Review: Why you can't fault the Tudor Ranger
There's been a lot of critism levelled at the latest release from Tudor...
- The dial is boring or badly proportioned
- The indices are printed rather than applied
- The font / numerals are weird
- The print colour should have been white, rather than the cream / 'fauxtina' used
- Not enough text / too much negative space
- The seconds hand should have been all red, or maybe had a yellow tip
- The hour hand should have been a snowflake (or that it resembles something...)
- The case should be smaller
- It should be more polished
One thing I'd like to do with this review is take an objective look at this watch and hold back on the subjectivity. That means completely disregarding the list above.
While there's no denying the 79950 bears more than a passing resemblance to a 1960s Rolex Explorer 1016 (we all understand the Rolex/Tudor relationship), the watch it most closely resembles is the Tudor Oyster Prince Ranger, reference 7995 (picture sourced from the internet below). And that's because it has been designed as a modern reinterpretation or 'homage' to it. A watch that was ultimately an homage to the 1016 Rolex. Or should we say, a watch that was produced as an affordable alternative to it by a brand created with that underlying purpose in mind.
That background and the phrase 'vintage inspired, modern interpretation' answers a lot of questions raised by the Ranger's critics. When coupled with the knowledge that that this watch (and its inspirations) are Field watches, designed for use in extreme conditions; you can understand most of Tudors decisions here. For instance, printed indices aren't going to break off as they age or freeze and yes, it will also keep the cost down, for the manufacturer and the consumer. The less there is to go wrong, the better it fulfills its purpose. Why does it need to be polished? It will scratch more easily. It will reflect the sun more etc.
When compared directly to the original Ranger, it's almost identical at a glance. It's also very clear...it looks like a modern version of it. The choice of print colour chosen to give it that vintage aesthetic. It's bigger, as most modern watches are and most modern consumers prefer. It also conveniently fills a gap in the market left by Rolex. Smart. Who says a field watch needs to be smaller than 39mm? A larger dial only improves it's legibility and dials don't come much more legible than this. Field watch / tool watch box ticked. Then add the anti reflective coating and you're going to find one that's harder to beat on this criteria.
As a tool for timekeeping in the field, it's going to meet your needs. I don't need to extol the virtues of the MT5402 movement from Tudor and this is already far longer than I had intended. As a tool it's going to do the job perfectly well. As a piece of jewellery, it's not going to please everyone.
I don't think I've seen any negativity around the bracelet. That's because objectively it's one of the best available at the price point. So I'll let myself stray into the subjective for a second, I personally find the T Fit clasp a bit fiddly but it does work well and I'm able to get a better fit when the weather heats up than with my BB58.
This is NOT a perfect watch. Not even for me. I would personally tweak the design in few areas (applied indices like the BB Pro and 1 or 2 mm smaller / less negative space) but that's the subjectivity creeping in now the seal has been broken. As it is, I love it and I love what it represents. Not the spirit of adventure or exploration (or some rubbish like that) but the very nature of this hobby and this community. So much of it, driven by subjectivity. If you take that away, you're left with a watch that it's really, really hard to find fault with.
Review: Why you can't fault the Tudor Ranger
Yes
No
- Dial
- Case size
- Bracelet
- Dial
- Case size
- Bracelet
Abstinent watch nerd.
I think this watch is simple perfection. You could gift this watch to someone who isn't a watch nerd and it would last a lifetime without issue. Collectors are a different breed. When it comes down to telling time, a great build & awesome bracelet , the Ranger is hard to beat
I like that the Ranger is an honest attempt at a luxury field watch, in much the same way the Pelagos is a luxury tool diver.
Tudor seems to be sticking to it's founding philosophy, in that they produce high quality watches that are relatively affordable for the average person. They have moved up market, but in doing so they left lots of room for brands like Sinn, Damasko, Marathon, etc., to pick up the slack.
If I was in the market for a luxury "one watch" watch, I'd likely pick the Ranger.
Some people have spent quite a bit of time and effort trying to convince others that this watch is great. If you love it, that's all that matters. It's a matter of taste and everyone has their own.
