Tudor BB Chrono v. Omega SM Diver 300

[samson66]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Agreed. I've tried that ceramic SMP on and it's a fantastic looking piece - the matt dial with the wave pattern in relief, the brushed ti hands, the no-date movement, etc - all superb. BUT it really does wear every single one of it's 43.5mm. In fact it wears much larger to me than my SD43. If they'd kept it at 42mm it'd be in my collection already.

Tend to agree. The Speedmaster line all wears smaller than the numbers but Seamasters really wear true to size. My 42 mm SMP pretty much wears like a 42 to me.

Sent from my Galaxy S20 using Tapatalk

[Marco Panti]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Some hate on the tudor because of the “faux” design elements which is also nonsense. All watches have design elements, for example there is no function for the rivets but then again no function for polished center links or date wheels that have the same color as the dial, or round vs square hour markers etc, simply a design elements.

Someone above laughably blasts the tudor for poor “design integrity”.

I think it's preferable to have a better understanding before deriding the opinions of others.

Please allow me to assist.

A fake rivet is exactly that, fake. It is a faux retro design element because it is pretending to be a rivet when it is not. The riveted bracelet is a genuine vintage functional element from an era when riveted plates were used to secure the bracelet links. Fake rivets are not.

Whereas a polished center link is exactly that, a polished link. There is no pretence for the polishing to be something functional when it is not, so on this I agree with you - unlike a fake rivet a PCL is simply a design element.

A useful analogy might be the trend in mass market car design to use fake exhaust, fake vents on the side panels and so on.

Like fake rivets on a watch bracelet, these are low integrity design elements because they are disingenuous, designed to deceive and take advantage of the uninitiated, the naïve and the deluded.

Hope this helps.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Marco Panti

I think it's preferable to have a better understanding before deriding the opinions of others.

Please allow me to assist.

A fake rivet is exactly that, fake. It is a faux retro design element because it is pretending to be a rivet when it is not. The riveted bracelet is a genuine vintage functional element from an era when riveted plates were used to secure the bracelet links. Fake rivets are not.

Whereas a polished center link is exactly that, a polished link. There is no pretence for the polishing to be something functional when it is not, so on this I agree with you - unlike a fake rivet a PCL is simply a design element.

A useful analogy might be the trend in mass market car design to use fake exhaust, fake vents on the side panels and so on.

Like fake rivets on a watch bracelet, these are low integrity design elements because they are disingenuous, designed to deceive and take advantage of the uninitiated, the naïve and the deluded.

Hope this helps.

There is no rivet, it’s just a style cue and design element-every watch has them and btw the tudor bracelet functions just fine despite that style cue. As far as retro….come on man there are myself, padi, a small handful of others here that actually still use their watches and not there phones to tell time. The entire automatic/mechanical watch industry is retro. So we are on shaky ground when we go down this road of saying this ok and this is not ok. It’s like the almond color lume, as if the only lume that can possibly be approved is stark white and how dare they make a lume that looks almond color gasp!

People get fired up about nods to the past and Rolex entire catalog is referenced back to their past, and this entire hobby is very much retro. Nothing wrong with that by the way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Elotte]

Great choice, both formidable. My votes goes to the Omega for the display caseback and movement's good looks.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by samson66

Tend to agree. The Speedmaster line all wears smaller than the numbers but Seamasters really wear true to size. My 42 mm SMP pretty much wears like a 42 to me.

Sent from my Galaxy S20 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I don’t know why there is this myth on the internet that the SMP wears small for its size. That’s BS.

I’ve read it over-and-over again on the Omega forum and I’ve seen it said on YouTube videos too.

It’s 42mm with a lug-to-lug of 50mm, and when I tried one, it felt like a 42mm watch with a 50mm lug-to-lug size. It’s wears bigger than my 114060 Submariner.

I have 7.25” wrists so I can wear it, but it definitely wears bigger than any 40mm Rolex sport watch.

Either way, I’d definitely prefer the Omega over the Tudor. The Tudor is basically the same size anyway, so size shouldn’t be a factor here…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alboy]

To the poster above questioning Omega's argument that their all-black ceramic cases where smaller than their dimensions, Omega's not entirely wrong. I own the 42mm Apollo 11 50th anniversary and the 44mm Apollo 8 DSOTM, and on the wrist the Apollo 8 wears smaller than its case dimensions, not far off the 42mm sizing of a regular Speedy Pro.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Alboy

To the poster above questioning Omega's argument that their all-black ceramic cases where smaller than their dimensions, Omega's not entirely wrong. I own the 42mm Apollo 11 50th anniversary and the 44mm Apollo 8 DSOTM, and on the wrist the Apollo 8 wears smaller than its case dimensions, not far off the 42mm sizing of a regular Speedy Pro.

Therein lies the problem.

I have a Speedmaster too. It definitely wears smaller than the stated dimensions.

The Seamaster DOES NOT!

I guess many people think all Omegas wear smaller since the Speedmaster does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danwang0520]

I would go with Seamaster……for its classic diver’s watch and great addition to any collection

[samson66]

Originally Posted by Krash

I have a Speedmaster too. It definitely wears smaller than the stated dimensions.

The Seamaster DOES NOT!

It's strange because my 42mm Seamaster wears just as large (albeit significantly thinner) as my 44.25mm Speedmaster Moonphase.

The dial and bezel actually measure slightly smaller across on the Speedy than the same measurement on the SMP.

