Yes this has been confirmed - Adrian made quite a big point of it in the Bark & Jack review video specifically because his shop did not stock 21mm Natos for it...
The Hodinkee article also states 21mm in the case dimensions, hope this helps

 

Yes this has been confirmed - Adrian made quite a big point of it in the Bark & Jack review video specifically because his shop did not stock 21mm Natos for it...
The Hodinkee article also states 21mm in the case dimensions, hope this helps

Thanks. Hodink must have updated it, as they originally stated 20, hence part of my confusion.

ah, here it is: Edit note: the Pelagos 39’s lug width was previously stated to be 20mm. It is in fact 21mm and this has been updated in the article.

 

No worries 😁 I thought the same to be fair as I could have sworn the original article said 20mm but it definitely looked wider in all the photos I’d seen against the BB58, then when I watched the B&J video that confirmed it! I don’t know why the manufacturers and ADs so rarely mention the lug width/lug to lug/thickness dims on their websites? They’re crucial measurements that massively affect their wearability but for some reason you always have to hunt the info down it’s very frustrating

 

I do like the case to bracelet proportions of the Pelagos 39. Maybe the 39mm case needed the 21mm bracelet to keep the burly Pelagos 42 look.

 

I was a bit worried about this too - but actually in all the photos I have seen it looks very well proportioned. It will probably accentuate the bracelet taper as well which is a plus!
Still yet to see one in person though...

 

This lug width isn't confined to Rolex/Tudor. I wear one watch with 21mm spring bars, a Certina dive watch. Seiko, Grand Seiko, Orient, Casio, Citizen, Tag, Raymond Weil, Doxa, Tissot, Hamilton, Omega, various microbrands have also used them on certain watches. looks like they're only selling one flavor of this one on a strap, so most purchasers will have an OEM bracelet and lug ends.

concern over this mildly odd lug width is overwrought in my opinion. Crown and Buckle, Strapsco, Barton, Strapcode (and i'm sure there are others) offer a very good variety of options at 21mm - nylon/fabric, leather, and bracelets. Also, many 22mm rubber dive straps look and work fine with 21mm lugs, if you favor a tropic or isofrane (or look-alikes) that are aren't readily available in 21mm, at least that i have been able to find.

 

This lug width isn't confined to Rolex/Tudor. I wear one watch with 21mm spring bars, a Certina dive watch. Seiko, Grand Seiko, Orient, Casio, Citizen, Tag, Raymond Weil, Doxa, Tissot, Hamilton, Omega, various microbrands have also used them on certain watches. looks like they're only selling one flavor of this one on a strap, so most purchasers will have an OEM bracelet and lug ends.

concern over this mildly odd lug width is overwrought in my opinion. Crown and Buckle, Strapsco, Barton, Strapcode (and i'm sure there are others) offer a very good variety of options at 21mm - nylon/fabric, leather, and bracelets. Also, many 22mm rubber dive straps look and work fine with 21mm lugs, if you favor a tropic or isofrane (or look-alikes) that are aren't readily available in 21mm, at least that i have been able to find.

Yes, but there are plenty of people…myself included…that have dozens of 20mm and 22mm straps to rotate through. I’ve specifically not bought watches only because of the lug width (18mm and 21mm).

 

21? Not the best choice, IMHO.......

 

With brands outside of Rolex and Tudor, I note repeated anger - however unjustified and ill-informed - at the prospect of odd lug widths. With Rolex and Tudor, it's much more "well, they must have designed it this way for a reason, who are we to argue. Good opportunity to buy more straps for my amazing Rolex/Tudor!"

If either one of them started using .5mm intervals, it wouldn't be pointless and irritating. It would be a "game-changer".

 

With brands outside of Rolex and Tudor, I note repeated anger - however unjustified and ill-informed - at the prospect of odd lug widths. With Rolex and Tudor, it's much more "well, they must have designed it this way for a reason, who are we to argue. Good opportunity to buy more straps for my amazing Rolex/Tudor!"

If either one of them started using .5mm intervals, it wouldn't be pointless and irritating. It would be a "game-changer".

I’m wearing a Tudor with a 22mm lug width as I type this. Please regale me with tales of how if they designed something a particular way (i.e. the Pelagos bezel insert), it must have been for a reason.

 

Omega makes watches with 21mm lug space, don't know why this is a big deal. Plenty of 21mm spring bars available too. Many 'Fomega' straps on ebay with or without their logo as well that should work with this Pelagos.

 

A 42mm Pelagos with 22mm lugs, vs a 39mm Pelagos with 21mm lugs?

