Tudor Heritage Ranger vs Tudor Black Bay 41
Up til recently I owned the Tudor Heritage Ranger, bought and then sold via this forum. It is a superb every day watch, with excellent build quality, timekeeping and an aesthetic that goes with any strap and all but the dressiest of outfits. Perfect dial symmetry, lovely matte features and satin case, drilled lugs, hand painted Arabic’s & batons. I think it’s an underrated watch in Tudors line up.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...2a27b2110e.jpg
But, as with most things we fellas buy, be it a house, car, tech or watches, after the honeymoon period you start to pick up on the things you don’t like, or would change. Here are my small issues with the Ranger; the big one was the bracelet. I wanted to love the straight end links, I convinced myself I did, but in reality I just got used to them. I know it’s part of the vintage vibe - but it was something that made me look at the watch with a feeling of ‘if only...’. As a result it largely lived on leather. What’s more they kind of exaggerate the size of what is already a pretty large and overtly circular case. And that’s point two - I could live with the case size, it was fine - but given the choice, I’d change it. And number three was the crown; the pronounced tube of the Black Bay line looked too sticky-outey on the more circular Ranger case. I’d see pics of old Rangers in oyster cases with flush crowns and get jealous!
Having moved the Ranger on I’ve bought a Black Bay 41, a watch I dismissed in favour of the Ranger 18 months ago. So, how does it stack up?
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...f494f8f553.jpg
Well it’s early days, but already I’d say that it’s superior in almost every way. The longer, more squared case shape looks better - to my eye at least. I thought the slightly longer lug to lug (50mm vs 48mm) would make it wear bigger, but it doesn’t. If anything, the smaller, more compact dial gives it a smaller overall feel (the Ranger is ‘all dial’ whereas the BB41 has a more substantial bezel). The fitted curved end links are a big - and I mean big - advantage. And the crown sits flusher against the BB’s straighter case - it looks like it belongs.
They share the same understated look, dial symmetry and legibility, water resistance and of course the same movement. I think the BB41 covers all the same bases, but the polished elements and applied indices give it the added ability to ‘dress up’. The Ranger has the drilled lugs, and I think I prefer the Rangers rose on the dial to the modern shield. Other than that it’s the BB41 all the way.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...1df45dd576.jpg
I think Tudor is missing a trick with the Ranger. This may be intentional, as they don’t want something too close to the Explorer at 2/5 of the price. It’s a great watch, but it could be improved upon; if they kept the dial but scaled the watch down to 38mm, put case fitting end links on the bracelet and a flush fitting crown then they would have something really special, something truly representative of the vintage Explorers and Oyster Prince Rangers in its roots.
To sum up the article I say they are both excellent watches, but the Ranger has a few flaws that start to niggle after a while. The BB41 does everything the Ranger does and more, and without those flaws. For anyone labouring over a decision between the two, go BB41 would be my advice.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
