I would think overall it is a very small quantity percentage-wise that have problems and that is what we hear about. I also imagine that we get to hear about it because it is Tudor.
Shoot me down if you wish...
I don’t think these experiences are not the norm.
For someone who has been around long enough, you know that negative experiences get highlighted- more by some than others. I have owned multiple modern Tudors without an issue as have hundreds of others. The GMT date issue was more common but the rest are isolated instances. I get the same reassuring feel as I do from a Rolex.
Perhaps you're right, Raj, but QC certainly doesn't appear to be on a par with Rolex. Then, aside from obvious faults, there's also the fairly commonly reported issue of gritty crowns (something I hate) in addition to questionable positions being adopted when problems have have been referred back to Tudor. I may indeed be an old git, but I'm not particularly impressed at the moment.
Unfortunately Rolex are not immune. As well as the below there are issues with noisy rotors, bezel alignments, wobbly bezels, poorly painted GMT hands etc etc
https://youtu.be/hsPZURSJEDQ
https://youtu.be/OkIOnvlj7nw
Seems to me that there are many happy owners of Tudors, so while there are no doubt issues we should be careful not to extrapolate too widely. Perhaps the take away is to buy in person and careful inspect beforehand.
Couldn't be happier with mine, no gravelly noises or runny ink to speak of.
I second this, I wouldn't order online, check in store, check alignment etc.
Mine was ordered online and once I returned it, had to wait 3/4 months for a new one, but to be fair to tudor the new one is perfect. Bezel action is exceptional, same with the crown action.
So I wouldn't worry to much, but I think the QC should be better, as we shouldn't have to see the watch in person to be happy with it.
Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk
I have two Tudors a Blue Pelagos and the BB GMT.
The Pelagos I have had around 3 years and never had one issue (touch wood!) and probably has had the most wear and.is one of my favourite watches.
The GMT has not really been worn but wound quite a bit to check for the date issue and again no issues.
Then again I have had a Tag Carrera Day date which the rotor came loose and then an hardly worn Omega PO that had a screw come out in the movement and wedged the rotor so I suppose any watch that includes so many parts and so much human interaction in the build is susceptible to fault's along the way.
I have bought four new Tudor watches since 2014. Most recently a BB58 in 2019.
No issues with any of them. Two with ETA movements and two with in-house.
The BB58 is one of my two most accurate watches. Little positional variation and easy enough to keep spot on over a month or so.
Bearing in mind this is a Tudor thread it is amusingly ironic that so many people are getting offended.
To add to my above comments I am very pleased with the BB58, it is a little honey of a Watch.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
No issues with my BB58 Tony, 1 1/2 yrs down the line, pretty much a daily wearer, shows signs of wear my only concern, and within cosc (but not the 1sec per day I see others have).
If you can get one, try it, always flip it easily and I doubt with any loss.
Hope all is well?
Brad
I started a thread on my gritty crown/warranty repair (f up)/replacement couple of months back. All in all 2 out of 3 BB58s I had were perfect.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(sorry just realised that the link has been posted before)
Just saw a video about the QC issues of the OP41s...
Damn
I've just got a Black Bay Fifty-eight with black dial. No issues with the crown, which screws down very smoothly, nor with the bezel.
Upon close inspection with a loope, there's a tiny white speck on the dial which could be dust or paint. The centre boss on the seconds hand has some 'ruching' / crinkling in the centre where it has been fitted. I'd also prefer the edges of the hands to be smoother. These issues are invisible to the naked eye and most magnification.
I haven't taken the stickers off the case sides yet, though when I do, I'll be inspecting the polished surfaces; BB58s I've seen on YouTube with macro shots have subtle ripples / texture visible through the polish. Also, for something slab-sided there's a lot of distortion.
I've owned two recent Longines watches and they have both been perfect for fit and finish including dial, hands and case polishing, though the Tudor does have very solid construction and good features for the price, it's more robust overall. It's a good watch and I'm not sending it back for minor stuff that's only apparent under very close inspection and which doesn't affect the function (I would send it back though if it has a misprinted dial as happened to another contributor to this thread).
Sent from my JSN-L21 using Tapatalk
I’ve had several Tudors and had no issues with any of them except for the 58 blue. That had a couple of white specks under the crystal which shouldn’t have got past QC - not very noticeable but a bit annoying.
I wonder if they’ve cut corners whilst increasing production, given the 58 blue is now much more available (at least on strap and nato).
Last edited by Berty234; 6th February 2021 at 11:01.
I feel similarly. I do have a fancying for the Pelagos. I think at one point I’d like to own one - even if just to try it and flip it if it doesn’t sing to me. But... I’ve read more than a few stories about the lume falling out of the bezel insert and Tudor being less than pragmatic about repairing it. There’s no two ways that’s stopped me at least once when I saw one at a very reasonable price.
I don’t doubt that these watches are in the minority, but it would be just my luck.
I’m on my 4th BB58 and it’s perfect, so now it’s 1 dodgy (movement issue) out of 4.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just received a BB with the steel bezel.
Very pleased with it. Had heard the in house versions were a tad thick, but nothing of the sort as far as I'm concerned.
The bezel pip/marker looks slightly off at 12, then spot on at 3/9, and sometimes off in between. But angling the crystal slightly seems to make it virtually unnoticeable. Parallax distortion?
Tiniest bit of play in the bezel, but perfectly acceptable.
I've heard similar observations from Rolex owners so can't complain really.
10-days later and my new BB58 is running fast and outside COSC, it runs anywhere between +6 and+10 seconds per day, though it's running nearer to +10. It ran about +6 on the wrist for the first few days. I've been wearing it every day from morning until bed.
