Hello gentlemen, yesterday i had the chance to have a first time look on the Tudor Black Bay with the inhouse movement at the local AD. It is a pretty impressive watch. There i was told that the new BBs have a new inhouse movement complared to the older models with ETA movement.. Does anybody have any experience with both of them? The inhouse models seem to be a bit thicker and do cost more. Which one would you prefer and why? Thanks, Sascha
I thought the general feel was that the ETA might be a safer bet in the longer run, as watchmakers other than Tudor will be able to work on it/get parts. In house becomes a whole different ball game
Find a black bay with black bezel with eta. Very short production run. Announced in Nov 2015 but was replaced by in house version at March 2016 Basel. Here's mine but replaced with leather strap
almost the eta. This has been an internal debate for months. Ive even tried them on. both the 36mm and the 41mm. In the end, what gets me is the little coloured bit thats the protruding crown tube. I know its anodized, but it looks so cheap.
I like the ETA because of aesthetic reasons (the rose, oval text etc). These modified ETAs can be regulated to being extremely accurate so an in house movement that's harder to service in the future doesn't do much for me either.
The purist (or possibly the snob) in me says go in house. The Tudor movement is very close in design to Rolex's latest and greatest with similar specs like 70 hours reserve from one barrel (are you listening Omega?). I do believe there is a trade off with case thickness but if you are spending big dough on a modern watch, get the best version you can would be my thinking. Let's not forget that ETA movements will become increasingly hard to get parts for eventually if Swatch get their way so servicing options/cost may not be as big a differentiating factor further down the line as many think.
Seriously ETA movements parts will be plentiful for a long time. I went for the ETA as i prefer the small details difference ( tudor rose, text) , thinner case and ETA. Not a fan of the faux rivet bracelet too.
Been discussed a bunch of times here. The eta will be theoretically cheaper to service for years. It was a limited run, and generally people feel it's the more attractive of the 2. Last I checked they are already more expensive on the used market. I've tried them both on and greatly prefer the eta's dimensions.
Check again! Early BBs aren't exactly rare, I have seen them for as little as £1200 and haven't noticed any of the newer ones down that low yet. With the circa 2 year production run I seriously doubt there will be a premium for the ETA model in the mainstream versions any time soon (the short lived ETA BBB may be an exception to this). There are very sound reasons for choosing the ETA flavour but I don't believe rarity and future value vs the later model is one of them. These aren't Rolex Subs or Daytonas where every change makes the last one more desirable.
I say these things with awe, because any company that's managed to convince people that hundreds of thousands of units makes something "rare", or that steel is "rare", and then got people to pay a premium... bravo!
Eta is probably the safer bet with resale etc but the 70hr power reserve is sort of useful if you are rotating your watches.
I'll got for an ETA version when I get one soon. I'm thinking about future servicing when I say I prefer ETA. I've come to appreciate Tudor Black Bays over the Rolex Sub.
