WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 60 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,425 Posts
I quite like it. I love the fact that Tudor sells it with a Camo strap. That's cool. Never been a fan of the Bund leather, but the bracelet looks cool. I've always liked field watches, and I think this is an awesome alternative to the Explorer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
Yeah I like it. It meets my criteria of uncluttered, legible and simple with a few aesthetically pleasing touches including no date window - woohoo!

I will admit though that it looks similar to a few less expensive options but I will reserve final judgement until I can handle one.

I see the Hodinkee puny wristed comments brigade is up in arms again over the size, FFS IT"S NOT A DRESS WATCH - GIVE IT A REST!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,286 Posts
I rather like the look, though I'm with some others in that something closer to the original size would be better for my wrist . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brey17

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,427 Posts
I find the camo strap a bit cheesy and trendy. It would look better on any number of classic NATO straps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,883 Posts
To be honest I think it is a little on the large side, not that I have an issue with larger watches but it just visually "feels" wrong. I have the 39mm Explorer on my to buy list and figured if the Ranger did come out and it ticked all the boxes then I could get what I wanted for about half price. Two things killed the Ranger for me, the size, because I WANTED a sub 40mm field watch not that I have an issue with a 41mm watch I just wanted a smaller sports watch than I had. Second the bracelet end links (or lack there of). I want the watch to wear on various NATOs, the black simple dial works with any of them BUT I wanted a bracelet also and I am just not feeling this one. In the end Rolex won here with me, they are going to get me to spend twice as much money but in the end it does make really good sense, you give the consumer two pretty different takes on one watch style which isn't easy on a simple black field watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dre and drhr

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
Now that I've calmed down, I will actually admit that the dial is probably on the large size and could have been 1 to 2mm smaller to make it look more in proportion. I just get so worked up with the standard "too big" responses on Hodinkee no matter what is shown :-|

Of course WUS is a bit more measured and people articulate much better :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,286 Posts
To be honest I think it is a little on the large side, not that I have an issue with larger watches but it just visually "feels" wrong. I have the 39mm Explorer on my to buy list and figured if the Ranger did come out and it ticked all the boxes then I could get what I wanted for about half price. Two things killed the Ranger for me, the size, because I WANTED a sub 40mm field watch not that I have an issue with a 41mm watch I just wanted a smaller sports watch than I had. Second the bracelet end links (or lack there of). I want the watch to wear on various NATOs, the black simple dial works with any of them BUT I wanted a bracelet also and I am just not feeling this one. In the end Rolex won here with me, they are going to get me to spend twice as much money but in the end it does make really good sense, you give the consumer two pretty different takes on one watch style which isn't easy on a simple black field watch.
'Tis true it is very individual. I liked the 39 explorer just fine, but preferred the 36 because on my wrist the smaller model just "wore better" in every subjective sense of the phrase . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
838 Posts
Want. Been looking for a field-style watch that isn't an Explorer.

Baselworld this year will be the end of me. Along with the new SM300 and the blue Black Bay (among others)...it seems like my wants are being directly aimed at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jcp311

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
I like it. Explorer's have long been my favourite Rolex design but for the price Rolex charge in Australia I couldn't justify purchasing one. 41 mm is just about right size for me too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrallen13

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,883 Posts
Now that I've calmed down, I will actually admit that the dial is probably on the large size and could have been 1 to 2mm smaller to make it look more in proportion. I just get so worked up with the standard "too big" responses on Hodinkee no matter what is shown :-|

Of course WUS is a bit more measured and people articulate much better :)
It is funny I had an issue with the size since I tend to wear larger watches. I really love how the 44/45mm Panerais look on my wrist and I love my 43.5mm Planet Ocean GMT, I even have a 47mm Radiomir (but would get rid of it if Panerai did a 45mm California dial). I just wanted it to be 39mm for my needs. In the end I think Rolex was smart a 41mm all dial field watch will sell and they have the 39mm with the Exp 1 and statistically probably more people who want the smaller watch will be older and have more disposable income so it makes perfect sense. In the end if I didn't specifically want a smaller field watch I would be happy with the Tudor except I am having a hard time with the end links.

BTW I also dislike the "automatic" it too damn big outcry but only when it is touted as some objective FACT and we aren't talking about a 60mm Diesel or similar.

Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
To be honest I think it is a little on the large side, not that I have an issue with larger watches but it just visually "feels" wrong. I have the 39mm Explorer on my to buy list and figured if the Ranger did come out and it ticked all the boxes then I could get what I wanted for about half price. Two things killed the Ranger for me, the size, because I WANTED a sub 40mm field watch not that I have an issue with a 41mm watch I just wanted a smaller sports watch than I had. Second the bracelet end links (or lack there of). I want the watch to wear on various NATOs, the black simple dial works with any of them BUT I wanted a bracelet also and I am just not feeling this one. In the end Rolex won here with me, they are going to get me to spend twice as much money but in the end it does make really good sense, you give the consumer two pretty different takes on one watch style which isn't easy on a simple black field watch.
Rather than the 39mm Explorer have you thought about Omega's 39mm Railmaster?

ORM.jpg

I wonder if the dealer the guys like over at the Omega forum could get one NOS? Other option would be to see if RGM can give you pretty much exactly what you're looking for...probably for still less than the Explorer money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,861 Posts
Tudor should stick with going in the right direction.... basically trying to shed its older reputation of being a baby Rolex.

If folks want a Rolex Explorer, they'll buy a Rolex Explorer. Not a Tudor Ranger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
981 Posts
i don't like the size for the style of watch, but they definitely don't want to compete with each other. the explorer covers the smaller wrists while the ranger will cover those looking for something larger than the 39mm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,861 Posts
i don't like the size for the style of watch, but they definitely don't want to compete with each other. the explorer covers the smaller wrists while the ranger will cover those looking for something larger than the 39mm.
I'm sorry but an extra 2mm does not distinguish the Tudor Ranger as a bigger watch than the current 39mm Explorer. Yes, it is indeed bigger. But 39mm vs. 41mm is not even close to a significant difference.
 
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
Top