Why didn't they make the Ranger 200m WR?
Let me start with, no, it doesn't' need to be 200m WR for a field watch. I get that. And yes, I know the Ranger is not part of the Black Bay line up.
I picked up the new Ranger a week after it was launched last year (super fortunate, still can't believe it). I absolutely LOVE it. It is my most worn watch as it is hands down my most comfortable watch. One of my only watches that really feels like it "disappears" on the wrist during the day. I want/need nothing changed about it, in particular the stellar bracelet which is a significant contributing factor to how comfortable the watch wears.
The bracelet is actually what got me asking the myself the question that is the title of this post. Shortly after the new Ranger was launched I started seeing posts by folks who were switching the Ranger bracelet with the BB58 bracelet. People really seem to dislike those fake rivets. So I got to wondering, if the Ranger bracelet fits the BB58 how similar are the other dimensions. I do have a Black Bay in my collection, but I have the behemoth 43mm BB Bronze, so I'm not familiar with the wearing experience of the BB58. I've still never actually tried one on (but I might now given how much I like the Ranger).
Turns out, the BB58 and Ranger have nearly identical dimensions, they even have the same movement! I know the Ranger is not a Black Bay, but even the BB 36 and BB 41 have 150m of WR. And it's not unheard of for a field style watch to have 200m of WR. The Seiko Alpinist series are all 200m WR.
It really is just a curiosity for me. It seems they could have easily done it without any fuss from a manufacturing perspective, so why not? And if they did, it would have been a cool "extra" that would have set they apart from some of their competition.
28 comments
·
Sort by
Sort by
I suspect it has to do with price discrimination.
The Black Bay 58 costs $3,950
The Ranger costs $3,150
Tudor absolutely has to ensure that the Ranger has lower specs than the BB58, in order to "justify" the BB58's higher price
For all we know, the Ranger may very well have 200m WR!
It's fascinating, but companies do this all the time:
Product A has a lower spec than Product B
Product A is priced lower than Product B
Yet, in real life testing, both products perform precisely the same
Porsche famously do this all the time. In the Porsche hierarchy, it always goes base model, then S, then GTS. Published specs for GTS always shows something like 15 horsepower above S. Yet, in many, many cases, when people dyno the cars, they find that they both have identical horsepower!
I suspect it has to do with price discrimination.
The Black Bay 58 costs $3,950
The Ranger costs $3,150
Tudor absolutely has to ensure that the Ranger has lower specs than the BB58, in order to "justify" the BB58's higher price
For all we know, the Ranger may very well have 200m WR!
It's fascinating, but companies do this all the time:
Product A has a lower spec than Product B
Product A is priced lower than Product B
Yet, in real life testing, both products perform precisely the same
Porsche famously do this all the time. In the Porsche hierarchy, it always goes base model, then S, then GTS. Published specs for GTS always shows something like 15 horsepower above S. Yet, in many, many cases, when people dyno the cars, they find that they both have identical horsepower!
I’ve been wondering if they are downplaying the WR of the Ranger on paper.
I get what you are saying. I mean, the Ranger is now called the “entry level for an in-house Tudor movement”, so for the entry level piece to match specs with their number 1 seller, that would raise eyebrows. I mean, the rotating bezel can’t be worth the extra $800, right?
But still, just call it the Black Bay Ranger and give me that extra WR.
I suspect it has to do with price discrimination.
The Black Bay 58 costs $3,950
The Ranger costs $3,150
Tudor absolutely has to ensure that the Ranger has lower specs than the BB58, in order to "justify" the BB58's higher price
For all we know, the Ranger may very well have 200m WR!
It's fascinating, but companies do this all the time:
Product A has a lower spec than Product B
Product A is priced lower than Product B
Yet, in real life testing, both products perform precisely the same
Porsche famously do this all the time. In the Porsche hierarchy, it always goes base model, then S, then GTS. Published specs for GTS always shows something like 15 horsepower above S. Yet, in many, many cases, when people dyno the cars, they find that they both have identical horsepower!