I find it amusing to list literally most of the genuine major aesthetic criticisms, ask us to ignore them, and then bring a couple of them back up at the end and give an imperfect watch 5/5 for quality; you cannot have your cake and eat it. You like it but you don’t? No, sorry, are you wearing it sarcastically then, or to make some sort of statement? There are better modern interpretations of vintage field watches in and around this price point in Bremont and Vertex; I’d even float a variety of other companies if you want genuine vintage field watch styles for good value. F*** it, for the money (and change) go buy a refurbished WWII Dirty Dozen or a genuine vintage Smiths Everest if you want ultimate field watch bragging rights. You have to admit, Tudor might have dropped the ball on this one.
I find it amusing to list literally most of the genuine major aesthetic criticisms, ask us to ignore them, and then bring a couple of them back up at the end and give an imperfect watch 5/5 for quality; you cannot have your cake and eat it. You like it but you don’t? No, sorry, are you wearing it sarcastically then, or to make some sort of statement? There are better modern interpretations of vintage field watches in and around this price point in Bremont and Vertex; I’d even float a variety of other companies if you want genuine vintage field watch styles for good value. F*** it, for the money (and change) go buy a refurbished WWII Dirty Dozen or a genuine vintage Smiths Everest if you want ultimate field watch bragging rights. You have to admit, Tudor might have dropped the ball on this one.
Are they flaws, or intentional design choices not intended to appeal to all collectors?
Thanks for the review. If my budget ever allows it, I’d love to get one.
Are they flaws, or intentional design choices not intended to appeal to all collectors?
They were listed as criticisms, so one would assume they are aesthetic flaws to the reviewer. We can disagree on this, and we can appreciate the design decisions from Tudor, but if on the whole they are not well-received (as the Ranger is seeming to be in some quarters) then it is not unfair to say the watch is flawed.
Also (edit), why would you not want to design a watch that would appeal to a majority of collectors, especially if you are trying to go for a certain, popular style, and therefore those who would go for such an item? Do you like money? It’s not like they make a dive watch you can’t swim in (oh wait… they do, the Pelagos lume doesn’t like water). Guess Tudor are unique then… carry on.
I think this watch is simple perfection. You could gift this watch to someone who isn't a watch nerd and it would last a lifetime without issue. Collectors are a different breed. When it comes down to telling time, a great build & awesome bracelet , the Ranger is hard to beat
I agree. This watch is what the Explorer I used to be, a simple reliable field watch at a good price. My local AD's staff know I'm a Tudor fangirl and one made a point of showing me the example they have. I immediately put in an expression of interest. This watch is exactly what it says it is and I love it for that. I love the bracelet (I won't buy one that's not on the bracelet) and it's quick adjustment system. I love that it's almost all brushed surfaces except for a polished ring between the case and crystal. That ring pops. I can't wait to add one to my collection.
Needs to be smaller overall. Other than that I'm happy with the design and printed indices.
Tried it on. Good size and generally good looking watch, IMO, but in certain lighting/at certain angles the minute hand disappears at the last third where there’s no lume. One of my favorite aspects of many Tudor watches is their extreme legibility. In this case, the minute hand lume nearly matches the hour hand in length, and when the metal of the hands disappears in certain light/at some angles it becomes much harder to read. Same with the red top of the seconds hand. Makes the handset look stubby. Can’t unsee it. The BB36 or 41 is far more legible, and the polish goes away as you use it—better field watch IMO. When the all steel BB39 (hopefully) arrives with (hopefully) a T-fit clasp on a brushed, non-riveted bracelet, that’ll be near perfect, IMO.
I think they are aiming to appeal to non-collectors, who account for more than 90% of their revenue. Collectors, those who focus of the list of criticisms provided, represent a fraction of a fraction of of those who actually buy watches. Us obsessive collectors who criticize any possible aspect of a timepiece do not keep companies like Tudor in business. The “normies“ who live life with a single watch or just look at a watch and think, “that looks nice, I think I’ll have one” keep companies like Tudor in business. So I think they are focusing on the bottom line.
