Black Bay 54 - now that’s an interesting one..

[Nads786]

The 54 also has the t-fit bracelet system. How big of a difference will that make in getting the ideal fit?

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by Nads786

The 54 also has the t-fit bracelet system. How big of a difference will that make in getting the ideal fit?

There is a company that sells a special expandable link, specially for the 58, and another that sells half links. Mine fits great with the half link.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Scholar]

Now that I've noticed, I can't unsee the slight misalignment in the lume pip in not only the BB54 in this thread, but also ones I've seen posted on Reddit, and of course the pre-release models at W&W.

I hope this gets sorted. Would that insert be replaced by RSC under warranty if I ended up receiving one like this?

[White Collar Boy]

Originally Posted by Scholar

Now that I've noticed, I can't unsee the slight misalignment in the lume pip in not only the BB54 in this thread, but also ones I've seen posted on Reddit, and of course the pre-release models at W&W.

I hope this gets sorted. Would that insert be replaced by RSC under warranty if I ended up receiving one like this?

Do you think it could just be the domed crystal bending the image?

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by White Collar Boy

Do you think it could just be the domed crystal bending the image?

No, it's the lume pip's position on the triangle.

A forum search reveals that this isn't limited to the 54. Rather it's a common problem on both Rolex Submariners and Tudor Black Bays, so I expect/hope RSC would take care of it. Would love to hear from anyone who's gone to them about lume pip alignment.

[White Collar Boy]

Originally Posted by Scholar

No, it's the lume pip's position on the triangle.

A forum search reveals that this isn't limited to the 54. Rather it's a common problem on both Rolex Submariners and Tudor Black Bays, so I expect/hope RSC would take care of it. Would love to hear from anyone who's gone to them about lume pip alignment.

I see what you mean now. I was immediately worried I’d missed that on my 58 but, to my relief, it’s fine on mine. Now I see the font spacing though.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Scholar

Now that I've noticed, I can't unsee the slight misalignment in the lume pip in not only the BB54 in this thread, but also ones I've seen posted on Reddit, and of course the pre-release models at W&W.

I hope this gets sorted. Would that insert be replaced by RSC under warranty if I ended up receiving one like this?

Maybe it's because I work in publishing and used to fix this kind of thing for a living, but what bugs me about both the 54 and the 58 is the spacing of the depth rating. The original BB got it right with 200m:660ft but the 54 and 58 both have 200m :660 ft. Those two unnecessary spaces, apparently caused by the designer lazily using the justified text format, kind of kill it for me. (I realise this will not bother most people).

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Maybe it's because I work in publishing and used to fix this kind of thing for a living, but what bugs me about both the 54 and the 58 is the spacing of the depth rating. The original BB got it right with 200m:660ft but the 54 and 58 both have 200m :660 ft. Those two unnecessary spaces, apparently caused by the designer lazily using the justified text format, kind of kill it for me. (I realise this will not bother most people).

That bothers me as well, but even the font used for the dial text post in-house has bothered me, so I try to not look at it.

Easily the laziest aspect of these watches. (Or intentional mild design sabotage of the cheaper models on Rolex's part.)

[bohren]

Originally Posted by Scholar

Now that I've noticed, I can't unsee the slight misalignment in the lume pip in not only the BB54 in this thread, but also ones I've seen posted on Reddit, and of course the pre-release models at W&W.

I hope this gets sorted. Would that insert be replaced by RSC under warranty if I ended up receiving one like this?

Originally Posted by Scholar

No, it's the lume pip's position on the triangle.

A forum search reveals that this isn't limited to the 54. Rather it's a common problem on both Rolex Submariners and Tudor Black Bays, so I expect/hope RSC would take care of it.

LOL! Did the idea ever cross your mind, that this is how it's meant to be? I mean these parts are precision machined and done.

You can find that
- the aligment of the pip is centered in the insert with the BB54, see official pictures for the BB54 on Tudor's website
- while the official pictures for the BB58 show the pip centered in the triangle.

My BB54 and my BB58 have their pip exactly each way shown by Tudor. There's consistency here.
Btw, the triangle is not equilateral.

It's not „a common problem on both Rolex Submariners and Tudor Black Bays“, the only thing that is common, is that they did it different on different models as you can see for example in the pictures of Tudor's vintage divers and they also used different shapes for the triangles.

