this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Watches

0 readers
1 users here now

A community for watch & horology discussion.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

I bought my first black bay 58 in 2018. Had buyers remorse and sold it. Ever since I've regretted that decision and knew that it would be mine one day again.

Recently I purchased one, which had a seconds hand that was too long. I suspected it might be a fake, but it wasn't upon checking the movement. It also had the proper texture dial and "lock" at 12.

However, I was not satisfied and exchanged it for a new one with the proper length hand. Never seen such a defect on it before. I think they might have put a 41 mm seconds hand on it. Very strange indeed!

Anyway, it's back in the collection and I still just adore it. The only issue I have, is that I don't want to wear my other watches It has only lost 2 seconds in over 1 week, which is quite spectacular and well within specs.

I know you've all seen this watch a million times, but I tried to find an angle you don't see as often perhaps. Thanks for reading watch fam.

PS. I have a post showing the watch with the long hand, if you are curious.

Have a great day!

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LordPoppinCherries@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It’s a poor man’s sub but still superior in prestige than the omega seamaster

[–] ConfusedKungfuMaster@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I dno about that. I actually prefer this to the sub and find it much more charming.

[–] estacalor@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago
[–] bjackson171@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Sure the Sub costs more but the BB is a different kind of diver. Vintage tool vs modern flash. Probably different buyers. But I’d argue the Seamaster is more prestigious and luxurious than the BB.

[–] CA53W-1@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Too thick and doesn't have a date complication.

[–] ConfusedKungfuMaster@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Thick?? It's very slim for a diver. The 41 is thick tho. I prefer no date don't need it and cba setting the date lol

[–] ConfusedKungfuMaster@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

It's 11,9mm thick. That's not a lot!

[–] vawhitewater@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nice! My wife just gave me the same watch for our anniversary. It's such a great looking watch. From a purely aesthetic standpoint it's my favorite.

[–] ConfusedKungfuMaster@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Woah what a generous gift from your wife! Gz on the anniversary 😊 Mine too, it is just perfect for me. Love the vintage vibe. Next up is probably a chevron strap from crown and buckle. The OEM is rly nice, but it's like 250 euro lol

[–] vawhitewater@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Thanks, it was our 9th anniversary and she's the best.

I agree with you, the vintage look it was drew me in but I'm keeping mine on steel. Most of my collection is field watches with NATO or leather straps so I need a little variety. I may get tempted to throw it on the Hudson from Threaded Leather just to see how it looks. I have the Supreme NATO from Crown & Buckle and it's a great strap; I don't think you'll be disappointed with the chevron.

[–] RodrigoSanschaise2@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Unpopular Opinion: The BB looks better than the Submariner. Red bezel on Jubilee and the Harrodβ€˜s are just sublime!

[–] ConfusedKungfuMaster@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

I totally agree. I wouldn't even want the sub tbh. But the opaline gmt in 39 would be pretty nice

[–] MrReality13@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

I also like the look of the large crown without the guards.

[–] Pacalyps4@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Dogshit opinion. Thick and chunky, ugly ass hands. Why do you even need to constantly compare it to Rolex anyway? Every goddamn Tudor post is this self delusion like you're trying to convince yourself

[–] RodrigoSanschaise2@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Chillax my guy. The new BB is less chunky but fair enough. And why Rolex? Because itβ€˜s THE standard for divers. Simple as that. Also letβ€˜s be real, some people see Tudor as the poor manβ€˜s Rolex which doesnβ€˜t do Tudor justice. But regarding your last sentence, you are unfortunately not wrong.

[–] Cooperstown24@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Imagine getting this bent out of shape about a comp between Rolex and Tudor, as if that's a weird thing to happen. Are you a Rolex owner that wants all Tudor owners to know that they're not as good as you, or are you so insecure you feel the need to pipe up with your own dogshit opinion when you don't even have a horse in the race? Either way you don't need to go out of your way to be a douchebag

[–] einsteinisbae@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

it really has become what the sub once was

[–] FISHBOT4000@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

We could maybe have this discussion if they had kept the old rose logo (which was one of the all time greats) but the shield just looks like this face :D

[–] jrhooper@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

This is indeed a very unique angle. Thanks for the photo

[–] sfeicht@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Best looking watch of the past 25 years imo.