I was thinking the same at first, but apparently Rolex was too cheap to actually come out with a true sub-seconds calibre. The movement has a central seconds hand, it's just capped with a pin, not unlike what some microbrands do with ETA and Sellita movements when they're trying to get that 2-hander look.
Faux Rivets and The Sickness for The Thiccness are two reasons modern Tudor will remain a strong "No-Go" for me.
Hunh. Are you 100% on this? Because the watch does have small seconds in that 6 o'clock subdial, right? So you're saying the movement is actually a center-seconds one and then they've somehow rigged it up to a subdial and capped off the center post?
Not saying you're wrong---I don't have the knowledge to make an assertion either way. But Rolex did create a new movement for this watch (the 7140), and they do all their own in-house stuff: it seems out of character that they'd launch a new watch with a brand new movement and then just b.s. their way through it like this... And it's not like they've never had small seconds movements before.
With apologies to the OP, whose thread is now thoroughly hijacked. 😀
Watch out. It's a hard sickness to clear. I got a BB41 and suddenly this thing seemed pretty modest in size. Now anything under 40mm feels unbearably tiny.
It's not the diameter that's the problem. It's not the THICKNESS that is the problem. it is the sheer wall of steel that the case side presents itself as. I came very close to picking up a 41mm BB as well, but that slab-sidedness looks like they just didn't know what to do with the sides. It would be like putting my 2 year old in an XXL winter coat or something.
Exactly. It’s not the thickness that’s necessarily a problem but they gotta introduce some lines somehow and break up that hockey puck looking case. I almost think they do it intentionally to force us to move onto Rolex.
ALSO: as a last comment... nice watch- and very cool background in the pic.
I think we all just want Tudor to reissue a true Tudor sub, but they probably never will to preserve the status of the Rolex sub.
Hunh. Are you 100% on this? Because the watch does have small seconds in that 6 o'clock subdial, right? So you're saying the movement is actually a center-seconds one and then they've somehow rigged it up to a subdial and capped off the center post?
I can't speak on everyone's behalf, but this statement rings so true for me. Square markers and no date, and I might own something other than an Omega.
Yes, the movement is actually a center-seconds one. A lot of Sellita/ETA movements rigged up with small-seconds subdial have extraneous parts to facilitate this, as seen here:
Even Sellita could afford to make a cannon pinion that covered the center seconds pivot on their subdial-equipped movements.
The overall architecture of the movement, which utilizes a directly driven center seconds wheel, is still the same as the standard 2824/SW200. Vintage watches used to have small seconds by default due to movement architecture at the time.
Is this necessarily a cheap-out move by Rolex? On some level are all subseconds movements built this way?
Just trying to understand how disappointed people should be. 😀