I'm attaching a picture I had already posted in #170, showing that the pip is centered in the insert. You may prefer its position off-center on the insert and centered in the triangle, but that's a design choice and not a misalignment either way.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Scholar

Now that I've noticed, I can't unsee the slight misalignment in the lume pip in not only the BB54 in this thread, but also ones I've seen posted on Reddit, and of course the pre-release models at W&W.

I hope this gets sorted. Would that insert be replaced by RSC under warranty if I ended up receiving one like this?

Originally Posted by bohren

LOL! Did the idea ever cross your mind, that this is how it's meant to be? I mean these parts are precision machined and done.

You can find that
- the aligment of the pip is centered in the insert with the BB54, see official pictures for the BB54 on Tudor's website
- while the official pictures for the BB58 show the pip centered in the triangle.

My BB54 and my BB58 have their pip exactly each way shown by Tudor. There's consistency here.
Btw, the triangle is not equilateral.

When we say "centered" are we talking about just side-to-side or top-to-bottom as well?

It's clearly not centered as in "at the center of the triangle" but as stated, seems to be a design choice (possibly simply a desire to use a single size pip for two different bezel sizes). No issue there.

Now, beyond that, I do see it might at times give the illusion of being off center side-to-side as well - which would be more off-putting. However, I think that's purely a function of how the light hits the surround, and the shadow cast on the triangle/beze insert.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by bohren

LOL! Did the idea ever cross your mind, that this is how it's meant to be? I mean these parts are precision machined and done.

You can find that
- the aligment of the pip is centered in the insert with the BB54, see official pictures for the BB54 on Tudor's website
- while the official pictures for the BB58 show the pip centered in the triangle.

My BB54 and my BB58 have their pip exactly each way shown by Tudor. There's consistency here.
Btw, the triangle is not equilateral.

It's not „a common problem on both Rolex Submariners and Tudor Black Bays“, the only thing that is common, is that they did it different on different models as you can see for example in the pictures of Tudor's vintage divers and they also used different shapes for the triangles.

I'm attaching a picture I had already posted in #170, showing that the pip is centered in the insert. You may prefer its position off-center on the insert and centered in the triangle, but that's a design choice and not a misalignment either way.

I'm not sure why you're offended. I was not attacking you, Tudor, or your watch. I'm quite grateful for your photos because they helped convince me that the watch is right for me (local ADs haven't received it yet so I haven't been able to try it on in person).

People have gotten off-centre pips before:





I wasn't attacking any of them. Rather, I am asking if RSC will replace an insert under warranty if it is this way.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Scholar

I'm not sure why you're offended. I was not attacking you, Tudor, or your watch. I'm quite grateful for your photos because they helped convince me that the watch is right for me (local ADs haven't received it yet so I haven't been able to try it on in person).

People have gotten off-centre pips before:





I wasn't attacking any of them. Rather, I am asking if RSC will replace an insert under warranty if it is this way.

These all look like light-related illusions to me. How brightly the light reflects off of the surround on one side, and the shadow cast on the other, can easily make it look off center. Especially true with a light triangle where the reflection/shadow really alter visual perception.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by dannyp

These all look like light-related illusions to me. How brightly the light reflects off of the surround on one side, and the shadow cast on the other, can easily make it look off center. Especially true with a light triangle where the reflection/shadow really alter visual perception.

Unfortunately, they're not an angle issue. (I chose one pic from each case but there were multiple angles at play that all showed the same.)

Originally Posted by 1259

Those are really bad. Any chance those are counterfeits?

They are not. These things happen (the famous Seiko misalignments, for instance, though I'm more willing to excuse that on a $200 beater than something 20 times that amount. I wouldn't excuse it on a Grand Seiko or high-end Marinemaster for instance.) But given the difficulty of getting these watches, I wouldn't turn one down from the AD so long as I knew RSC would replace the insert under warranty.

Originally Posted by bohren

When I say centered I mean a centered alignment towards all sides - either in the insert (top-to-bottom most of all) in case of the BB54 or in the triangle in the case of the BB58.



Hi,

I wasn't offended!

As centered as the pip of my BB54 is positioned, I could not imagine, that you could conclude from my pictures that it would be decentered / misaligned. So I assumed that you were talking about the vertical position of the pip. I think from my post before it is very clear, that I was always referring to that position.

From the pictures you have attached I know now, that you meant a horizontal misalignment.

