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

[Swiftneck]

Originally Posted by jjjones

if only it was offered on these new jubilee style bracelets. Cant stand the fake rivets.

This..

Sendt fra min SM-F711B med Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by jjjones

if only it was offered on these new jubilee style bracelets. Cant stand the fake rivets.

I hear it's 20mm lug width; what's the width on the 39mm BB w/the new Jubilee-style? The 36 is 19mm, I believe, so that's out, but not sure if the 39 is 20 or 21.

Otherwise, would a Ranger bracelet fit?

None would be cheap, and no idea if case curvature is same, but there might be options. Otherwise I'd personally consider the Ranger hybrid strap.

[espanol]

Originally Posted by White Collar Boy

Still, there’s just something inimitable about the older Subs, as close as anything gets.

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.

[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:

[dannyp]

So the Ranger end links themselves won’t just fit between the lugs of the 54? Case curvature wrong?

In that case, I’d go with the Ranger strap and no end links.

[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 dannyp

So the Ranger end links themselves won’t just fit between the lugs of the 54? Case curvature wrong?

In that case, I’d go with the Ranger strap and no end links.

Have you seen my comparison of the side profiles in #189? Or simply think of the case height:
The end-link is too tall. Even if I push it upwards until it meets the bottom of the bezel - which of course it shouldn't - it still protrudes from the underside of the lugs.

As I said in my post before, you can adapt a 93150 bracelet (or any other compatible as explained there) to the female end-links and if you do, you can also use the T-Fit of the BB54 with that bracelet. I can with my 93150.
The only thing worth noting is, that there could be a difference in the hue or brushing of the steel mixed, but that should be a minor thing.

Btw, the picture attached before features a 93150-style Oyster. I mounted it just for fun and won't wear it. I love the plain Oyster style and even got the Ranger bracelet for my blue BB58, but in the case of the BB54 the default bracelet just feels right and historically original.

[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:

[espanol]

Originally Posted by bohren

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.

Makes sense. Unlike most here, I don't care to be a Rolex/Tudor historian, nor do I care if they attempt to pay homage to their older watches (like you cited, 7922 and 6204). I'm making a statement about the entire BB line; visually, the coin-edge bezel just doesn't look nearly as good as the bezel on Rolex subs of the last 30, 40 years. To me, it really takes away from the overall look.

[bohren]

Originally Posted by espanol

Makes sense. Unlike most here, I don't care to be a Rolex/Tudor historian, nor do I care if they attempt to pay homage to their older watches (like you cited, 7922 and 6204). I'm making a statement about the entire BB line; visually, the coin-edge bezel just doesn't look nearly as good as the bezel on Rolex subs of the last 30, 40 years. To me, it really takes away from the overall look.

I'm with you here and I like that Tudor has made the bezel on the BB54 more bold, which is not about the better grip but about the aesthetic for me. I prefer it to the thinner teeth of my BB58.

Here's the BB54 on a plain, no-rivets Oyster again:

[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.

[Rebel]

I like the 37mm. Everyone doesn't have large wrists to support 40mm+ sizes.

[bohren]

A picture from the archives, me as a young man wearing a Tudor diver. The shot must have been taken in '54. :ø)

[White Collar Boy]

That’s more buttons undone than I can count. Makes me realise watch photography (compared to most other advertising) has a distinct absence of ‘sexiness’. I guess it’s often (but not always) for other men, and assumes a heterosexual disinterest in chest hair.

[bohren]

Originally Posted by White Collar Boy

That’s more buttons undone than I can count. Makes me realise watch photography (compared to most other advertising) has a distinct absence of ‘sexiness’. I guess it’s often (but not always) for other men, and assumes a heterosexual disinterest in chest hair.

Haha, thank you!

Here's another picture of that old Tudor watch. I'm still wearing it in this day and age. :ø)

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by bohren

Have you seen my comparison of the side profiles in #189? Or simply think of the case height:
The end-link is too tall. Even if I push it upwards until it meets the bottom of the bezel - which of course it shouldn't - it still protrudes from the underside of the lugs.

As I said in my post before, you can adapt a 93150 bracelet (or any other compatible as explained there) to the female end-links and if you do, you can also use the T-Fit of the BB54 with that bracelet. I can with my 93150.
The only thing worth noting is, that there could be a difference in the hue or brushing of the steel mixed, but that should be a minor thing.

Btw, the picture attached before features a 93150-style Oyster. I mounted it just for fun and won't wear it. I love the plain Oyster style and even got the Ranger bracelet for my blue BB58, but in the case of the BB54 the default bracelet just feels right and historically original.

Hadn't thought about that, and didn't realize that was a Ranger bracelet on it (though I should have, seeing as it has no rivets). But I see exactly what you mean .

For what it's worth, I actually like the riveted look, what I'm less a fan of is the "laddered" look of the links when viewed head on (since rivet bracelet links themselves didn't taper).

I did get to try this model on at an AD last week and will say that overall I was mighty impressed with it. Were I to add a dive-style watch, it would be this.

[bohren]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Hadn't thought about that, and didn't realize that was a Ranger bracelet on it (though I should have, seeing as it has no rivets). But I see exactly what you mean .