Tiering products was brought to a fine art by car leasing companies that supplied corporation's car fleets so that an employee would never get anything better speced than what his boss was driving. Of course, it caused the problem that in the end nobody could understand what were the differences between the models and which one was "better".
and you answered your own question in the first two sentences.
What is the fascination with WR and field watches? Are you literally planning to dive with it, because (a) it’s not a diver, and (b) 100m is pretty good for a watch you are unlikely to get wet. The CWC G10 that was issued to the British Army between 1980-2006 was rated to 50m, so if you can go to war with 50m you can wear 100m rated to your desk in your office.
This is clearly a heritage piece - they try and get some balance between form and function whilst keeping the vibe. Something has to give in the development process, God knows what, but there are committees and focus groups in the mix before it turns up at Baselworld or wherever before us miserable gits chime in on it. I think it looks terrible myself, and I’ve gone on record with that viewpoint, but I will defend your right to like it for all the right reasons. I do not get angry at a cow for its lack of wool production.
and you answered your own question in the first two sentences.
What is the fascination with WR and field watches? Are you literally planning to dive with it, because (a) it’s not a diver, and (b) 100m is pretty good for a watch you are unlikely to get wet. The CWC G10 that was issued to the British Army between 1980-2006 was rated to 50m, so if you can go to war with 50m you can wear 100m rated to your desk in your office.
This is clearly a heritage piece - they try and get some balance between form and function whilst keeping the vibe. Something has to give in the development process, God knows what, but there are committees and focus groups in the mix before it turns up at Baselworld or wherever before us miserable gits chime in on it. I think it looks terrible myself, and I’ve gone on record with that viewpoint, but I will defend your right to like it for all the right reasons. I do not get angry at a cow for its lack of wool production.
I feel like you need a hug.
I feel like you need a hug.
I feel like you need to have realistic expectations about field watches
I feel like you need a hug.
@Porthole... always.
Weirdly makes me think of this classic...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y1wm7CFRCQ
@Porthole, "you're my hero, I confess"
I feel like you need to have realistic expectations about field watches
I feel like you need to have some active “listening” skills.
I posed a question about why, given a clear opportunity, they didn’t choose to up the WR to 200m when doing so seemingly would have been easy for them. And I included my caveats about it not being needed, which does indeed show my realistic expectations. Maybe you missed the line where I said I need nothing changed about the watch.
Your response acknowledges my caveats, then ignores them, but also focuses on a critique of them. A bit manic.
You also give your opinion on the Ranger, which was never asked for, and quite irrelevant. Then you close with an “analogy” that isn’t an analogy at all.
Given the fact that you missed the point, offered opinions not asked for, and just generally seem angry, I stand by you probably needing a hug.
I feel like you need to have some active “listening” skills.
I posed a question about why, given a clear opportunity, they didn’t choose to up the WR to 200m when doing so seemingly would have been easy for them. And I included my caveats about it not being needed, which does indeed show my realistic expectations. Maybe you missed the line where I said I need nothing changed about the watch.
Your response acknowledges my caveats, then ignores them, but also focuses on a critique of them. A bit manic.
You also give your opinion on the Ranger, which was never asked for, and quite irrelevant. Then you close with an “analogy” that isn’t an analogy at all.
Given the fact that you missed the point, offered opinions not asked for, and just generally seem angry, I stand by you probably needing a hug.
Why not ask Tudor if you are that bothered? The answers will not be found here on WatchCrunch, and is likely (D) Seiko.
You also answered your question, making the rest merely waffle. Moaning about field watch water resistance is again much akin to complaining that a cow doesn’t give you wool. You got an industry-standard Porthole field watch / Tudor response, if you were expecting anything different then please contact my publicist to see if we can tailor an experience more suited to your expectations. Sorry for trying to initiate a discussion, I’ll just admire the pictures instead.
Enjoy the watch, if you can.