Seems to me the smaller diameter case with the larger proportioned lugs (21 vs 20) would give more visual heft to the bracelet while effectively slimming the lugs and moving away from that maxi-case look on the previous gen sub. The lugs/bracelet endlink is only 1mm narrower than a watch 3mm larger in diameter. Aesthetically, this seems like a win.

I get the complaining about the non-standard size, but Tudor includes both the bracelet and the rubber strap and the dive extension with all Pelagoses (Pelagi?). For me, that satisfies most use cases. I wouldn't put a leather strap on a diver (heresy!) and I wouldn't put it on a NATO as the extra fabric under the watch head defeats the point of the slim, 11.8mm case.

 

I've also never had a problem using a strap 1mm larger either. With that said, a 22mm strap is kinda wide. I'd make sure it tapered to at least 18mm.

 

Doesn't surprise me. 39 with 21 is dumb. 19 would be proportionally better but 20 would be ideal.

 

agree its very weird decision - best rule of thumb for proportion of lug to case is 50%, lug width half the case width to nearest mil or size down so a 40mm case/20mm lugs; 44mm case/22mm lugs - I think the P39 with bracelet hides the unusually wide proportions of lugs to case, but on straps a tad off

 

Why don’t strap makers start producing their wares in sizes to include 21mm? Problem solved.

 

They do, frequently.

I’m wearing a Tudor with a 22mm lug width as I type this. Please regale me with tales of how if they designed something a particular way (i.e. the Pelagos bezel insert), it must have been for a reason.

That is an unfortunate QA problem. But like the broken Tudor date wheel, it means nothing - only other brands suffer slings and arrows if they develop reputations for fallibility. Anyway this thread shows why 21mm is just perfect, a total game-changer. Other topics that have been discussed here include:

Rolex's light, flexible bracelet has been unchanged for 60 years, is a joy to wear and designed for comfort as well as longevity
Rolex's heavy, stiff bracelet and big clasp with fiddle mechanism is a total game-changer, no-one gets close

Rolex's resistance to AR coatings gives the crystals that famous "Rolex glare" and in any event you can just turn your wrist, so you don't even needit
Rolex's use of AR coating is a total game-changer and sets the standard now for luxury watches

Rolex's chamfers show how it's possible to maintain expression of delicate design in the context of toolwatch aesthetic
Rolex's delete of the chamfers shows how committed they are to the strong tool-watch aesthetic. It appears hewn from solid, a total game-changer

 

I have 2 watches with 21mm lug width.

One of them is a cheap Certina that is a ***** to get straps to, since I am only buying cheap straps for it.
The other one is a Jaeger Ultra Thin that is very easy to get straps to - since I can justify buying custom straps for it, and the custom makers all make 21mm.

I reckon the P39 would justify custom straps.

 

I'd wear the new Pelagos on the bracelet or OEM rubber strap most of the time, so not a huge issue.

 

Who in the world could have ever guessed that 21 mm would be a topic for discussion? 🤡

If Tudor would care for the typical wishes from watchnerds like "us", we would have never seen this watch. And just as one example, they would have never given us the BB58 with it's special gilt details and all, because the majority essentially wants a Tudor Submariner for a third or half the price of the Rolex classic.

I like how Tudor marches to it's own drums. The design of the Pelagos 39 totally works in terms of coherence in my eyes. The short case over the lugs with that wider and protruding bezel with it's bigger teeth in combination with the 21 mm and this on the darker tone of the titanium against the slight sheen, that enlarges the perceived size due to it's gentle brightness: These many, small details in sum give the watch a solid presence, it looks more massive than it's measurements suggest. It's not meant to be a gracile or fine beauty.

In my eyes they did a gorgeous job on this one. It's not the vintage chic of the BBs and not the sober pro-tool look of the classic Pelagos and I don't think of it as a thing in between, for me it's not 'neither fish nor flesh'. It's new thing and no matter if I like it (I do) or not, I applaude them for doing their own thing.

None of us would have made this design and the discussion about the Pelagos 39 reminds me of this quote from Steve Jobs:
“Some people say, "Give the customers what they want." But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do."

 

It's 21!

 

Yep. Brodinkee confirmed it.

 

Also not really a 39mm. Measured 40 by Bark and Jack with callipers.


Just another watch nerd.

 

Also not really a 39mm. Measured 40 by Bark and Jack with callipers.


Just another watch nerd.

Oh snap! Now it will be shouted down as "Too big" by all the 36mm Datejust and Explorer fans

 

Maybe like this?

 

How about some clasp dimensions and some lug to lug action…lol

 

For comparison sake, here is how the bb58 and 41 sub compare:

 

He had tape on his caliper I think.

 

Lol