watchaholic wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 2:32 am
Part of the non-appeal for me is the slab sided case most come in. I’ve seen it referred to as “ole slab sides”, and for some seems to be an endearing quality. I try not to be negative about most things on the forum, but I just don’t see a lot of thought or imagination going on here.
They were always big and slabby but it got worse when they moved away from ETA movements. The original 'Rose' releases were a manageable 12.7 mm. The new in house movements pushed them over 14.5 mm. I actually tried on a Rose 41 and a new 41 last night. There is a marked difference in the wearability of both cases. I really like the regular 41 and think if I were to buy one I would try to get a Rose even though with 7.5 inch wrists I think I could pull off the new one. The older version just wears better.
I think they kept the slab sides because of the visual recognition factor. You see the side and know it is a Tudor. The problem is they boxed themselves into a corner with this line of thinking because they were reluctant to mitigate the slab in any way with say a chamfer around the bottom edge for example. Anything to break up that big wall of steel.
The BB line in general isn't trying to be imaginative. It is the heritage line harking back to when, let's face it, Tudor sold cheaper Rolexes. They basically used all Rolex parts except for the movement in a lot of models back in those days. They can't or won't do that now so they have evolved into their own thing but the BB line still harkens back to those times.
EDIT to add: I also think the long hiatus of US sales plays a part here. There were many models during that period that we didn't see. For me Tudor is still in the lane they have always been in. For those overseas in the early 2000s they were doing some very different stuff.
Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but sometimes, playing a poor hand well.
Jack London