Thickness Complaints - A Brief Thought

[Etschell]

It seems to me that every time a Tudor BlackBay is brought up in a post or released a lot of people ask "How thick is it?" Which is always followed by massive complaints that the in house BB is simply too thick. So what gives?

First, we first have to start with the reality. Tudor set themselves up for this one as the original ETA BB was a skinny 12.7 MM (by dive watch standards for those manufactured by Rolex or Tudor).

When the in house version came out and due to a bigger movement the thickness shot up to just under 15 MM at 14.8 MM, or by 15%! Now you do get a longer power reserve in trade-off. Some argue there should be no trade off at all. I do no necessarily disagree but I did not design the watch. The complaints and statements of "if it wasn't so thick" have not stopped since. Valid points.

But is the thickness issue really a valid enough point to be the subject of nearly every Tudor BB post on the forum?

The SubC is 12.7 MM thick, I don't think this includes the cyclops.
The SD4k and SD43 is 15 MM thick, I don't this includes the cyclops.

I have never really heard that the Seadweller Ceramic is too thick here which is quite interesting. How could that be? Perhaps the extra depth rating that no one will ever use is the saving grace for the Seadweller. Or because the Seadweller was historically always around the same thickness.

What is interesting is the 16800 Sub was 14.8 MM thick. Older submariner models were similarly thick. It was only the 16610 that slimmed down the Submariner by a whole 2 MM that took lasting effect (at least through today). Why Rolex did so is anyone's guess but perhaps it is as simple as most Submariners are worn by people who sit at a desk and wear dress shirts 5 days out of the week. Perhaps they too were complaining that 15 MM was too thick.

So how thick is 2 MM? In case anyone is wondering 2 MM is the thickness of a SubC bracelet link or 8% of 1 inch.

I guess the question really is, if 15 MM is not too thick for a modern Seadweller why is it too thick for another modern dive watch? Perhaps it isn't. Or perhaps Tudor should have known better when upping the thickness by going in house....

[Loevhagen]

A lot of theory there. Have you worn a Tudor 41mm BB yourself?

As with the size of the watch case of 38mm, 39mm or 41mm - there's much more to the wide and the height, than just pure measured millimeters.

Bought a Tudor BBB. Loved the design - except for the height and massive steel areas when not on the bracelet.

Sold it.

No regrets.

Now, I want the 58...

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by Loevhagen

A lot of theory there. Have you worn a Tudor 41mm BB yourself?

Bought a Tudor BBB. Loved the design - except for the height and massive steel areas when not on the bracelet.

Sold it.

No regrets.

Now, I want the 58...

Yes. I own the BB S&G along with the Pelagos and a SubC.

[bliew]

Don't think it's necessarily the actual thickness, rather the perception of the thickness. The Sub and Seadwellers have their thickness in the caseback and not the midcase while the BB looks like a slab of metal on the midcase while having a flat caseback

58 looks like a nice compromise

[minute_man]

Originally Posted by bliew

Don't think it's necessarily the actual thickness, rather the perception of the thickness.

the BB looks like a slab of metal on the midcase

Exactly

It's the case that's thicker as compared to the Sub / GMT.

[henrylee]

Originally Posted by bliew

Don't think it's necessarily the actual thickness, rather the perception of the thickness. The Sub and Seadwellers have their thickness in the caseback and not the midcase while the BB looks like a slab of metal on the midcase while having a flat caseback

58 looks like a nice compromise

Don't like the slab like case.

[007_Omega]

I complain about the new GMT's thickness as its not a dive watch.

Also, the Black Bay has 200m water resistance while the 15mm SD has 1220m.

BTW 2mm difference in thickness makes a huge difference. Hell, 2mm difference in case size makes a huge difference. It doesn't seem like much on its face but it just is.

It's all within context. For certain watches, I don't mind the thickness and actually enjoy the heft but I don't want my watches to be extra thick for no reason. It's got to be justified somehow and not just because it is supposed to be a dive watch so why not make it big.

[ap1]

2mm makes a very big difference to me and my wrist. Stuff 14+ doesn’t always neatly slide under the work dress shirt. I actually like the lug design on my bbn eta but wish it were slightly thinner. And that is already thinner than in-house as you point out. This has always been my issue with most omega and panerai too.
Im gonna go barebell approach and do tudor pepsi as travel beater and bb58 for optimal versatile Sizing (I hope...)

[MickCollins1916]

I see why the question is posed. I sold my first ETA BB, the BBR, because of the slab-like appearance when off bracelet, and my dislike of the Tudor bracelet.

The ETA BB also sits very flat on the wrist, which I think exacerbated the perceived thickness for me, and though I haven’t measured, the lug holes are incredibly low on the inside of the lugs.

Bought a BBN and came close to selling it for the same reason...but then found the Everest rubber strap for it, which solved my comfort problems and aesthetic beef.

Conversely, my 16600, SD4K, and SD43 are 15mm, but have deeper casebacks than the BB ETA line, and sit very comfortably on the wrist for me, whether on bracelet or NATO.

Never tried the in-house BB. I suspect, given my stated beef with the bracelet, the added thickness could either make or break it for me. Sold my ETA Pelagos because I could never get the fit just right, but love my in-house Pelagos - the added thickness solved my bracelet fit problems. I wear my bracelets pretty snug, so a fit that results in a watch jangling around on my wrist below my wrist bone is a deal-killer for me.