Just to have no one cofused: It's not the Ranger bracelet, it's a 93150 style bracelet.
The Ranger bracelet's middle section is 10 mm, the female end-links of the BB54 want 9 mm widths (as mentioned in #140)

Originally Posted by dannyp

For what it's worth, I actually like the riveted look, what I'm less a fan of is the "laddered" look of the links when viewed head on (since rivet bracelet links themselves didn't taper).

They did taper. I don't know, if they all did, but the bracelet of the Tudor 7922, the historic original of the BB54 did. See e.g. the picture at https://rolexpassionmarket.com/watch...bmariner-7922/

I get the preference, but I feel it's more a thing in pictures than on the wrist. The trick is: If you have the bracelet hanging vertical, it's is more pronounced than when it follows the shape of the wrist.
I have attached 3 pictures as examples from the step-tapering descending from 'most prominent' to almost 'I only saw it because I knew about it.'

Originally Posted by dannyp

I did get to try this model on at an AD last week and will say that overall I was mighty impressed with it. Were I to add a dive-style watch, it would be this.

Yeah! It's really a nice one.

[1259]

Originally Posted by bohren

I'm with you here and I like that Tudor has made the bezel on the BB54 more bold, which is not about the better grip but about the aesthetic for me. I prefer it to the thinner teeth of my BB58.

Here's the BB54 on a plain, no-rivets Oyster again:

Which oyster bracelet is that and how did you source it?

[bohren]

Originally Posted by 1259

Which oyster bracelet is that and how did you source it?

I bought it many, many years on ebay. I think I bought it from the seller that currently offers the Oyster style bracelet declared to match the 14060 with the item number 144416237209
(It doesn't have the can-opener style clasp of the 93150, but the very flat clasp like on vintage Oysters, but if you want to adapt it to the end-links and T-Fit of the BB54, it wouldn't matter anyway. My copy also looks like this.)

Essentially any Oyster offered as a match should fit. The middle-section of the link that meets the end-link of the BB54 must be 9 mm in width.
Looking closely at similar offerings I think that other sellers offer the same bracelet just asking for a higher price, btw.

(I hope it is okay to post the item number. I read the rules again, but couldn't find a restriction doing so.)

I want to add this: When I got my blue BB58 I mounted the 93150 bracelet from my 14060m and then I remembered that bracelet. Later on I bought the Ranger Oyster as I wanted the T-Fit and to have it all-original. When I mounted the Ranger Oyster I was flashed about the obvious difference in quality just by looking at it.
What I want to say is, that these 'affordable' Oysters are not what I would want as a permanent match, but others who adapted these are fine with them.

[PO.Victory]

I think the more sterile bezel of the BB54 makes the gilt dial pop better than the BB58. The BB54 is just really beautiful.

[z_charger]

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.

I disagree sort of. I own the P01 and part of the visual appeal for me is the teeth similarity found on vintage Rolex and Tudor models.

[bohren]

Originally Posted by PO.Victory

I think the more sterile bezel of the BB54 makes the gilt dial pop better than the BB58. The BB54 is just really beautiful.

Absolutely. On the one hand it makes the BB54 less 'pretty-pretty', a bit more restrained and sober than the BB58, which was always a bit too much for me in the sum of all it's gilt and on the other hand there's that amplified glow in the center. It's magic™.

New picture:

[Nav01L]

Tried it recently, it's pretty darn cool

[bp1000]

The more I wear this watch, the more I love it and I loved it from the first minute of trying it at the AD.

Size is just a number, it wears beautifully. Pretty much perfect.

[ap1]

This thing is growing on me and I blame u all

[bohren]

Originally Posted by ap1

This thing is growing on me and I blame u all

I have one more:

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by ap1

This thing is growing on me and I blame u all

Yeah, it's a great looking watch. Classy and understated.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by bohren

I'm with you here and I like that Tudor has made the bezel on the BB54 more bold, which is not about the better grip but about the aesthetic for me. I prefer it to the thinner teeth of my BB58.

Here's the BB54 on a plain, no-rivets Oyster again:

This makes me realize how important the rivets are in completing the look of the 54. The 54 really is Rolex/Tudor’s most accurate reissue ever. I’m almost surprised how good it is.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

This makes me realize how important the rivets are in completing the look of the 54. The 54 really is Rolex/Tudor’s most accurate reissue ever. I’m almost surprised how good it is.

Part of why I’m buying it even though I wish it had a pencil hand (and, pipe dream, SUBMARINER on the dial as a 7922 reissue has every right to) is precisely the fact that this is the furthest they’ve ever gone in reproing, and I am hoping the sales show them this is the right direction.

[bohren]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

This makes me realize how important the rivets are in completing the look of the 54. The 54 really is Rolex/Tudor’s most accurate reissue ever. I’m almost surprised how good it is.

Good point! I said earlier how much I'm a fan of the plain Oyster and with my 14060m as my main daily I'm so used to the look, but here I instantly missed the rivets. It's just so complete that way and feels so right with them.

Originally Posted by Scholar

Part of why I’m buying it even though I wish it had a pencil hand (and, pipe dream, SUBMARINER on the dial as a 7922 reissue has every right to) is precisely the fact that this is the furthest they’ve ever gone in reproing, and I am hoping the sales show them this is the right direction.

Yeah, that would have been stellar - on top of the beauty it already is.

Got a new picture: