Please consider donating to help offset our high running costs.
I tried this on yesterday and it did nothing for me and I thought I would like it. The proportions felt of. Maybe if it was 36mm it might have appealed more. The dial also has in my opinion little dynamism in the metal which also surprised as some of the images show texture and a bit more interest.
I think I like it, @Bourne1984 is it the same width as a bb58?
Not sure about the black bay 58 proportions but this seemed a bit large. I should add that I own a DateJust 36 and for me smaller is always more attractive and I’m on the AD list for an op 34 which for me wven with a 7 1/4” wrist is a great size and my current collection ranges from 33 to 36.
I think that watches with these very empty and spare dials don't always look very good when they are scaled up. That was exactly my problem when the Explorer was upsized from 36mm to 39mm. I like 39mm as a size in general, but not for that dial. Fortunately, I found someone who liked it and made a good trade. Unfortunately, I had already sold my 36mm Explorer, and I wish I hadn't.
I agree. The empty space with the slightly undersized logo looks off. As previously mentioned I tried it on and it looks unbalanced to my eye.
I think the criticism is a bit unfair. In fairness I haven’t seen it in the flesh but I like Tudor’s direction, first with the bb58, then the pro and now the ranger. It’s a re-imagining of classic designs (mostly Rolex) but keeping to the ethos of the original. Considerably less blingy than Rolex’s updates of the same model. Plus they are at an affordable price, long may it continue.
Tudor did a fantastic job with the BB58 and the BB Pro. But the Ranger is pretty much a reissue and replica of the 90200/220 with an awkward dial and a new case size. There is nothing imaginative about it.