WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am absolutely enamored with the Tudor BB Red. I see the in-house caseback protrudes out a bit compared to the ETA version. The watch case is already a bit thick, but I wanted to know if the caseback pushes it out substantially once on a wrist? I would wear it with short sleeves so won't have to worry about it fitting under a cuff, but also don't want something so big and bulky that it looks like I'm wearing a mid-2000s Breitling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,094 Posts
I would say yes, it does. I had an in house BB a couple of years ago. The watch felt like it sat on top of the case back on the wrist, with a little gap between the sides of the watch and the wrist. It wears larger than the ETA as a result imho.

Personally, it didn’t work for me as it was too thick and the case back dug in and hurt my wrist a bit. The flat case back on the ETA works better.

All that said, if you have big wrists, it probably won’t be noticeable. My wrist is somewhere a little under 7 inches, and I don’t think it could handle the extra thickness!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,156 Posts
I am absolutely enamored with the Tudor BB Red. I see the in-house caseback protrudes out a bit compared to the ETA version. The watch case is already a bit thick, but I wanted to know if the caseback pushes it out substantially once on a wrist? I would wear it with short sleeves so won't have to worry about it fitting under a cuff, but also don't want something so big and bulky that it looks like I'm wearing a mid-2000s Breitling.
Even compared to a mid-00s Breitling it'll feel big and chunky. The main difference being that the Breitling has about ten times the water resistance, justifying its heft (academically for most). The Tudor's bezel is also as wide as the case, and the insert goes right to the edge. The design is such that it looks every bit as big as it is, and the slab sides contribute to this. However, the GMT version has scalloped case sides to reduce some of the visual bulk.

The deeper caseback to clear the movement adds just over 2mm. It's now 14.8mm. (the movement is 6.5mm of that btw)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
Even compared to a mid-00s Breitling it'll feel big and chunky. The main difference being that the Breitling has about ten times the water resistance, justifying its heft (academically for most). The Tudor's bezel is also as wide as the case, and the insert goes right to the edge. The design is such that it looks every bit as big as it is, and the slab sides contribute to this. However, the GMT version has scalloped case sides to reduce some of the visual bulk.

The deeper caseback to clear the movement adds just over 2mm. It's now 14.8mm. (the movement is 6.5mm of that btw)
Do know if it's possible to swap casebacks with an ETA caseback?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
I'll be the guy that says the opposite of everyone else.

I don't find the case back to protrude any more than any other watch I wear. Maybe I have a bit of extra flab on top of my wrist that makes it sink in or something, but my wrist is only 6.75in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,181 Posts
Do know if it's possible to swap casebacks with an ETA caseback?
No, it is not possible.

Now, every thread needs pictures! So to answer your question about how much thicker it is, I'd say that all the extra thickness comes from the caseback. The mid case is exactly the same. I have here a picture of the old ETA movement and the newer MT movement side by side picture. ETA wrist shot borrowed from my friend @Galaga. See for yourself that it is not obvious other than you might notice the watch sitting a little higher.

Compare Tudor ETA and MT sides.jpg

Does it bother me? Yes, somewhat but I suspect that the old ETA movement would too. The issue is not the thickness but the straight slab sides that give it the impression of the height.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,102 Posts
No, it is not possible.

Now, every thread needs pictures! So to answer your question about how much thicker it is, I'd say that all the extra thickness comes from the caseback. The mid case is exactly the same. I have here a picture of the old ETA movement and the newer MT movement side by side picture. ETA wrist shot borrowed from my friend @Galaga. See for yourself that it is not obvious other than you might notice the watch sitting a little higher.

View attachment 15122905

Does it bother me? Yes, somewhat but I suspect that the old ETA movement would too. The issue is not the thickness but the straight slab sides that give it the impression of the height.
It’s an illusion, nothing more. The ETA version is 12.7mm thick. And because it has a flatter caseback it will sit on the wrist more like a Rolex and be less top heavy but still not as well as a 58.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,583 Posts
No, it is not possible.

