I think I might prefer my Tudor GMT over my Rolex.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by reposado

The clincher for me was the font of the bezel numerals between the two. The Rolex numerals feel so bold and heavy after looking at the fine font of the '58's.

This is the single reason why I don’t own a ceramic Rolex GMT, the bezel numerals are so large and out of scale. I can’t unsee them.

[hartsy]

I am very intrigued by the BB58 GMT. If it wasn't so heavily gilted and had an option for Jubilee band I would likely have one right now. I have a 5 digit sub and Exp 1 and could really use a GMT function in my collection as I travel a lot and work across several time zones. I have my eyes set on a BLNR, but was torn when I saw the new Tudor GMT release. The opaline GMT is just SO thick, and the BB58 has the gilt and faux rivets which kill me. I am hoping in the near future they throw out the jubilee option and maybe one with less gilt and I will probably hop off the list for the BLNR. I need to check it out in person! I had considered getting it on the rubber strap but really do want a jubilee bracelet in my collection.

[garyk]

Originally Posted by worldofoyster

Good for you

If you directed that at me, well bless your heart

[horizo]

BLNR is one of the best watches in the world, there’s no contest

[Actor07]

Originally Posted by garyk

If you directed that at me, well bless your heart

You gotta be from the South, lol. Excellent retort.

[Brich436]

Reference my post: Tool vs Jewel a tale of 2 GMTs.

I think the gilt on the BB58 GMT makes it less tooltastic than say a BB Pro. But Tudor has taken over the mantel for tooltastic watches and Rolex has moved up market to luxury. Each has advantages. I would be hesitant to travel to a new locale w my BLNR but YMMV.

I have a BB58 blue on Artem as my travel watch.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by hartsy

I am very intrigued by the BB58 GMT. If it wasn't so heavily gilted and had an option for Jubilee band I would likely have one right now. I have a 5 digit sub and Exp 1 and could really use a GMT function in my collection as I travel a lot and work across several time zones. I have my eyes set on a BLNR, but was torn when I saw the new Tudor GMT release. The opaline GMT is just SO thick, and the BB58 has the gilt and faux rivets which kill me. I am hoping in the near future they throw out the jubilee option and maybe one with less gilt and I will probably hop off the list for the BLNR. I need to check it out in person! I had considered getting it on the rubber strap but really do want a jubilee bracelet in my collection.

I have the old jubilee for the 16710 lying around somewhere. I think there is a 90% chance it won't work, but I'm going to try it on the BB58 GMT once I get mine.

[RRGHOST1]

I have the Opaline BB GMT,one thing is missing, is the t-fit clasp. Somebody put an article on the Forum saying, the Tudor Jubilee bracelet,off a Smooth Bezel BB has a 22mm 5-link with t-fit clasp and will fit the GMT. A good solution to a Jubilee bracelet if Tudor would sell it to you.

[Neil McCauley]

A lot of it will be the honeymoon period - put the BLNR away for 3-4 months and come back to it, see how you feel then.

I'm feeling kind of the same about a few of my other watches vs my 126500LN Daytona I collected recently, none of my other pieces are getting much wrist time as a result, and I've just put them away to give myself a rest from them.

[fousiekig]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

Me, too! Tudors kind of all look the same, to me. Maybe it’s the snowflake hand. That GMT looks just like my BB58, and every other diver or GMT, regardless of model. I do like it, though, just not as much as the BLNR.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So , you are saying that rolex gmt doesn’t look like sub or seadweller or yacht master??

[Sublovin]

I get it. I wear a Tudor Pelagos as my beach watch and many times it’s hard for me to take it off. I love most everything about it! Tudor is knocking it out of the park, and there is a lot to like about a lot of their watches.

[Timmer1]

Originally Posted by Gearjockey

As soon as they introduce the jubilee on BB58, I’m in.
Hopefully next year.

I just bought the 5 link bracelet with Tudors micro adjustment called t-fit. Once I have it I will post a picture.

[WatchTimes]

Yeah congrats but just not a Tudor fan.

[JSCP]

your wrist for sure, but me not sure

[geoach]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

This is the single reason why I don’t own a ceramic Rolex GMT, the bezel numerals are so large and out of scale. I can’t unsee them.

count me in on that ruins the entire watch for me.........why rolex did that god knows

[Neil McCauley]

Originally Posted by geoach

count me in on that ruins the entire watch for me.........why rolex did that god knows

I think it looks just fine, personally. Dimensions of the numbers are barely changed, the font is different is all, to give it a more modern look.

