Tudor Heritage BlackBay and the Triplock crown

[Blackdog]

People have asked before if the new Blackbay and Pelagos do have a Triplock crown.

The external o-ring gasket on the tube of the Pelagos is visible when thr crown is unscrewed, and I believe it has been confirmed that the design of the Pelagos crown and tube is the same as the modern 703/7030 Rolex Triplock. Like this (these drawings have been posted in this forum before, I borrowed them from an old post):
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/rolex_image637351_zpsedb440a0.jpg

It was sort of assumed so far that the Blackbay would have a twin-lock type of crown/tube.

I have a Blackbay and was curious too, so I decided to pop the hood open and take a look.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/IMG_4751_zpsc323e1bf.jpg

I unlocked the stem and found that, apart from the obvious cosmetic differences of the crown and the aluminum cosmetic ring, the design of the crown and tube is that of the early Triplock that was orginally fitted to the early 5513/1680s. The design is just like the 702/7020 Triplock crown and tube as seen here:
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/rolex_image637346_zpse51eab3d.jpg

Here’s the crown, with it’s internal gasket.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/IMG_4766_zpsac1196c8.jpg

Here’s the tube with it’s two o-rings inside, and the seating for the round gasket that's inside the crown:
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/IMG_4765_zps577a3309.jpg
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/IMG_4762_zpsd60e512d.jpg

The Twinlock crown design has only one gasket inside the tube, and the crown gasket is flat as it seals right against the top the tube, as seen here:
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/TwinLock2O-Ring_zps3fdbecc5.jpg

I didn’t remove the tube, but I think it’s safe to assume that there is a gasket between the tube and the case too.

The colored aluminum ring on the tube seems to have no function in the crown locking and to be purely cosmetic.

So to the question: Does the Blackbay sport a Triplock crown ? IMO the answer is yes, one like the early 702/7020 Triplock crowns in fact.

[nyyankees]

That's fascinating. Thanks for posting.

[ssultan]

Cool!

[handsfull]

Very nice of you to post pics! HELPFUL! Thank you

[Rogdogg]

Cool thread. Thanks for taking the time and sharing your findings with us.

[Old Expat Beast]

Thank you, that's an interesting and well presented post.

[Blackdog]

Thanks. Glad you found it at least interesting.

Right now I'm fighting the temptation of opening it again and unmount the tube this time… I'd love to check if a Rolex type Triplock tube and crown could be fitted in there…:thinking:

So far common sense has prevailed...:thumbsup:

[adzman808]

Great post, I wondered how the TBB crown functioned, there's more to it than I'd realised (not that I realise much) and after reading your post, I'm impressed that Tudor have got the crown to visually screw down to the red collar, considering there's actually a gasket in there!

One unrelated question you may know the answer too....

How is the bezel held on? Is it similar to the modern ceramic rolex divers, or can it safely be prised off and re-applied like the older subs?

[NKflyer]

How is the bezel held on? Is it similar to the modern ceramic rolex divers, or can it safely be prised off and re-applied like the older subs?

It's similar to the Rolex ceramic bezels.

[Blackdog]

Great post, I wondered how the TBB crown functioned, there's more to it than I'd realised (not that I realise much) and after reading your post, I'm impressed that Tudor have got the crown to visually screw down to the red collar, considering there's actually a gasket in there!
Thanks, I found it hard to believe that Tudor would downgrade the BlackBay specs to a Twinlock-like crown. After all it's the descendant of the Mighty Sub !

On a Triplock-like design the crown gets screwed down until the top edge of the tube bottoms against the inside of the crown, thus compressing the crown gasket against the tube recess just a predesigned amount. The red collar is short enough so that it never actually touches the crown. Pretty much like on a Rolex Triplock the crown never actually touches the case.

I have to admit that I am not a fan of the red collar. I would have preferred a thicker crown. I guess I'm too used to the "form follows function" concept, and the color ring is essentially useless.

One unrelated question you may know the answer too....

How is the bezel held on? Is it similar to the modern ceramic rolex divers, or can it safely be prised off and re-applied like the older subs?
I presume that NKflyer is right, the bezel assembly design seems to be like the one in the newer Subs.

[adzman808]

Thanks to both NKflyer and Blackdog for your answers!

