu.be/snSEaxqs5hE[/video]

EDIT:

Ok embedding didn't work, here's the link!



http://youtu.be/snSEaxqs5hE

[shofzr]

Originally Posted by adzman808

Re the earlier comments on TBB bezel removal and that it's basically the same as a SubC...

I found this on youtube, not something I'd personally do to mine, but shows it can be done at least!


[video=youtube_share;snSEaxqs5hE]http://youtu.be/snSEaxqs5hE[/video]

EDIT:

Ok embedding didn't work, here's the link!



http://youtu.be/snSEaxqs5hE

That's one guy who will most likely loose his bezel.
The Hytrel ring that holds the bezel on is ONE TIME USE ONLY, the fact he can push it back on with his fingers shows it is not secure.

It takes a press to reinstall the bezel with a NEW Hytrel ring.

Cheers


Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

[Blackdog]

Originally Posted by shofzr

That's one guy who will most likely loose his bezel.

It takes a press to reinstall the bezel with a NEW Hytrel ring.

It was my impression too.
Still makes me wonder what was wrong with the older system.
Are there any advantages with this one ?

BTW I see no click spring. What makes the bezel click on the new design ?

[shofzr]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

It was my impression too.

Still makes me wonder what was wrong with the older system.

Are there any advantages with this one ?



BTW I see no click spring. What makes the bezel click on the new design ?

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the old system,

However the new Hytrel system is more consistent regarding how smooth the bezel turns, the old system just requires more adjustment to be smooth.

If you look close you will see a "dot" at each lug, 3 are spring loaded ball bearings and the one at the 7 O clock lug is the spring loaded click.


Cheers


Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

[Blackdog]

Originally Posted by shofzr

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the old system,

However the new Hytrel system is more consistent regarding how smooth the bezel turns, the old system just requires more adjustment to be smooth.

If you look close you will see a "dot" at each lug, 3 are spring loaded ball bearings and the one at the 7 O clock lug is the spring loaded click.


Cheers


Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense.
Cheers.

[adzman808]

Good to know, thanks!

[themaninblack]

This is an excellent thread and thanks to the OP. One of my watches is a Black Bay so I appreciate all the information. I agree that the depth ratings on Rolex and Tudor may sometimes be more about marketing than reality. For example I am certain a GMT Master ii can beat the 100m rating!

[Blackdog]

Originally Posted by themaninblack

This is an excellent thread and thanks to the OP….

You're welcome !

Originally Posted by themaninblack

For example I am certain a GMT Master ii can beat the 100m rating!

That's very likely.
But remember that it's all just bragging rights, really. You're not likely to find yourself in the situation of personally verifying that...

All that said, this ad from 1972 always comes to mind (and the test case wasn't even a Submariner)….

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

People have asked before if the new Blackbay and Pelagos do have a Triplock crown.



The external o-ring gasket on the tube of the Pelagos is visible when thr crown is unscrewed, and I believe it has been confirmed that the design of the Pelagos crown and tube is the same as the modern 703/7030 Rolex Triplock. Like this (these drawings have been posted in this forum before, I borrowed them from an old post):





It was sort of assumed so far that the Blackbay would have a twin-lock type of crown/tube.



I have a Blackbay and was curious too, so I decided to pop the hood open and take a look.





I unlocked the stem and found that, apart from the obvious cosmetic differences of the crown and the aluminum cosmetic ring, the design of the crown and tube is that of the early Triplock that was orginally fitted to the early 5513/1680s. The design is just like the 702/7020 So to the question: Does the Blackbay sport a Triplock crown ? IMO the answer is yes, one like the early 702/7020 Triplock crowns in fact.

So, if the BB tube design crown is similar to the older Triplock crowns, how are the newer Triplock/Twinlock crowns different. I thought Twinlock/Triplock were essentially the same design over the years.

Just curious what the difference is between older Triplock and newer Triplock.

Thanks,

-Sheldon