TUDOR Black Bay Pro..is it too thick ?

Yeah, that looks great from the top!

Top down looks superb, that's it for me Dave...oh well the search continues 😊

Yep. It is way too thick for my 6.5 wrist. Even on a bigger wrist the proportions would look odd in my opinion.

to be fair, the angle of the shot down the wrist exaggerates the problem, but still I can’t understand why some reviewers say that Tudor did a “good job masking the thickness“

just check the comparison with the BB 58 and Pelagos FXD.

Dam she’s thick lol

GMT mechanical watches tend to be bulky bec of the 4 hands. I get it. But how come Farer make their beautiful GMT watches nicely thin, and also with a 39mm case width? So, the Tudor bulk is meh, IMHO. 

Thats exactly what I experienced, what a pity

Here's a controversial opinion for you..... The trend for chunky watches has been driven by the industry - not the consumer. They have decided that the movements need to be bigger, so they can automate more of the processes that manufacture and assemble them. 

If true, and I don't find any reason why it's not true, then the only way to go is simply to not encourage buying this piece. It's chunky, and maybe due to possible redundating of people. Consumer non-purchase will drive the "industry" to seriously reconsider. 

The 16570 can be nice and thin so I m sure it’s technically possible for Rolex/Tudor to build a thinner and smaller GMT movement. It’s just a cost/time saving way to fit a movement intended for 41mm into a 39mm case. 

Man, that is a thick slab of watch. They could have at least tried to taper the lugs down to the wrist.

I bought one on a bracelet a few weeks ago. It’ll never feel slim, but you get used to it. It still feels a bit on the top heavy side, despite being on a bracelet. 

I think that's true of all the BBs other than the 58.

I'm falling in the opposite camp.  

I agree that the small % of consumers who identify as enthusiasts want smaller watches (now), but it seems likely that brands have fairly detailed sales feedback loops that drive their decisions.  

It wasn't that long ago that we were on Timezone or WUS complaining that brands weren't making their watches big enough.

Even the new Longines Spirit Zulu Time is under 14mm thick so Tudor could've definitely shaved off a millimeter somewhere or at least given the mid case some curves to hide it. 

The Tudor GMT movement is 7.52 mm thick.  Add the extra thickness in for the 200m water resistance and you get a chunky watch.  For reference the equivalent ETA or Sellita movements are 3.6mm thick.   

There may be some truth to this but I think a bigger player might be the jumping hour function.  Even the ETA C07.111 comes in at 4.6mm (based on ETA 2824).  That is a full millimeter thicker than the SW330 (no jumping hour).  The Mido Ocean star still manages to come in at 13.3mm.  

Tudor could have went with 150 m water resistance (Rolex does) and got it down under 14.  It would wear much better.  

At this point I think Tudor has decided that the slab side is a distinctive design element to the brand and are not going to mitigate it.  They are instead leaning into it.   

You could say that, but there has already been an interview with Tudor's head designer - Ander Ugarte - who admitted he is constrained by the size of the movement. Go to 5m 20s to get the conversation:

https://youtu.be/AdcNDKN4X8w?t=321

I saw that and I think they were only constrained up to a point.  But even the 58 has really slabby sides.  They do nothing to dampen the profile.  To be sure the movement is super thick.  200 meters also adds to the thickness.  A thicker case back is required.  

You're wrong. They have those flank shapes because the original Rolex submariners had them:

Ouch, don't show these side by side. Now I can't unsee how thick it looks in comparison so I had to check by taking a similar photo of my Tudor BB GMT. Even though my BB GMT is slightly thicker, it looks thinner in my eyes maybe because the BB GMT is bigger (along with my fatter wrist). However, it's probably just confirmation bias (because I already bought and love the BB GMT).

Yeah, it is all about proportions. The ratio on the BB GMT works way better. It is still a chunky piece, but you can totally pull it off with your wrist size!

It is definitely a thick boi hence i think this watch looks better on the bracelet then the leather strap as it helps distribute the thickness. Having tried it on it works on my 7 Inch wrist and im likely to try and get my hands on one in the near future

Ask you girlfriend if thicker is bad . I own a u-boat flight deck . That is thick . The bb pro just had one to many beers last night . 

It's 42 mm vs 39)

I have seen and tried it on in person , its great on a strap.i have 6.5 inch wrist and pepsi was too big and this one sits just wrote .if u factor out a sapphire glass it's even less . Its not just a slab jt has layers.  It's an everyday, rugged tool watch guys not for board meetings. If u want thin go with jlc ) 

P.s. all the Swiss are increasing prices from 8-10% on thr 1st of Jan. I reccomend u put deposits down and place orders with old prices ) 

Merry Christmas everyone 

Reviving this thread as I am considering a really good deal on a BB Pro. I wanted to see and hear some more thoughts from current owners.

I owned a BB GMT a while back and really liked it. It's a great complication and I miss having a solid, swimable GMT in the collection - especially as summer vacations are looming ever closer.

I didn't mind the thickness on the BB GMT as the bigger size helped carry off the heft, but I haven't seen a BB Pro in the flesh, and would love to see a few different angles - especially on straps rather than the bracelet.

I've had the BB Pro since the beginning of the year. I'll echo feedback I've heard regarding the case thickness: it does takes a little getting used to, but it's not a deal breaker. I think most watches have at least one thing we'd like to change about them. For me this is really the only aspect of the BB Pro I'd change, so in the end I think the benefits outweigh the single negative.

A thinner case would have helped this watch pick up on some of it's more vintage-y cues and feel like a sleeker package overall, but somehow the thicker case makes it feel slightly more modern, rugged, and tool-y.

I will say that I am reminded of the thickness/heft every time I put the watch on. The watch head is weighty making it quite top heavy before closing the bracelet. As a result, I'm more conscious of placing/balancing it on the right spot on my wrist when first putting on.

Two final considerations regarding the thickness:

1. One hidden benefit of the thickness is that you end up with a huge crown that's a joy to use. It's essentially the same diameter as the midcase height and has very teethy nurling so you end up with a crown that's particularly easy to manipulate. I've heard the opposite is true of the new BB54 because the midcase is so thin. I think this larger crown is nice feature to have on a GMT watch where part of the functionality is tied to its usage.

2. How this watch's dimensions fits into your collection may also play into your perception of its thickness. If it's your largest watch (case size) and your only (or one of few) sports watches then the thickness might feel appropriate and not unusual. However, if you're swapping this between a handful of other sports watches that are thinner (especially thinner with larger case sizes) it might be a bit more noticeable as your experiences with and expectations from other sports watches may come into play.