I guess that explains why the aftermarket bezel insert brigade haven't jumped on the TBB!

The coloured ring annoyed me a lot less when I saw the watch in the metal than I thought it would, but that said your confirming of it being functionally useless, does match my opinion of its aesthetic purpose!

[NKflyer]

I presume that NKflyer is right, the bezel assembly design seems to be like the one in the newer Subs.

Yeah, I actually had my bezel pop off so I got to see the inner workings first hand. Had to send to RSC New York to have it repaired and this was well before Tudor came to the USA. They were like "what the heck is this thing" :chuckle:.

[Blackdog]

Yeah, I actually had my bezel pop off so I got to see the inner workings first hand. Had to send to RSC New York to have it repaired and this was well before Tudor came to the USA. They were like "what the heck is this thing" :chuckle:.
OK, that confirms it then. Thanks for the info NKflyer.

In my opinion the TBB has two weak points as a serious diving instrument, that the older Tudor Sub did not have.

The new bezel design, if it is like the new Rolex ceramics, relies on glue to hold the insert in place. The older design of the aluminium bezel that snaps in place and is held put by elastic tension is pure genius. It’s been in use for 60 years, how many old Subs have you seen with a missing insert ? People tends to worry about cracking the new ceramic bezels, I would be more worried about them becoming unglued.

The function-less (hence unnecessary) cosmetic colour ring. Like I mentioned before, due to the crown/tube design, there is a very small gap between the aluminium colour collar and the crown when the last is screwed down. This creates a spot where sea water will accumulate and will be difficult to rinse after a dive. I had problems with said ring, it got corroded after just two diving holidays an was replaced under warranty. If I could have it my way I would loose the ring completely or replace it with a stainless steel one. But even this problem is just cosmetic. The crown and tube are still perfectly safe and functional even if the colour collar completely rots to dust.

So that’s still pretty good for a serious diver's watch. Others are doing much worse in my book (don’t even get me started on Omega’s He valve…):thumbsdow

[shofzr]

OK, that confirms it then. Thanks for the info NKflyer.



In my opinion the TBB has two weak points as a serious diving instrument, that the older Tudor Sub did not have.



The new bezel design, if it is like the new Rolex ceramics, relies on glue to hold the insert in place. The older design of the aluminium bezel that snaps in place and is held put by elastic tension is pure genius. It’s been in use for 60 years, how many old Subs have you seen with a missing insert ? People tends to worry about cracking the new ceramic bezels, I would be more worried about them becoming unglued.



The function-less (hence unnecessary) cosmetic colour ring. Like I mentioned before, due to the crown/tube design, there is a very small gap between the aluminium colour collar and the crown when the last is screwed down. This creates a spot where sea water will accumulate and will be difficult to rinse after a dive. I had problems with said ring, it got corroded after just two diving holidays an was replaced under warranty. If I could have it my way I would loose the ring completely or replace it with a stainless steel one. But even this problem is just cosmetic. The crown and tube are still perfectly safe and functional even if the colour collar completely rots to dust.



So that’s still pretty good for a serious diver's watch. Others are doing much worse in my book (don’t even get me started on Omega’s He valve…):thumbsdow


Glue is NOT used to hold the ceramic inserts in place, they are held in by friction.

[Blackdog]

Glue is NOT used to hold the ceramic inserts in place, they are held in by friction.
That's indeed very good news. Thanks for the clarification.

Have you seen a diagram or pictures of the new bezel assemblies anywhere ?

[shofzr]

That's indeed very good news. Thanks for the clarification.



Have you seen a diagram or pictures of the new bezel assemblies anywhere ?




Your welcome, 👍
Below is a link that shows an exploded view of the GMT Master II, and Submariner.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=283021


Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

[cajunron]

Great info. Thanks. :thumbsup:

[RollieVerde]

I've always though the BB is not really for diver's as much as a fashion piece for those that wear diver's watches and don't dive. There's no wet suit extension on the bracelet, no crown guards, and the rating of 660 ft. is not exactly the accepted norm for true diving timepieces. The Pelagos is the real dive watch in the Tudor line now. You can dive with the BB certainly; but it's more concerned with form than function.