[Yobber76]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Already did that. And a pretty good alternative that is easy on the wallet, has brushed or polished center link option, and can utilize the OEM Tudor clasp. Plus you can scratch the hell out of it without worry.

But The US jubilee in not what I was referring to. I'll update as soon as I can on what might just give this BB GMT strap monster a run for its money.
dP

Great picture great looking watch/bracelet combo, Dan. I have this Tudor, I'm interested in this jubilee look for it.

And oh by the way, I still love your 16710! Beautiful watch!!

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Yobber76

Great picture great looking watch/bracelet combo, Dan. I have this Tudor, I'm interested in this jubilee look for it.

And oh by the way, I still love your 16710! Beautiful watch!!

Thank you, Mike! Much appreciated.
dP

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by reposado

There, I said it.

Since getting my '58 GMT it's grown on me more and more. What I originally thought would be an ideal travel / holiday watch has so far been more of an enjoyable wear than my BLNR.

Perhaps it's a honeymoon period but I'm really enamoured with the Tudor. A huge deal for me is being able to travel with it without the worry associated with the BLNR.

The Rolex is undeniably superb. Yet looking at these two back to back, I'm personally drawn to the more tool like aesthetic of the '58, the BLNR feels so flashy in comparison, with the ceramic and jubilee etc.

The clincher for me was the font of the bezel numerals between the two. The Rolex numerals feel so bold and heavy after looking at the fine font of the '58's.

Happy Friday folks, apologies for more GMT musings & wishing you all a pleasant weekend

I don't own any GMT watch but of those, I much prefer the Tudor. I think Tudor have the Rolex look from around the 1970s-2010. Neovintage if you will.

[Chrispapa]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

I don't own any GMT watch but of those, I much prefer the Tudor. I think Tudor have the Rolex look from around the 1970s-2010. Neovintage if you will.

I agree the Tudor has a look and feel of a 16710 Rolex. I own a 5 digit thunderbird and a new reference yachtmaster. The Tudor definitely feels like an old school Rolex. And that’s a good thing in my opinion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[S.Explorer]

The Tudor is a nice watch, but just too big for me compared to the Rolex.

[rolexpatek363]

I agree the Tudor has a look and feel of a 16710 Rolex. I own a 5 digit thunderbird and a new reference yachtmaster. The Tudor definitely feels like an old school Rolex. And that’s a good thing in my opinion

Exactly. I have a P-serial 16610, and have never felt tempted to "upgrade" to a ceramic supercase version. In fact, I went the other way and added a 5513 as my "no-date".

[garyk]

Originally Posted by Actor07

You gotta be from the South, lol. Excellent retort.

Haha, good catch…

[jamesbondOO7]

Of course if one compares aluminium bezel to ceramic, aluminium will always win. But Tudor?

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by jamesbondOO7

Of course if one compares aluminium bezel to ceramic, aluminium will always win. But Tudor?

The two brands are interchangeable these days, IMO. Tudor's a Rolex with the bling removed.

[1259]

Originally Posted by Neil McCauley

I think it looks just fine, personally. Dimensions of the numbers are barely changed, the font is different is all, to give it a more modern look.

I think the new one looks better when compared side by side.

[jamesbondOO7]

Originally Posted by 1259

I think the new one looks better when compared side by side.

One needs to compare II with II

[jamesbondOO7]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

The two brands are interchangeable these days, IMO. Tudor's a Rolex with the bling removed.

A bit more than just bling. But bling definitely, which is not a positive. A Tudor looks just…sad.

[worldofoyster]

I understand what you mean!

[the dark knight]

I'm prob going to be the only one here. But if willing to ignore value retention, I dare say I'd rather have the trio of the BB58 GMT, BB54, and BB Chrono over 6 digit BLRO, Sub, and Daytona models. Mainly because having owned 5 of the 6 watches so far, Tudor is obviously just easier to wear anywhere these days without much worry. The BLRO and Daytona can stick out like a sore thumb at times.

That's also factoring in my own major bias towards brand new watches. If Rolex still produced them, the 16710, 16610, and 16520 would beat the pants off both of the above trios for me.