Feature: Tudor Black Bay 58 vs Black Bay Pro
Choosing between the Tudor Black Bay 58 and the Black Bay Pro is a bit like choosing which of your children you would rather give away. The answer, ideally, is both, but I’d imagine that most people who could buy both would be considering a Rolex anyway—so how to decide? By watching this video, that’s how.
History
At this point it’s probably unsurprising to learn that, as Tudor is part of Rolex’s official fold, both iterations of the Black Bay draw from the pages of the famous Swiss watchmaker’s history—just different chapters. The Submariner, 1953, and the Explorer II, 1971, were both part of Rolex’s campaign to turn one watch into many, to corner every single professional niche the market had to offer.
The Turn-O-Graph was the genesis for both watches, with its hardy steel case, decent water resistance and configurable setup. As Rolex was not a manufacturer of watches, but rather a marketeer, budgets could only stretch to slight modifications of the formula, and so a good use of the imagination was required to populate the collection with variety.
With a 60-minute bezel that could only be turned one way, we had the Submariner; with the addition of a GMT hand and a fixed 24-hour bezel, we had the Explorer II. By the time we got to 1971 and the Explorer II, founder Hans Wilsdorf had died and, to be honest, the company was stretching it a bit with its new ideas, somewhat lost without the guidance of that original, genius mind.
Where the Submariner was billed as a watch for underwater explorers, and the original Explorer, 1953, for the hardy adventurer that climbs mountains and explores jungles, the Explorer II’s niche was even more niche. It was specifically for people who find themselves venturing into the unknown darkness of the network of caves that riddle the Earth. Spending long weeks in the shroud of permanent night necessitated the addition of the fixed 24-hour bezel and GMT hand.
Unsurprisingly, that original Explorer II 1655 wasn’t very popular, certainly nowhere near the popularity of the ubiquitous Submariner, with many sat in jeweller’s windows left gathering dust. Even Steve McQueen, who reportedly wore a 1655, didn’t actually have one. Of course, in the watch collecting community that simply means there are less of them today, especially since Rolex updated the design in 1985, making it even more collectible.
Styling
To be fair, the unique styling of the Rolex Explorer II 1655, which makes its way into the Black Bay Pro, is far more interesting and unique than the Submariner styling that graces the Tudor Black Bay 58. The only real fly in the ointment there is that Tudor actually manufactured a version of the Submariner under its own branding from 1954—the year after Rolex first unveiled the Submariner—to 1978, whereas the Pro’s Explorer styling is entirely manufactured for the sake of looking cool.
But it does look cool. Very cool. The Black Bay, before the 58, set the world alight in 2012 when it reimagined the vintage look that Rolex had slowly drifted from, offering an affordable price point that better matched the apparent age of the watch. The 58 shrank that down, ditched the date and refined the whole package into what many consider to be a flawless watch—fake riveted bracelet notwithstanding.
The Tudor Black Bay 58, however, despite its warm faux-aged tones, references as much from the 80s Submariners with the metal marker surrounds as it does those original 1950s versions, which did without crown guards and wore a larger crown. So, it’s a healthy mix of all the best bits—but some might consider the Pro’s bits to be even better.
You’ll notice on the Pro there’s no marker surrounds, and that the orange GMT hand has been faded according to its apparent age. The hands aren’t crisp and shiny, they’re a rugged matte black, just like the original—even if the original’s were white and black. Even the crown looks closer to the Rolex original, albeit from an earlier guard-less Submariner rather than the 1655.
It’s not a straight rip-off of the 1655, however, at least not entirely. The divisive but immediately identifiable Tudor Snowflake hand is very much present, and the shape of the markers follows a more traditional routine than the 1655’s … whatever that was. The Black Bay Pro is less a homage to the 1655 and more an unmitigated "what if?” in answer to the question: “What does the coolest Rolex/Tudor mash-up look like?”
Features
The 58 and the Pro really trade blows when it comes to specification. What you lose in the dive bezel you gain in the GMT hand. What’s traded for the luxuriously shiny markers are genuinely innovative ceramic disks pigmented with luminous paint for a brighter glow.
Both pack 39mm cases, both pack 200m of water-resistance and both pack a chronometer-certified, 70-hour in-house movement from Tudor’s own manufacturer Kenissi. Both are available with the riveted bracelet, leather strap or fabric strap—although the Pro’s clasp, in keeping with the name, is more adjustable.
Back in the 58’s camp and, right now at least, there are more options with the case. There’s a blue version too. And you’re not limited to steel—gold, bronze and silver also abound, although the bronze takes inspiration from a different Submariner for its dial layout.
But the surprise fly and/or extra booze in the punch bowl is the addition of the date to the Pro. Now, some people loved the 58 most because it shirked the date in favour of delicious originality and simplicity, whereas others, who apparently don’t have a phone, computer, newspaper or any other implement with a date on it, who also remember which months they need to adjust said date, decried its absence. No prizes for guessing which camp I’m in.
And so, Tudor, in its infinite wisdom, determined that no professional buying a Pro watch could be without a date, and so there it is. It’s a plus on paper, an extra spec, but it’s on the fence with regards to whether or not it turns the dial from simplistic perfection to one with a useless, asymmetric hole in it. You can be judge of that.
Wearability
Thinking the Pro is edging out in the lead? Willing to overlook Satan’s own complication, the date? Well, there’s one last poke in the eye when it comes to the Black Bay Pro’s apparent lead—however slight—that’s worth considering.
The Black Bay 58, at 39mm wide, is very well proportioned in thickness at 11.9mm. The Black Bay Pro, however, stands tall at an unexpected 14.6mm. That’s thanks to the addition of the GMT function, which wasn’t so much apparent in the larger 41mm Black Bay series because they’re all pretty chunky.
Here, however, it notices. To put that thickness into context, the current Rolex Submariner, in 41mm, is 12.5mm thick, which is a lot closer to the 58 than it is the Pro. The Pro is actually half a mill thicker than Audemars Piguet’s Royal Oak Offshore Diver, and that’s no waif.
I said it notices, and it does, but really what it comes down to is a) how much it notices and b) whether that bothers you. For some, it ain’t no thang. For others, it’s the worst thing since the date window. Honestly, at this point, you just need to try it for yourself as another person’s opinion is just that.
Availability
I probably should’ve got to this point first, but hey ho. The Black Bay 58, after a recent price rise, starts at a still rather impressive £3,020. The Pro, with its additional features, starts at a bit more, £3,200. Not a difference that really breaks any deals to be honest. If the £180 is an issue, I’d suggest something more affordable, or more sensibly, no luxury watch at all.
That is all lovely advice where the playing field is level, but it’s not. There’s a fair old tip towards the Pro’s goal because it is quite simply absent. You can’t get them. They’re so popular, they’ve all sold out. The same happened to the 58 at launch and for a while after, and it’s a trend that’s caught on big time with the Pro. So, if you want one, you either need to be patient or you need to convince an existing owner to part ways with theirs.
There are more becoming available, but it’s certainly not a straightforward purchase. The fact of the matter is that it’s a good watch, maybe even better than the 58, and that means it’s earnt a lot of attention. Whether it’s better enough to wait for over a 58 is another story.