[Dalton]

Great write up! Im waiting for mine to arrive today. Can't wait! I settled on the TBB as my sole watch for the next 2 years.

[Blackdog]

I've always though the BB is not really for diver's as much as a fashion piece for those that wear diver's watches and don't dive. There's no wet suit extension on the bracelet, no crown guards, and the rating of 660 ft. is not exactly the accepted norm for true diving timepieces. The Pelagos is the real dive watch in the Tudor line now. You can dive with the BB certainly; but it's more concerned with form than function.
I see what you mean, and I agree that the Pelagos is a more no-nonsense design.
I also agree that at least a simple diver's extension should have been included in the clasp.

But specifically regarding the 200m rating I believe it is more a market position strategy than a real limitation. "200m-660ft" certainly looks more "vintage" on that dial, but I'm pretty sure that the BB is capable to withstand much more than 20bar in real life. The design is pretty solid.

We know that the Triplock design crown is good for more than 10 times that, to begin with.

The caseback seals in exactly the same manner as any Sub Oyster case. Being flat-ish and larger (compared to a Sub's), it could be more prone to deformation under pressure, but the threaded area is seriously reinforced and thicker. The remaining thinner part is of a much smaller diameter.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/IMG_4747_zps45ef5136.jpg

Compare it to a Sub's case back and you can see what I mean (picture borrowed from the net):
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/caseback_16610_zpsf60cdf96.jpg

The crystal is domed, and sgnificantly thicker than the Sub's. I had mine replaced by the RSC because it was scratched, and the watchmaker was very surprised to find out that it was almost Sea Dweller thick (his words).

All in all, it seems to be a seriously engineered piece. I'm pretty sure that 20atm is just a marketing decision to keep the vintage theme and to further distance it from the Pelagos spec-wise. But, in any case, it's all just speculation…

[RollieVerde]

I see what you mean, and I agree that the Pelagos is a more no-nonsense design.
I also agree that at least a simple diver's extension should have been included in the clasp.

But specifically regarding the 200m rating I believe it is more a market position strategy than a real limitation. "200m-660ft" certainly looks more "vintage" on that dial, but I'm pretty sure that the BB is capable to withstand much more than 20bar in real life. The design is pretty solid.

We know that the Triplock design crown is good for more than 10 times that, to begin with.

The caseback seals in exactly the same manner as any Sub Oyster case. Being flat-ish and larger (compared to a Sub's), it could be more prone to deformation under pressure, but the threaded area is seriously reinforced and thicker. The remaining thinner part is of a much smaller diameter.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/IMG_4747_zps45ef5136.jpg

Compare it to a Sub's case back and you can see what I mean (picture borrowed from the net):
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/caseback_16610_zpsf60cdf96.jpg

The crystal is domed, and sgnificantly thicker than the Sub's. I had mine replaced by the RSC because it was scratched, and the watchmaker was very surprised to find out that it was almost Sea Dweller thick (his words).

All in all, it seems to be a seriously engineered piece. I'm pretty sure that 20atm is just a marketing decision to keep the vintage theme and to further distance it from the Pelagos spec-wise. But, in any case, it's all just speculation…

Very interesting. I still wish we knew more about how Tudors are made, and if Rolex builds them along side the Rolex lines or if there's a dedicated manufacturing facility somewhere else. They seem more secretive about Tudor production than they are about Rolex manufacturing, which (recent tours of the plant in print aside) has always been pretty mysterious. The fact that the crystal is so thick is wild. Your retro marketing point could be exactly right. Thanks for the insight.

[adzman808]

Re the earlier comments on TBB bezel removal and that it's basically the same as a SubC...

I found this on youtube, not something I'd personally do to mine, but shows it can be done at least!


http://youtu.be/snSEaxqs5hE

EDIT:

Ok embedding didn't work, here's the link!



http://youtu.be/snSEaxqs5hE

[shofzr]

Re the earlier comments on TBB bezel removal and that it's basically the same as a SubC...

I found this on youtube, not something I'd personally do to mine, but shows it can be done at least!


http://youtu.be/snSEaxqs5hE

EDIT:

Ok embedding didn't work, here's the link!



http://youtu.be/snSEaxqs5hE




That's one guy who will most likely loose his bezel.
The Hytrel ring that holds the bezel on is ONE TIME USE ONLY, the fact he can push it back on with his fingers shows it is not secure.

