Tudor GMT Winchester

[huytonman]

I've liked the look of these in the various publicity shots and today saw one for sale in Winchester (well over list of course). I'm sure it is good value (at list) when compared to the Rolex equivalent but to my eyes it looked a bit heavy handed and clumsy, a bit disappointing really especially as I'm a bit of a Tudor fan. Given the apparent popularity of the model though I assume that I am in a very small minority and maybe its one of those that grows on you over time.
Keith

[ddm27]

These shouldn't be over list - they're not hard to get hold of.

[whoami]

Where?

[ddm27]

Where?

There is an abundance of them privately available in Singapore, for example, at list price.

Release is slightly late in the UK but that shouldn't stop people getting hold of one, and judging by other markets they won't be difficult to buy once fully rolled out.

[Foxy100]

Where?

It's in Carter Marsh. I looked at it yesterday and it looks a bit rubbish to me. Hopefully they do a Pelagos version, which would look considerably better.

[aleo]

I've liked the look of these in the various publicity shots and today saw one for sale in Winchester (well over list of course). I'm sure it is good value (at list) when compared to the Rolex equivalent but to my eyes it looked a bit heavy handed and clumsy, a bit disappointing really especially as I'm a bit of a Tudor fan. Given the apparent popularity of the model though I assume that I am in a very small minority and maybe its one of those that grows on you over time.
Keith

I had a similar experience with the watch, it felt too chunky. I believe that BB proportions are okay-ish for a diver, not for a GMT.
Hoping for a GMT in a fifty-eight case in a few years time...

[Pupp]

I believe that BB proportions are okay-ish for a diver, not for a GMT.

Intrigued by this and the previous poster's dismissal as 'a bit rubbish'. What's the determinative and where are the rules set down, or is this *just* personal bias at work?


I have one; undecided as yet as to whether it's staying, simply because of the slightly shouty livery of the thing and the Rolex aping of the colouring (I knew this before buying of course).

Those are obviously personal calls and very subjective, but I would never have thought of suggesting the thing was ill-proportioned by any aesthetic benchmark; 'rubbish' just seems gratuitous but I accept we have different views.

My assessment of the thing against my personal references is it is remarkably similar on the wrist to my Milgauss, heavier than a steel GS hi-beat GMT, and little bulkier than either. It therefore seems harsh to criticise it on these grounds so I am wondering what the benchmarks are?

For me, on reflection, I think it's a belter in terms of quality, value, and overall design. Only unsure about what now seems perhaps a cliché bezel but that's my fault for taking a punt.

[messym]

I’ve just been in to look at it. I’m glad I did because I’ve confirmed it’s not for me. The width is fine but the height is too much.

I could not justify that with the £1k over list price.

I’m sure someone will snap it up though as the quality is super.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[whoami]

There is an abundance of them privately available in Singapore, for example, at list price.

Release is slightly late in the UK but that shouldn't stop people getting hold of one, and judging by other markets they won't be difficult to buy once fully rolled out.

Ah, right.

I thought you were talking about them being freely available in the UK now.

[Foxy100]

Intrigued by this and the previous poster's dismissal as 'a bit rubbish'. What's the determinative and where are the rules set down, or is this *just* personal bias at work?


I have one; undecided as yet as to whether it's staying, simply because of the slightly shouty livery of the thing and the Rolex aping of the colouring (I knew this before buying of course).

Those are obviously personal calls and very subjective, but I would never have thought of suggesting the thing was ill-proportioned by any aesthetic benchmark; 'rubbish' just seems gratuitous but I accept we have different views.

My assessment of the thing against my personal references is it is remarkably similar on the wrist to my Milgauss, heavier than a steel GS hi-beat GMT, and little bulkier than either. It therefore seems harsh to criticise it on these grounds so I am wondering what the benchmarks are?

For me, on reflection, I think it's a belter in terms of quality, value, and overall design. Only unsure about what now seems perhaps a cliché bezel but that's my fault for taking a punt.

I don't like the design. I had a red Sub and the plots were perfectly in proportion to the dial. I also had a Tudor Snowflake and again, plots in perfect proportion. I had a GMT2c and now have an Exp2 and the maxi plots are again in proportion and look right. I don't like the white gold surrounds on the plots from early 1980s until the ceramic subs and GMTs came in, the lume area has shrunk compared to the dial. The Pelagos works for me, especially the blue one, as it's different and while being influenced by the original Tudor Snowflake is a really nice modern take with titanium case and a well proportioned design. As far as I know there wasn't a Tudor sub GMT and to me the Black Bay GMT is a cut price GMT made up to fill the gap the Rolex GMT used to occupy before they ramped up the price. I'd very much like to see a Pelagos GMT though, the size is right (I had a 42mm Autavia GMT that was perfect in size) and despite there not being a Snowflake GMT back in the day the Pelagos is different enough to play with and have a bit of fun. Of course the alternative way to look at it could be the Pelagos can be saved as the more serious looking watch while Rolex/Tudor can paint the Black Bay all the colours they like. Maybe they'll do an anal-digit one next, or a G-Shock style one with a more rugged case. To me though the BB GMT is the worst I see in Rolex/Tudor in terms of design and grabbing a money making opportunity.