Bottom line, I suspect there are a lot of factors that go into individuals’ relative comfort levels with the Rolex/Tudor divers, beyond the mere case thickness measurements.

[AK797]

For me it is about proportion, so I can wear a big and thick 44mm AP but never feel it is overly big as it is spread out nicely across my wrist, whereas a 42mm Exp2 I find to have too wide a dial so not balanced even tho it is smaller. On the BB the case sides are too tall as opposed to the sleeker Subc, as is often mentioned, so the total MM thickness is less relevant. Thickness is linked to finesse, and so AP RO and Nautilus are lauded for their slimline feel, while this issue too has hurt the Omega PO which has also gotten very chunky.

[Rolex addict]

I have smaller wrist, so it's important to me. The BB with ETA is almost too thick. It just sits a little too high on my wrist. I'm not going to bash them because I love Tudor and they are great watches. I'm really looking forward to trying on the BB 58.

[phillycheez]

The SD4K and SD50 aren't considered thick because the case profile is slim. They hit those 14mm-15mm thickness because of the deep case back and tall crystal.

The black bay is thick because the case profile IS thick.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Etschell]

so basically people like the oyster case vs the flat case back.

thickness was not the big issue compared to mid-case design. you will excuse my confusion because the mid-case design has never changed - albeit a bit thicker. so i am not sure how one loves the bb eta but shuns the in house based on thickness alone. makes little sense trying both on.

[Rolex addict]

Originally Posted by Etschell

so basically people like the oyster case vs the flat case back.

thickness was not the big issue compared to mid-case design. you will excuse my confusion because the mid-case design has never changed - albeit a bit thicker. so i am not sure how one loves the bb eta but shuns the in house based on thickness alone. makes little sense trying both on.

The BB with in house movement sits noticeably higher on my wrist. I'm a Rolex fan boy and not very familiar with Tudor, case differences, etc. If the dimensions, case size, etc. for the BB58 are identical to the new BB, then I probably won't get one. The BB with ETA sits higher than what I really like. Good thing there was a Rolex released that I want and it probably won't be in high demand.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by Rolex addict

The BB with in house movement sits noticeably higher on my wrist. I'm a Rolex fan boy and not very familiar with Tudor, case differences, etc. If the dimensions, case size, etc. for the BB58 are identical to the new BB, then I probably won't get one. The BB with ETA sits higher than what I really like. Good thing there was a Rolex released that I want and it probably won't be in high demand.

you didnt hear about the waiting list for the OP, its 25 deep

[Rolex addict]

Originally Posted by Etschell

you didnt hear about the waiting list for the OP, its 25 deep

I could get one of the first SS GMT's if I wanted it. That DJ41 with slate dial and green romans is pretty cool. I really want to see one in person. The white OP and BB58 are neck and neck for second.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Etschell

so basically people like the oyster case vs the flat case back.

thickness was not the big issue compared to mid-case design. you will excuse my confusion because the mid-case design has never changed - albeit a bit thicker. so i am not sure how one loves the bb eta but shuns the in house based on thickness alone. makes little sense trying both on.

I loved the ETA but did sell the ETA because in part it was too thick, so I can only imagine the inhouse, but that has put me off the Pepsi and more to the 58.

[Cru Jones]

Yup, too thick for its diameter.

[Etschell]

appreciate all the responses btw.

[minute_man]

Top to bottom :

BB S&G
Pelagos
GMT II C

The BB lpoks even thicker than the Pelagos but wears comfortably on a rather flat wrist.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by minute_man

Top to bottom :

BB S&G
Pelagos
GMT II C

The BB lpoks even thicker than the Pelagos but wears comfortably on a rather flat wrist.

my combo is bb s&g, pelagos and subc. next will prob be bb gmt or OP39 white.

[minute_man]

Originally Posted by Etschell

my combo is bb s&g, pelagos and subc. next will prob be bb gmt or OP39 white.

That's an awesome combo and either the GMT or the OP will make for a great addition.

I'm considering a DJ41 down the road but the BB GMT has really got me thinking which direction my lineup should follow...

[michaelodonnell123]

I have the original BB ETA (red bezel) on a leather strap and it's perfect as far as I am concerned.

[vipereaper30]

It's pretty simple for me. Thinner = better and there's a point where a case can be too thick for its respective diameter. The BB has this problem, its at the limit or maybe just past imo.

[Furrygoat]

I thought that was supposed to be brief?

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by Furrygoat

I thought that was supposed to be brief?

no no, i said briefs.

[mountainjogger]

Originally Posted by Furrygoat

I thought that was supposed to be brief?

Well, it was packed with more info in less space than most posts, so it read brief.

Thanks OP, great questions.

I have not minded the thickness issue when I tied on the in house BB at my AD. But I have not owned one and worn it long term.

[Bt122]

Isn’t the bezel slimmer... vs the sub

[minute_man]

Originally Posted by Bt122

Isn’t the bezel slimmer... vs the sub

Yes, probably.

[MP5]

I might be used to the SD 666 but This IS NOT thick to me, It might be a smidge thicker midcase look than the classic SD but far from thick- Omegas are thick. The DSSD is thick.