Ah, yes I meant horizontal.

[1259]

Originally Posted by Scholar

I'm not sure why you're offended. I was not attacking you, Tudor, or your watch. I'm quite grateful for your photos because they helped convince me that the watch is right for me (local ADs haven't received it yet so I haven't been able to try it on in person).

People have gotten off-centre pips before:





I wasn't attacking any of them. Rather, I am asking if RSC will replace an insert under warranty if it is this way.

Those are really bad. Any chance those are counterfeits?

[bohren]

Originally Posted by dannyp

When we say "centered" are we talking about just side-to-side or top-to-bottom as well?

It's clearly not centered as in "at the center of the triangle" but as stated, seems to be a design choice (possibly simply a desire to use a single size pip for two different bezel sizes). No issue there.

Now, beyond that, I do see it might at times give the illusion of being off center side-to-side as well - which would be more off-putting. However, I think that's purely a function of how the light hits the surround, and the shadow cast on the triangle/beze insert.

When I say centered I mean a centered alignment towards all sides - either in the insert (top-to-bottom most of all) in case of the BB54 or in the triangle in the case of the BB58.

Originally Posted by Scholar

I'm not sure why you're offended. I was not attacking you, Tudor, or your watch. I'm quite grateful for your photos because they helped convince me that the watch is right for me (local ADs haven't received it yet so I haven't been able to try it on in person).

People have gotten off-centre pips before:





I wasn't attacking any of them. Rather, I am asking if RSC will replace an insert under warranty if it is this way.

Hi,

I wasn't offended!

As centered as the pip of my BB54 is positioned, I could not imagine, that you could conclude from my pictures that it would be decentered / misaligned. So I assumed that you were talking about the vertical position of the pip. I think from my post before it is very clear, that I was always referring to that position.

From the pictures you have attached I know now, that you meant a horizontal misalignment.

[JJGreen]

I'll comment for those of you considering the watch.

I prefer smaller watches and I love it. But it wears larger than the 37mm stated size. It has wrist presence. I'm wearing a Rolex GMT 1675 today and the Tudor 54 wears similar, and the Rolex is a 40mm. Maybe I'll conclude that it wears like a 39mm.

The bracelet is extremely comfortable and I'm a tough bracelet critic. I like vintage Rolex, then Rolex, then nothing else. That's an extreme, but it's almost true.

Once you factor the reasonable price, I think it's a great watch.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by JJGreen

I'll comment for those of you considering the watch.

I prefer smaller watches and I love it. But it wears larger than the 37mm stated size. It has wrist presence. I'm wearing a Rolex GMT 1675 today and the Tudor 54 wears similar, and the Rolex is a 40mm. Maybe I'll conclude that it wears like a 39mm.

The bracelet is extremely comfortable and I'm a tough bracelet critic. I like vintage Rolex, then Rolex, then nothing else. That's an extreme, but it's almost true.

Once you factor the reasonable price, I think it's a great watch.

Am I reading correctly that you prefer vintage Rolex bracelets to their modern versions?

I do as well, and it often catches heat from people…

(I acknowledge that they're lighter and less overbuilt, but I think they lose no functionality for being so. If anything, the old Rolex bracelets have survived much more than their modern versions, given the way watches are no longer an adventure essential in the same way today.)

[JJGreen]

Originally Posted by Scholar

Am I reading correctly that you prefer vintage Rolex bracelets to their modern versions?

I do as well, and it often catches heat from people…

(I acknowledge that they're lighter and less overbuilt, but I think they lose no functionality for being so. If anything, the old Rolex bracelets have survived much more than their modern versions, given the way watches are no longer an adventure essential in the same way today.)

100% I would take a vintage bracelet. I often wear an oyster bracelet from 1971 on my Explorer, Tudor Sub, and GMT 1675. The modern bracelets are great too, but I prefer vintage.

[bohren]

Originally Posted by JJGreen

I'll comment for those of you considering the watch.

I prefer smaller watches and I love it. But it wears larger than the 37mm stated size. It has wrist presence. I'm wearing a Rolex GMT 1675 today and the Tudor 54 wears similar, and the Rolex is a 40mm. Maybe I'll conclude that it wears like a 39mm.

The bracelet is extremely comfortable and I'm a tough bracelet critic. I like vintage Rolex, then Rolex, then nothing else. That's an extreme, but it's almost true.