Wow there's getting to be alot more of the usual forum type bs response's to posts on here than I've seen since joining 12 months or so ago.
I guess the good vibes couldn't last forever.
Anyway, I to wonder why a field watch doesn't seem to have the right to decent WR and also can someone show me where in the rule book it says such?
Oh yeah there is no rule book, so a 200m field watch is actually a possibility. I bet there's a market for one, infact there's probably some out there already? Elliot Brown ?
Why not ask Tudor if you are that bothered? The answers will not be found here on WatchCrunch, and is likely (D) Seiko.
You also answered your question, making the rest merely waffle. Moaning about field watch water resistance is again much akin to complaining that a cow doesn’t give you wool. You got an industry-standard Porthole field watch / Tudor response, if you were expecting anything different then please contact my publicist to see if we can tailor an experience more suited to your expectations. Sorry for trying to initiate a discussion, I’ll just admire the pictures instead.
Enjoy the watch, if you can.
Wow there's getting to be alot more of the usual forum type bs response's to posts on here than I've seen since joining 12 months or so ago.
I guess the good vibes couldn't last forever.
Anyway, I to wonder why a field watch doesn't seem to have the right to decent WR and also can someone show me where in the rule book it says such?
Oh yeah there is no rule book, so a 200m field watch is actually a possibility. I bet there's a market for one, infact there's probably some out there already? Elliot Brown ?
I've always thought it was kind of cool that Seiko Alpinist watches have 200m of WR. Something a little different to separate them from Hamilton and the likes. Worry free makes me happy, so a watch with anti-magnetic properties, great accuracy, and awesome WR gives me peace of mind. And as someone who does recreational scuba diving, it's nice to know that if I wanted to, I could take some fun underwater photos of my watch(es) while on vacation :-)
Wow there's getting to be alot more of the usual forum type bs response's to posts on here than I've seen since joining 12 months or so ago.
I guess the good vibes couldn't last forever.
Anyway, I to wonder why a field watch doesn't seem to have the right to decent WR and also can someone show me where in the rule book it says such?
Oh yeah there is no rule book, so a 200m field watch is actually a possibility. I bet there's a market for one, infact there's probably some out there already? Elliot Brown ?
There is no rule, but it’s also not a staple of the “genre”. It’s like moaning that a dress watch isn’t rugged, or a diver can’t be worn with a suit on certain occasions (it has to blue or bust). Again, cow, wool.
We know it can done; CWC make a G10 with sapphire Crystal and 200m water resistance, but the decision to do so lies with the brand. If it’s such a hang-up, don’t buy the watch. If you don’t vote with your wallet, how will they learn. Everyone begged Tudor to make a sporty Explorer type watch with an in-house movement that was cheaper than what some of the “trinity” were offering at the time, they made the NorthFlag, and no one bought it and went in on the Black Bay. Even when you or I get what we want, watch people are unhappy. If you want to know exactly why they did something, you need to ask the brand, but chances are you won’t get a response.
Forum type bs? It’s two-ways, there has been an influx of absolute nonsense since just before Christmas, and some of us more opinionated content providers have stopped engaging. Ask us. I will debate anyone who wants it, and I will ask you a challenging question, or put forward a very matter-of-fact statement with some evidence, or an analogy I find amusing. If I’m wrong, or unreasonable, let’s chat or call me an ass until we reach the middle-ground. This is subjective and nuanced, and this is our theatre of conflict. My mute list is now in the several hundreds, but I wish it wasn’t… I’m trying to get the cream to rise to the top.
Thank you.
I will email Tudor for you (and some others)… there is a proper watch-journo article in this because you’re not the first to ask why 100m when 200m is possible. I also don’t think it’s an issue. I’m on the case.
Thank you.
I will email Tudor for you (and some others)… there is a proper watch-journo article in this because you’re not the first to ask why 100m when 200m is possible. I also don’t think it’s an issue. I’m on the case.
Can you also ask them to add a date to the steel black bays for me? I really hate not knowing what day it is when I’m diving.