Clearly I’m biased and had a normie moment when I “impulse” purchased the Ranger the first week it was out. But I have these moments often and am not bound by or concerned with heritage dimensions or aesthetics. I think when simply evaluated as a timepiece, and not compared to every Rolex, Tudor, or other field watch that has come before this one, it’s a super solid timepiece. 39mm, pretty ideal size these days. Workhorse movement with solid power reserve, accuracy, and other mighty fine traits. Super legible and great timeteller. Amazing bracelet. Simple and ready for anything life can throw at it.
I like it. I got one.
Great and honest personal review. Subjectivity is what keeps us engaged in this hobby, to spend and to share watch experiences. It wasn’t that long ago when the 41mm Heritage Ranger was too big and people lit torches for a 39mm, and here we are. Personally I prefer the 41mm version and regret selling it. Enjoy your new Ranger for what it is and your why.
I think your review hit it right on the head. It fits all the criteria of what a tool watch should be. I'm guessing the people who may find fault with it are comparing it to something other than a tool watch? Not sure, but I personally think it's beautiful in a rugged way. The only fault I have with it is it's not a Timex. lol
I think your review hit it right on the head. It fits all the criteria of what a tool watch should be. I'm guessing the people who may find fault with it are comparing it to something other than a tool watch? Not sure, but I personally think it's beautiful in a rugged way. The only fault I have with it is it's not a Timex. lol
Are we? Could it be that it’s just not a nice looking watch and there are better modern interpretations of vintage field watches, and for the price you could actually get an excellent vintage field watch? Plus, it’s not a Timex? Is that allowed? Can we be so honest as that or do we have to have an ulterior motive? Can one say they don’t like a watch anymore?
They were listed as criticisms, so one would assume they are aesthetic flaws to the reviewer. We can disagree on this, and we can appreciate the design decisions from Tudor, but if on the whole they are not well-received (as the Ranger is seeming to be in some quarters) then it is not unfair to say the watch is flawed.
Also (edit), why would you not want to design a watch that would appeal to a majority of collectors, especially if you are trying to go for a certain, popular style, and therefore those who would go for such an item? Do you like money? It’s not like they make a dive watch you can’t swim in (oh wait… they do, the Pelagos lume doesn’t like water). Guess Tudor are unique then… carry on.
Sure, but as I said, the watch isn't necessarily designed for the fickle opinions of the watch community at large.
I think the community often forgets that it is a tiny portion of watch sales. Brands throw us a bone on occasion, so we feel like we are being listened to, but largely they want to sell to normal people who buy a few of watches in their lifetime.
More a case of "Just got a promotion at work? Fancy yourself a bit of a modern day adventurer? Here's a watch designed to travel across the Greenland glaciers.", rather than "Hey overly critical community of people with wildly varied tastes, how about a fairly plain watch that won't impress people on social media when compared to watches costing several times more. (That you can't actually buy anyway)".
The kind of people Tudor wants to sell lots of Rangers to, aren't the kind of people who buy vintage field watches. This goes back to the fact that the watch community is small, the vintage collecting part of the community is smaller still.
I agree with everything in the review but at the end of the day, I think it’s just an ugly watch. It’s a dial swap away from being the perfect watch.
Nicely put. I think the ugly part is subjective but it's definitely plain.
I agree with everything in the review but at the end of the day, I think it’s just an ugly watch. It’s a dial swap away from being the perfect watch.
Nicely put. I think the ugly part is subjective but it's definitely plain.
Nicely put. I think the ugly part is subjective but it's definitely plain.
it’s not ugly at all, the printing could be sharper with off white printing instead of Lime color.
Couldn't have put it better myself, when I tried one on it just felt right.
it’s not ugly at all, the printing could be sharper with off white printing instead of Lime color.
I really don't see lime. I see more cream than anything.
It's a looker that's for sure! Personally, I was surprised they didn't opt for a slightly smaller case size with this release. Out of interest, what case size would you have preferred to see?