Once you factor the reasonable price, I think it's a great watch.

Great summary to which I agree on all points! I'm wearing a 14060m and have shown wristshots with it and the BB54 in #146. They show that it doesn't wear much smaller than my old Sub or the 1675 in your case.

Attached is a new picture from today:

[Flaudia402]

VERY interesting

[darrenho]

A picture is more than a thousand words. Great wrist shots, "bohren"

[zimen]

Here’s a comparison between a BB54 and a 5513. As you can see from this picture they look nearly the same.

On the wrist, the 5513 only wears slightly bigger, but all in all very similar.

It’s a fantastic watch and wearing it feels like wearing a real dead stock vintage piece, which has just a couple of small modern touches.

It’s truly magical in a way, and probably the closest we can get to the feeling of buying a Sub when it originally came out 70 years ago!




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[zimen]

And here’s a comparison on my wrist

[Stevec14]

Originally Posted by zimen

And here’s a comparison on my wrist

Looks great - but my biggest issue is the lugs. The bracelet looks too small. They should have made it 21mm like the p39 to get the taper right between case/ bracelet.

These pics show it clearly, and why it’s never quite looked right to me.

[White Collar Boy]

Great pics bohren and zimen. The 54 looks great. Still, there’s just something inimitable about the older Subs, as close as anything gets.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by White Collar Boy

Great pics bohren and zimen. The 54 looks great. Still, there’s just something inimitable about the older Subs, as close as anything gets.

I agree. There's a magic to the 5513 that the new models just don't have.

The enthusiasts among us will often acknowledge that Rolex has become a bit too luxurious for its heritage–but even modern Tudors have, though if they've avoided some of the most egregious examples like the high-gloss Cerachrom and chunky lugs.

I mean, just look at the dials. The only Tudor watches that don't have gold surrounds on the lume are the Pelagos, the Ranger, and the now-discontinued P-01 (I didn't like the watch, mostly because of the Sub bezel teasing, but I loved the dial.)

The text as well, even leaving aside the content itself, is a little bit too crisp to blend in with the dial, so it looks cheap. (Although this one is a case of nerfing Tudor, I think, because despite the high gloss they don't do this on Rolex text.)

That said, Tudors, especially this model, are still dramatically closer to real Rolex in my book than the watches sold under the Rolex stamp these days. I hope that changes because the Tudors certainly have some compromises, but it's the case for now.

[JimSnyder]

I am absolutely in love with the 54, nuff said, game over and yes, I have the 58

[bohren]

Originally Posted by Scholar

The text as well, even leaving aside the content itself, is a little bit too crisp to blend in with the dial, so it looks cheap.

The crispness is because it is embossed, like a relief. (More than on the BB58s dials.) I have noted this and shown a picture in #166

In the flesh it looks pretty noble.

Originally Posted by espanol

Also agree. For me, it's the teeth on the bezel of Rolex subs that I really enjoy. It offers visual texture that seems to lack on the entire Tudor BB line. Strange detail, I know, but to my eyes it makes a difference.

The case of the BB54 is that of the original Tudor 7922 and the Rolex 6204 also features this case in that size with that bezel design (teeth). That's all like an original Sub with the BB54 and those Subs also had a riveted bracelet and the 6204 even gilt hands and gilt framed indices, see #198

I also love and prefer the teeth on my 14060m, I just want to say, there are more vintage Subs than only 'the Sub' and the bezel design on this case is not a Tudor thing or BB-thing.

Originally Posted by dannyp

I hear it's 20mm lug width.

Yes, 20 mm.

Originally Posted by dannyp

Otherwise, would a Ranger bracelet fit?

No, see #140

As the end-links are female, you can adapt for example the 93150 Oyster (from the 14060m) or any other bracelet that fits the 9 mm opening for the middle-section of the link meeting the end-link.

Look at this:

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by espanol

Also agree. For me, it's the teeth on the bezel of Rolex subs that I really enjoy. It offers visual texture that seems to lack on the entire Tudor BB line. Strange detail, I know, but to my eyes it makes a difference.

This has been one of the most glaring issues for me with the Black Bay line. Until this year, nearly every Black Bay diver has had a coin-edge bezel.

It was fine on the original 2012 Black Bay, because that watch was a tribute to various elements of Tudor history, combining dial, hand, and bezel types. Also fine on the Pelagos, which was a new sort of watch in many ways.