Now, every thread needs pictures! So to answer your question about how much thicker it is, I'd say that all the extra thickness comes from the caseback. The mid case is exactly the same. I have here a picture of the old ETA movement and the newer MT movement side by side picture. ETA wrist shot borrowed from my friend @Galaga. See for yourself that it is not obvious other than you might notice the watch sitting a little higher.

View attachment 15122905

Does it bother me? Yes, somewhat but I suspect that the old ETA movement would too. The issue is not the thickness but the straight slab sides that give it the impression of the height.
I think it also depends on the wrists. The comparison picture is a little misleading, as the one on the right is a smaller wrist, whereas the one on the left is large and extremely well defined. Any watch would look good on that forearm. Could be one of the best forearms I’ve ever seen, to be honest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,102 Posts
I think it also depends on the wrists. The comparison picture is a little misleading, as the one on the right is a smaller wrist, whereas the one on the left is large and extremely well defined. Any watch would look good on that forearm. Could be one of the best forearms I’ve ever seen, to be honest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those wrists became even more defined when I acquired my Rolex. The action supports the brand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I think it also depends on the wrists. The comparison picture is a little misleading, as the one on the right is a smaller wrist, whereas the one on the left is large and extremely well defined. Any watch would look good on that forearm. Could be one of the best forearms I’ve ever seen, to be honest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well now I don't know what to believe. To Dogbert's credit, I have found a few pics with the same gap from the in house movement, but no wrist size is mentioned. My wrist is about 7.5 inches, but certainly not defined. My worry is no longer the thickness, but rather the gap the caseback causes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,156 Posts
It’s an illusion, nothing more. The ETA version is 12.7mm thick. And because it has a flatter caseback it will sit on the wrist more like a Rolex and be less top heavy but still not as well as a 58.
No substitute for just trying it out. The caseback is thicker (actually not thicker, just more of a bowl shape to clear the rotor) and that's that, causing the watch to rise up on wrists that don't have shall we say a little extra padding. Pllus the deep sides and fairly long pugs means I will never have the MT version. However I've never seen an Oyster with a flat caseback that doesn't protrude from the case (?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,181 Posts
I think it also depends on the wrists. The comparison picture is a little misleading, as the one on the right is a smaller wrist, whereas the one on the left is large and extremely well defined. Any watch would look good on that forearm. Could be one of the best forearms I’ve ever seen, to be honest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Welcome back to the forums Jimmy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,181 Posts
Well now I don't know what to believe. To Dogbert's credit, I have found a few pics with the same gap from the in house movement, but no wrist size is mentioned. My wrist is about 7.5 inches, but certainly not defined. My worry is no longer the thickness, but rather the gap the caseback causes
My wrist is 7.5” too. And so is @Galaga’s if I recall correctly. His is flatter but mine is squarish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
I am absolutely enamored with the Tudor BB Red. I see the in-house caseback protrudes out a bit compared to the ETA version. The watch case is already a bit thick, but I wanted to know if the caseback pushes it out substantially once on a wrist? I would wear it with short sleeves so won't have to worry about it fitting under a cuff, but also don't want something so big and bulky that it looks like I'm wearing a mid-2000s Breitling.
As people have pointed out, you should try one on, if at all possible. I own the Tudor Heritage BB Steel, which has the in-house movement. I absolutely love the watch, but I almost considered selling it. For me, the height of the case wasn't the main problem (although I do have a couple shirts where it is a tight fit under the cuffs). Visually, tt wears flatter than the height would suggest. The bigger problem for me was the weight. I can't remember how much it weighs, but you feel this watch on your wrist, particularly with the bracelet. The bracelet that comes with it is great; attractive, well made, and comfortable. One of the best out there. But it adds considerable weight to an already heavy watch. I'm not really a strap guy, but I decided to get a leather strap for it. And I'm glad I did, because it transformed the watch. Not only do I love how it looks on a strap, but without the added weight of the bracelet it became a genuinely comfortable watch to wear (for me). Something to consider if you decide to purchase one.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top