Amplitude has dropped off, it was in the 300s e.g. 313 and now is in the 280s, it's getting progressively worse by the day.
Winding the watch by hand does nothing to improve performance, it still runs fast (I know you chaps love a good 'low state of wind' suggestion).
I'm not impressed and will have the bother of sending it back under warranty.
Sent from my JSN-L21 using Tapatalk
Very unlikely that the amplitude is dropping as you suggest, why do you think this would happen?
If there’s a problem it usually manifests itself within the first 24 hrs of running. Suggest you let the watch auto- wind, that’ll produce the highest amplitude figure. However, what you should really look at is amplitude after 1 hr of not being disturbed, if this is around 280 degrees you’ve got nothing to worry about.
Before condemning the watch, why don’t you check the positional variation?
Its possible that the watch will benefit from regulation, but the sensible thing to do is to judge how it runs in actual use.
Run the watch for a few weeks, record the numbers, if its not satisfactory have it regulated but be sure to share your data when sending it back.
Put your timegrapher in a drawer and leave it there, real- world performance on the wrist is more useful for an owner.
My BB has no QC issues, gets wound and worn once a week, keeps perfect time when on my wrist and looks really nice sat in the watch box between outings.
Now it's clearly not a watch for everybody. It is not a poor mans Rolex substitute, it's bloody massive but does not wear too big oddly. I love it for it's simplicity and it's ability to pull off that aged lume look, perfect Sunday watch.
It gains 7-8 seconds per day when worn on the wrist. Though in one 24-hour period it gained 10 seconds. It's quite consistent across positions on the timegrapher (better than a run of the mill ETA) . I've been wearing it for 13-days.
It doesn't matter whether it's left for half an hour, an hour, or until the following morning the best that the daily rate gets to is +6 before creeping back up to +7, +8 etc. and it doesn't seem that it would even-out across different positions (though that's encouraging to have it regulated).
It looks as though I will be sending it back for regulation under the warranty.
The thread is about Tudor's quality control - once regulated it'll probably be fine, but why can't it come that way the first time?
Walkerwek1958 it always seems as though you're trying to score points, especially if someone has a misfortune or you can suggest that they are inferior to you in some way. Perhaps I've misread your intentions.
Sent from my JSN-L21 using Tapatalk
Last edited by AKM; 16th February 2021 at 11:38.
I check my new watches on arrival with the timegrapher but dont make any judgments (unless the readings are grossly poor) until Ive worn the watch for a while to seen how it runs in real life. Examples recently, my Explorer is clearly out of Rolex spec with two readings of +6 sec/day and an average of +3 but on the wrist its around +1, a recently sold Seiko SLA021 MM300 had lousy beat error and not great amplitude and OK rate (not unusual in my experience with Seiko which feels like a lottery) but on the wrist...+1 sec/day. Finally my Damasko DK10 was reading +15sec/20sec/day on the wrist and was fully confirmed by the timegrapher so that went back to Damasko in November for regulation (out of warranty)...Its still in Germany though so by the time it returns it will feel like a new watch!
Incidentally as the original thread is about Tudor QC, my used GMT (which had been sent back by the previous owner for regulation I think) is running well inside COSC, bezel action is spot on, winding is silky smooth - so far so good.
Keith
That sounds like what happened to my DC56Si though mine happened during the warranty. If it's any consolation, when it came back from Damasko, it ran perfectly, far better than new.
There seems to be a common problem with their proprietary escapement, where it needs regulating after a lengthy running in period, to get best performance. Mine had been eratic and then suddenly it was off by 15 - 20s a day. They sorted it though.
Sent from my JSN-L21 using Tapatalk
Timegrapher is a very useful tool but the readings can be misinterpreted. If the watch is fully wound the very act of changing positions will cause the rotor to move and alter the amplitude readings, checks should be made after the watch has run for an hour or so to avoid this. I break this rule because I know what I’m looking for, but for a layman its a good rule to follow.
If a watch is giving amplitude of 285 degrees its running well, if its running at around +6 secs/ day its running well, but if its a new high quality chronometer movement it could benefit from careful regulation. If faced with the hassle of sending a watch back to the manufacturer for regulation I would wait until the watch had settled to give consistent results, that’s a stable baseline to work from. In years gone by you bought a watch from an AD who had the facility to regulate it on site if required, you simply took it back and collected it a couple of hours later, but sadly those days are over. I own an Omega Constellation sold in 1972, there’s a note on the original papers stating that the watch was regulated shortly after purchase because it was running at +5 secs/ day!
Careful regulation/ adjustment is vital, regardless of whether a watch costs £200 or £20,000.
A bb 58 just arrived and it is perfect - no issued so far :)
On my new BB58, I've got the average gain per day to +4s per by self regulating it by the position it's in when off the wrist.
The timegrapher showed that the only position where it wasn't gaining, was crown down which was 0s. With a third of the day spent asleep this, in theory and, in practice over the past six days, drops the daily gain to +4 from around +7.
Nonetheless, the 3 other chronometer rated watches I've owned, from 3 separate brands have all performed better and I also own non chronometer rated watches that are more accurate for their daily rate.
I appreciate that its 99.995% accurate, but 1-2 seconds per day is not unusual on chronometer certified watches from other brands and without having to find an optimum position off the wrist.
Sent from my JSN-L21 using Tapatalk
Last edited by AKM; 21st February 2021 at 23:25.
Quite surprised at this. Thanks for sharing
But he has successfully reached the joys of over 50 posts - I’m just waiting for the ‘why can’t I still access SC thread?’.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app