But fundamentally, the Snowflake hand was never produced without the 5513-style bezel teeth. This is the most glaring issue with the Black Bay series, more so than the round marker complaint (there were round marker Snowflake subs). It is absolutely bizarre that the only Black Bay that had the correct bezel edge was the P-01.

The 54 is also a compromise to an extent, but it fixes so many of the issues that I am trying to get one as soon as possible. (The bezel teeth, the font, the markers, etc are all accurate to the 7922.) The Snowflake hand remains glaring and anachronistic–even if Rolex is stupidly restricted the Mercedes hand, they should have allowed the pencil hand.

All of that said, they are starting to resolve this, just a little bit.

The Pelagos FXD, 39, and the relaunched 2023 Black Bay give slightly more grippy bezel teeth. It is still not the full Submariner bezel edge it should be, because Rolex likes to kneecap Tudor (even though no one outside of an enthusiast would recognize the 5513 edge), but it brings it so much closer. The new bezel makes the Black Bay much more cohesive to me and I’m looking forward to getting ahold of one.

And then, as mentioned, the 54 is the first of the Black Bays–allegedly based on 1950s Tudor Submariners–to have the correct bezel edge for that era.

Originally Posted by bohren

The crispness is because it is embossed, like a relief. (More than on the BB58s dials.) I have noted this and shown a picture in #166

In the flesh it looks pretty noble.

To clarify, this wasn’t about the BB54 itself. I think it’s much nicer in this regard because the embossing adds texture (although the off-the-shelf font still looks underwhelming). It is quite glaring on other Tudors though, where it looks like a generic print.

[bohren]

Originally Posted by Scholar

To clarify, this wasn’t about the BB54 itself. I think it’s much nicer in this regard because the embossing adds texture (although the off-the-shelf font still looks underwhelming). It is quite glaring on other Tudors though, where it looks like a generic print.

Ah! I wondered a bit, how it could appear looking cheap. It's really nice.

I didn't compare the dial of BB54 to the black BB58 in the boutique, neither the day I ordered it nor when I picked it up later, but I always thought when looking at it, that it was somehow different than what I was used to see in a black BB.
Then one morning I did it and found that the print was more embossed and that the hue of the gilt details was different, which I had described as „more like a rosegold-gilt on the BB58, the color on the BB54 has a darker tone and the hue of the text makes me think of brown sugar.“

Originally Posted by Scholar

This has been one of the most glaring issues for me with the Black Bay line. Until this year, nearly every Black Bay diver has had a coin-edge bezel.

It was fine on the original 2012 Black Bay, because that watch was a tribute to various elements of Tudor history, combining dial, hand, and bezel types. Also fine on the Pelagos, which was a new sort of watch in many ways.

But fundamentally, the Snowflake hand was never produced without the 5513-style bezel teeth. This is the most glaring issue with the Black Bay series, more so than the round marker complaint (there were round marker Snowflake subs). It is absolutely bizarre that the only Black Bay that had the correct bezel edge was the P-01.

The 54 is also a compromise to an extent, but it fixes so many of the issues that I am trying to get one as soon as possible. (The bezel teeth, the font, the markers, etc are all accurate to the 7922.) The Snowflake hand remains glaring and anachronistic–even if Rolex is stupidly restricted the Mercedes hand, they should have allowed the pencil hand.

All of that said, they are starting to resolve this, just a little bit.

The Pelagos FXD, 39, and the relaunched 2023 Black Bay give slightly more grippy bezel teeth. It is still not the full Submariner bezel edge it should be, because Rolex likes to kneecap Tudor (even though no one outside of an enthusiast would recognize the 5513 edge), but it brings it so much closer. The new bezel makes the Black Bay much more cohesive to me and I’m looking forward to getting ahold of one.

And then, as mentioned, the 54 is the first of the Black Bays–allegedly based on 1950s Tudor Submariners–to have the correct bezel edge for that era.

And the Rolex 6204! I just say this to roil the Never-Tudors, but they will always fight back with faux-rivets of course. :ø)

Yeah, I agree. For me the BB54 is the best BB so far when you're looking for the closest approach to a Sub in a contemporary Tudor.
I personally like the snowflake hands, I think they are funny and the legibility is something else and I have my 14060m, so I'm easy. But would you offer me the choice of hands with the BB54, I'm not sure I would be holding the wolf by the ears .

Another picture: