[iddaka]

I hate cyclops, so I would keep the Tudor.
Your turn to decide now.

 

[BigBluefish]

I would keep the Ball.

Nicer blue dial
Better WR
Tritium
Better proportions than the 41 mm BB
Round indices on Tudor clash with snowflake hands
Less common

(This coming from a guy who drools over the BB36 despite its round hour markers.)

 

[Jeklotz]

I posted my preference earlier, but I've changed my thought on this. I say keep both until you can decide which one to keep, even if that means putting off the purchase of something else for now.

 

[Stellite]

I would keep the Ball.

Nicer blue dial
Better WR - Incorrect. The Tudor has more water resistance
Tritium
Better proportions than the 41 mm BB - Incorrect. The Ball is a hockey puck in thickness. Exceeding most dive watches
Round indices on Tudor clash with snowflake hands
Less common

(This coming from a guy who drools over the BB36 despite its round hour markers.)

some corrections. Not that it makes a diff at this point. I think OP needs to make the decision. Fact is, Ball isn't worth beans on the aftermarket. Might as well keep it and sell the watch he can make money on. If money is the issue. Down the Road the Tudor may actually increase in value, so keeping may be worth it for that reason if money is not an issue.

 

[ClairDeLune]

Despite the cyclops, the Ball is more interesting and unique. Tudor gotta go.

 

[Greelycl]

2 great choices. I wish the ball didn't have the cyclops, but still prefer it to the tudor.

 

[DiverBob]

I think the Ball does more in terms of aesthetics... pops a bit more. I would keep the Ball.

 

[texastom]

Tudor for me. Older eyes like the snowflake for ease of reading without glasses. I think the Ball's short floating tritium tube on the short hour hand would force me to "estimate" the time at night without readers on.

 

[8past10]

I would keep the Ball. I am not a fan of the Snow Flake hands of the Tudor watches

 

[Pete26]

I wouldn't lose my balls. Someone has to man up.

 

[Pete26]

Unfortunately, I'm not as thorough in my thoughts as the poster of #14. That's a lot of effort to put into a...well...post like that.

I came on here fully expecting to be in the minority. I'm a little shocked with the responses, so far. I like the Marvelight better. I think it's a sharp watch. Of the two, that would be my choice.





Edit...fixed typo. Lite is a beer. It's Marvelight. My mind was obviously somewhere else.

My thoughts are going in the same direction, but definitely not lite for me. Full strength all the way, with low carbs.

 

[K42]

If it were me I’d keep the Tudor. I prefer that blue.
On the Ball, I don’t like the date magnifier or the sunburst blue.

 

[Mliemon2]

Tudor all day.

 

[raditzer]

I'd keep the Tudor. I'm a bit biased as I own this model myself. I was in a similar situation on culling the watch herd. I kept the Tudor as it has no date. I rotate through several watches and the Tudor is the only one w/o a date. I like this as I just have to wind and set time w/o worrying about setting the date. Quick (if in rotation and not on a winder), easy and versatile. It also looks great on straps (though the 19mm is awkward).

 

[JacobS96]

I recommend keeping the Ball. Obviously aesthetic preferences are subjective, but IMO, the Marvelight has so much more personality. With the sunburst dial, three-dimensional tritium tubes, and combination of brushing and polishing on the bracelet, the Ball is the clear choice. And given that Tudors are so common, it’s nice to have a watch that is more unique.

 

[Onabracelet]

Which should I keep? So I might be downsizing my collection. I have both a Ball Engineer iii Marvalight and a Tudor BB41. Both of these are blue dial sport watches with clean bezels, so I am thinking of letting one go and keeping the other as I am wanting a smaller collection that is a little less repetative.

The Ball is made of 904 steel, has 100 meter water resist, tritium tubes, has a date, sapphire and is anti-magnetic

The Tudor is 316L steel, has 150 meter water resist, very nice lume and a sapphire crystal.

Both are amazing and both wear very well. Both are very accurate with the Ball edging out the Tudor with about a 2 spd difference on average.

I am not sure which to keep and which to let go. Both have a neat history and both are quality Swiss made pieces, albeit I am not sure of one is “more Swiss” than the other.

Either way both are my heavy hitters in my humble collection. So what do you all think?

View attachment 16801898 View attachment 16801899 View attachment 16801900 View attachment 16801903 View attachment 16801909

I own a Tudor BB36 and a Ball Fireman Night Breaker, so consider I know a little about both watches. The Tudor has a top grade Sellita movement, the Ball has an Elabore version. As a result the Tudor was more accurate until I regulated the Ball, now they both run within a few spd. As far as the dials go its hard to separate them, although I don't like the Cyclops on the OP's version. From a personal standpoint I prefer the case on the Ball,but the bracelet on the Tudor. The final consideration is the residual value, where the Tudor wins hands down. I voted for the Tudor, but I can understand anyone going for either

 

[GrowthTrackAcct]

I vote Tudor, I'm a big fan of them

 

[Disco240]

Wrist shot?

 

[Willbrink]

If you don't have a preference, the Ball is more watch for the $, and the Tudor likely has a better resale value. Keep the Ball.