It's a looker that's for sure! Personally, I was surprised they didn't opt for a slightly smaller case size with this release. Out of interest, what case size would you have preferred to see?
I genuinely love it as it is. But would have liked to see it just a couple of mm smaller. Maybe even just 1! Only because it wears larger than my BB58 as there's no bezel and more dial.
Great review! I appreciate that you took the time to clear out some of the "noise" attached to this watch since it's release. I almost got swayed by them. Thanks!
Great review! I appreciate that you took the time to clear out some of the "noise" attached to this watch since it's release. I almost got swayed by them. Thanks!
Thanks. Not trying to convince anyone to like it, only you can decide if it does it for you or not. But the noise can be distracting.
Sure, but as I said, the watch isn't necessarily designed for the fickle opinions of the watch community at large.
I think the community often forgets that it is a tiny portion of watch sales. Brands throw us a bone on occasion, so we feel like we are being listened to, but largely they want to sell to normal people who buy a few of watches in their lifetime.
More a case of "Just got a promotion at work? Fancy yourself a bit of a modern day adventurer? Here's a watch designed to travel across the Greenland glaciers.", rather than "Hey overly critical community of people with wildly varied tastes, how about a fairly plain watch that won't impress people on social media when compared to watches costing several times more. (That you can't actually buy anyway)".
The kind of people Tudor wants to sell lots of Rangers to, aren't the kind of people who buy vintage field watches. This goes back to the fact that the watch community is small, the vintage collecting part of the community is smaller still.
The kind of people Tudor wants to sell lots of Rangers to, aren't the kind of people who buy vintage field watches. This goes back to the fact that the watch community is small, the vintage collecting part of the community is smaller still.
Exactly. I see the new Ranger as a successor to the Explorer, just as Tudor is what Rolex used to be. I can get a Ranger on the bracelet for $4,610 NZ instead of an Explorer and have $6,490 NZ left over.
I'd love to have an Explorer one day. It's one of my Lotto watches but that's the only way I'll get one.
If I'm really lucky I'm going to pick one up today. I love it. The only change I would make would be for it to be a little smaller.
The 1016 is one of my grail watches. One that I will never own. This watch gives a nod to that style of watch. I like the printed dial. I see people saying I wish it had applied markers, some polish, and snowflake hands. Then it would be a BB41, not a Ranger.
If I'm really lucky I'm going to pick one up today. I love it. The only change I would make would be for it to be a little smaller.
The 1016 is one of my grail watches. One that I will never own. This watch gives a nod to that style of watch. I like the printed dial. I see people saying I wish it had applied markers, some polish, and snowflake hands. Then it would be a BB41, not a Ranger.
Originally I wouldn't have said no to 1 or 2 mm smaller BUT in all honesty, I've grown to love it. Good luck today! Let me know how you get on.
Originally I wouldn't have said no to 1 or 2 mm smaller BUT in all honesty, I've grown to love it. Good luck today! Let me know how you get on.
My local AD had two in stock, one on the bracelet and one on the hybrid strap. The watch looks way better in person than in most photos. Watchgirllife on Instagram has some good ones and the picture on your background is another. People complain about it being too brushed but really it's a fine brushing and it shines just fine. I went ahead and bought the one on bracelet.
I'm the odd one out here tried it on when it first came out loved it, but my wife said it looked too small on my wrist so that put me off
I too read all the negative about the Ranger when it came out. Lot's of people liked it but wow, the people who didn't were loud and proud! A few years ago I stated that I would love to have a Ranger if Tudor only made it in 38-39mm. Well they finally did but with all the negatives written I started half believing them. But I had yet to see one in the flesh. Finally, I saw one at Heathrow airport on my way home. I bought it but was in too much of a hurry to really spend much time with it. I just put it in my bag and headed to my plane for home. Finally back home I was able to get it on my wrist. Best watch purchase in years! Love the simplicity, the starkness, and the modern touch given to this model by Tudor. Looking back on the first negative comments about this Ranger I'm glad I didn't fall for the negative hype. To me this 39mm Ranger is the perfect embodiment of a modern Rolex Explorer 1016.