Shows how diameter is only telling part of the story. Dial size and bezel diameter have a lot to do with how it looks on the wrist.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by samson66

It's strange because my 42mm Seamaster wears just as large (albeit significantly thinner) as my 44.25mm Speedmaster Moonphase.

The dial and bezel actually measure slightly smaller across on the Speedy than the same measurement on the SMP.

Shows how diameter is only telling part of the story. Dial size and bezel diameter have a lot to do with how it looks on the wrist.

Here’s a picture of my 42mm Speedmaster and my 40mm Submariner. They look pretty much the same and wear about the same since the lug to lug is the same. Plus, I’m pretty sure the Speedmaster is 40mm, not 42.

However, when I tried on a 42 SMP, it undoubtedly wore bigger than both. It also looks noticeably bigger than both when you put them side to side.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OrangeSport]

I don't think that the Tudor is trying is trying to be a Daytona (in fact I prefer it to the Daytona, certainly modern versions), but I do agree that some people will think that.

I actually prefer the Omega though: aesthically, functionally and technically.

Would be a no-brainer for me.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by samson66

Shows how diameter is only telling part of the story. Dial size and bezel diameter have a lot to do with how it looks on the wrist.

Yep. No matter what the nominal dimensions say, there's just no substitute for trying a watch on.

That said, I do wish manufacturers (and online reviewers for that matter) would get into the habit of giving the lug-to-lug measurement as a matter of course, in addition to the usual diameter, thickness and lug width, etc. Lug-to-lug (i.e. length) is one of the most important, and yet often overlooked, dimensions.

[WantBlue15202]

Originally Posted by ninjin

This black dial looks fantastic. This weekend I might take a drive to the closest AD and compare the two dials in person... really having trouble between B/B or W/B. Both look great on the rubber strap and mix well with other colors respectively. The black dial on a red strap is very appealing...

Useful points throughout this thread and a pretty evenly split crowd between these two. Glad I asked the question!

[yesnaya]

There are a lot of ways this comparison can go... tudor vs omega, chrono vs diver, and then the whole personal taste. Between tudor and omega i personally would take omega all day. Between a chronograph and a diver, I prefer the business of the chrono, but appreciate the simplicity of a diver. You can always time things using the dive bezel and if you dont need things accurate to the second, the diver will get the job done.

Now the personal taste. I had the seamaster and sold it. Hated the He valve, hated the bezel (impossible to grip when hands are wet or have something on them like maybe sun screen residue), hated the lack of bracelet taper (uncomfortable), and it was a chunky watch as well, almost like a younger brother to the planet ocean. Loved the display caseback. Loved the color (mine was the all blue one). Loved the micro-adjustment on the clasp. Loved the build quality as it felt very well-made. Overall too close to justify keeping it.

Regarding the Tudor the look of the bracelet alone with the fake rivets makes it a deal-breaker for me (think fashion as opposed to utility). Screw-down pushers are also annoying. Thickness is not appealing. Snowflake hands with round markers make no sense. 45-min chrono sub-dial... why is this ok? Even the dive bezel gets to 60 minutes.

Pass on both. Save your money for something objectively better that also appeals to your style.

[Marco Panti]

Originally Posted by Chester01

There is no rivet, it’s just a style cue and design element-every watch has them and btw the tudor bracelet functions just fine despite that style cue. As far as retro….come on man there are myself, padi, a small handful of others here that actually still use their watches and not there phones to tell time. The entire automatic/mechanical watch industry is retro. So we are on shaky ground when we go down this road of saying this ok and this is not ok. It’s like the almond color lume, as if the only lume that can possibly be approved is stark white and how dare they make a lume that looks almond color gasp!

People get fired up about nods to the past and Rolex entire catalog is referenced back to their past, and this entire hobby is very much retro. Nothing wrong with that by the way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey Chester thanks for the thoughts.

By the way I mean no offence with my comments, I am a designer (marine industry) and also Italian so I probably feel this more intensely than most.

Also English is not my first language so bear with me on that too if you would.

I don't oppose retro design influences per se and I agree with you about the 'lume police' and all of that.

For me personally though I couldn't wear that Tudor because the part that offends me is the faux rivets for the reason I gave. As a designer I cant abide by the fake functional element, it's considered a cheap trick in the design world, that's where I come from. But it's a trick that works and marketing departments love it because many customers do like these elements, same with the pretend exhausts on cars and fake vents on side panels and bonnets (hoods).

The overall design of the Tudor is very well executed as I think I said.

I can see why they are so popular and all of that. As a marketing strategy the retro Tudors are brilliant for sure.

I do respect your opinion. Take care.

Marco

[Marco Panti]

Originally Posted by WantBlue15202

This black dial looks fantastic. This weekend I might take a drive to the closest AD and compare the two dials in person... really having trouble between B/B or W/B. Both look great on the rubber strap and mix well with other colors respectively. The black dial on a red strap is very appealing...

Useful points throughout this thread and a pretty evenly split crowd between these two. Glad I asked the question!

I have the white dial on rubber and I can't lie this image is making me feel like picking up the black dial (also on rubber - the bracelet is horrid). It just has to be bought at the right price (25% discount).

I just wish the rubber strap had deployant clasp, the pin buckle is a pain to use sometimes and makes it feel cheaper to me.

My white 300M is truly one of the few watches that I have not become bored of. In fact if anything I enjoy the design and materials more the longer I keep it.

And I am a big Rolex guy - there's no material I prefer more than brushed 904L.

Marco