Review: Tudor Black Bay 54
No one expected it and yet there it was, a Black Bay from Tudor but smaller, much smaller. Yes, it’s historically accurate, but is it just too teeny for modern wrists? Regardless, the Black Bay 54 is here, and you’re probably anxious to know if it fits the bill for you. I know I was, and the experience, as it turns out, wasn’t at all what I expected.
Background
You know there are just some things that seem so obvious with hindsight? Like not buying Bitcoin at the peak, Kodak’s hesitance to go digital or Gossip Girl turning out to be Dan after all. For Tudor, a watch brand that had struggled this side of the Earth-shattering quartz crisis, finding success selling copies of the Rolex Submariner is very much twenty-twenty.
It’s a tried-and-true practice. When Rolex founder Hans Wilsdorf wanted to sell more Rolex Submariners, he made them cheaper and slapped the Tudor brand name on them. And it worked. He sold plenty of Tudor Submariners. I mean, that was pretty ahead of its time when it comes to branding, accessing a different market by rebranding an existing product and making it slightly cheaper.
One of the earliest examples of such a practice, oddly enough, was in the wine trade, where less favourable barrels were sold under a second label from as early as 1904, and perhaps even earlier. These days it’s pretty much a given, and really is just another demonstration of how ahead of his time Wilsdorf was, and how he used his nous to get ahead of the game.
History repeated itself in 2012 when Tudor’s Black Bay took inspiration from those previous Tudor Submariners, and, surprise surprise, a watch built by a Rolex-owned brand that mimicked one of its most popular—and expensive—watches, sold by the bucket load.
Tudor, really, exists on the same plane as Rolex when it comes to developing product. It’s not an artistic endeavour or a soulful creation. It’s a by-the-numbers market analysis, and right now the market says it wants vintage-inspired divers. From there, every stage of the Black Bay’s evolution was simply a case of product optimisation. Do customers want the watch bigger, or smaller? With or without a date window? On a bracelet, or a rubber strap?
That sounds like a pretty obvious approach to running a business, but you’d be surprised how many brands in the watch industry seem oblivious to the idea of making something with mass appeal. Mass appeal isn’t always a good thing, but then neither is creating an indulgent ego-project, and there seem to be many, many watches out there that fit that bill. And so, instead of gathering dust on shelves, the Black Bay flew off them.
The Black Bay 58 was a surprisingly welcome addition to the line-up. Boasting a smaller, slimmer case, no date and a look borrowed straight from a 1958 original, it was most things to most people. Most things. Not everything. Although it was almost perfect, there were still complaints. The snowflake second hand, the notchy crown and bezel texture, the overtly vintage colouration, while widely appreciated, were not universally loved.
So, in 2023, whilst those things were most certainly addressed, they weren’t the only things to receive that data-driven optimisation. The new Black Bay 54 got another tweak as well, one that really wasn’t expected and has become a major sticking point for anyone considering a purchase: it shrank 2mm to a tiny 37mm. What were Tudor thinking?
Review
It’s a strong belief of mine that not only does Rolex make changes based on data, but also tests many of them first with Tudor. Case sizes, materials and orientation. We’ve seen smaller and bigger cases trialled in Tudor, titanium, left-handed—you name it. You could even venture as far as to say that Tudor’s success with its throwback pieces made Rolex concede and build the 1908.
I also believe that as a trend, we’re veering towards smaller case sizes, not larger. Perhaps not 37mm smaller, but possibly. Why not send Tudor over the top to go and find out. And so we have the Black Bay 54, based on the original Tudor Submariner 7922 from 1954. Side note: the reference 7923, a very similar watch to the 7922, is the only dive watch ever produced by Rolex or Tudor that’s manually wound, presumably produced as a real cut-price edition of the typically self-winding watch.
The 7922 was, as the new Black Bay 54 is, 37mm across, with a tiny crown and, in some cases, no minute markers on the first quarter of the bezel. It seems Tudor have gone to extra lengths to capture that cleaner look, with the bezel not only dropping the flashy gold and red for a simpler silver, but even matching the font found on the 7922 as well.
Doesn’t look like Rolex were keen for Tudor to go so far as to borrow the famous Mercedes hour hand again, with the snowflake hour hand, first seen on a Tudor Submariner in 1969, making another appearance. The snowflake hour hand has typically been accompanied by a similar second hand, although here at least Rolex has been gracious enough to allow the second hand to return to the 1954 circular luminous marker—even if it is now muddled.
Besides that, the dial and hands are virtually the same as the 58’s, albeit thinned out slightly in proportion with the reduced size. It’s a shame not to see the rose logo back, but anyone complaining about the three lines of text on the bottom half of the dial should be grateful Tudor didn’t go back to the original four. Dial essays are no new thing, and Tudor resisted bringing it back again.
Probably the best news for Black Bay fans is that the crown and bezel knurling is now less cheese grater and more Rolex. Well, and more Tudor Submariner 7922, which plundered the Rolex parts bin for its crown and bezel, going so far as to still wear the Rolex logo on the crown. No such luck this time, with Tudor finding the budget to sneak the rose logo on there instead.
It’s also slimmer, squeezing in the COSC calibre MT5400 and all 70 of its hours of power reserve into its 11.24mm thick case. It’s also 200m water resistant and available on either the bracelet—which retains the faux rivets some people seem to hate—or a rubber strap with a very nicely fitting metal end link. Both strap options get the T-fit adjustable clasp, making the watch an altogether very well-thought-out package.
At £3,030 on the rubber and £3,200 on the bracelet, it’s also staying just about within reach of good value. Certainly against some of its most well-known competitors. An Omega Seamaster is several thousand more. But the real question on the lips of all who haven’t tried the Black Bay 54: is it too small? The detailing is spot on, the proportions well-balanced, the improvements noticeable over the 58—but the size?
In the hand, it’s too small. There’s no two ways about it. It feels very much more diminutive than even a 39mm Black Bay 58. It seems at that point that there’s no getting around that this watch is only for people with tiny wrists. Or at least, so I thought, because when I tried it on, something weird happened. It looked fine. I have 7-inch wrists that are flat and wide, and it looked great. It was like an optical illusion. Off my wrist, it looked small again, and back on, it looked just right. I can’t explain it, but there it is. Once again, Tudor’s worked some weird kind of magic that makes it irresistible.
So there you have it, a surprise result for the Tudor Black Bay 54. Perhaps you’ve tried it on and agree, or thought differently?