It takes a press to reinstall the bezel with a NEW Hytrel ring.

Cheers


Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

[adzman808]

Good to know, thanks!

[Blackdog]

That's one guy who will most likely loose his bezel.

It takes a press to reinstall the bezel with a NEW Hytrel ring.

It was my impression too.
Still makes me wonder what was wrong with the older system.
Are there any advantages with this one ?

BTW I see no click spring. What makes the bezel click on the new design ?

[shofzr]

It was my impression too.

Still makes me wonder what was wrong with the older system.

Are there any advantages with this one ?



BTW I see no click spring. What makes the bezel click on the new design ?




In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the old system,

However the new Hytrel system is more consistent regarding how smooth the bezel turns, the old system just requires more adjustment to be smooth.

If you look close you will see a "dot" at each lug, 3 are spring loaded ball bearings and the one at the 7 O clock lug is the spring loaded click.


Cheers


Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

[Blackdog]

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the old system,

However the new Hytrel system is more consistent regarding how smooth the bezel turns, the old system just requires more adjustment to be smooth.

If you look close you will see a "dot" at each lug, 3 are spring loaded ball bearings and the one at the 7 O clock lug is the spring loaded click.


Cheers


Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk
Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense.
Cheers.

[themaninblack]

This is an excellent thread and thanks to the OP. One of my watches is a Black Bay so I appreciate all the information. I agree that the depth ratings on Rolex and Tudor may sometimes be more about marketing than reality. For example I am certain a GMT Master ii can beat the 100m rating!

[Blackdog]

This is an excellent thread and thanks to the OP….
You're welcome !

For example I am certain a GMT Master ii can beat the 100m rating!
That's very likely.
But remember that it's all just bragging rights, really. You're not likely to find yourself in the situation of personally verifying that...

All that said, this ad from 1972 always comes to mind (and the test case wasn't even a Submariner)….
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/CrushedOyster_zps9cc759b7.jpg

[Swearengen]

Just wondering if temptation has got the better of you yet?
I am curious to see how it would look with a Rolex Triplock Crown in place. :cheers::cheers:

Thanks. Glad you found it at least interesting.

Right now I'm fighting the temptation of opening it again and unmount the tube this time… I'd love to check if a Rolex type Triplock tube and crown could be fitted in there…:thinking:

So far common sense has prevailed...:thumbsup:

[Blackdog]

Just wondering if temptation has got the better of you yet?
I am curious to see how it would look with a Rolex Triplock Crown in place. :cheers::cheers:
No. Opening the back and removing the stem to have a look was rather non-invasive and I felt comfortable I could do it without breaking anything.

Now unmounting the tube is a bit more involved than I'm prepared to go with an expensive piece like this. I'm not a watchmaker/technician, just an amateur. I don't have access to genuine parts. Common sense tells me I better leave it well alone.

I do not have a Rolex tube to test anyway, so I'll stop the investigations here.

Now, if I ever have problems with corrosion on the cosmetic tube ring again I will consider getting the crown/tube replaced with a standard Triplock by a properly qualified (independent) watchmaker.

[sheldonsmith]

People have asked before if the new Blackbay and Pelagos do have a Triplock crown.



The external o-ring gasket on the tube of the Pelagos is visible when thr crown is unscrewed, and I believe it has been confirmed that the design of the Pelagos crown and tube is the same as the modern 703/7030 Rolex Triplock. Like this (these drawings have been posted in this forum before, I borrowed them from an old post):

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/rolex_image637351_zpsedb440a0.jpg



It was sort of assumed so far that the Blackbay would have a twin-lock type of crown/tube.



I have a Blackbay and was curious too, so I decided to pop the hood open and take a look.

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/IMG_4751_zpsc323e1bf.jpg



I unlocked the stem and found that, apart from the obvious cosmetic differences of the crown and the aluminum cosmetic ring, the design of the crown and tube is that of the early Triplock that was orginally fitted to the early 5513/1680s. The design is just like the 702/7020 So to the question: Does the Blackbay sport a Triplock crown ? IMO the answer is yes, one like the early 702/7020 Triplock crowns in fact.


So, if the BB tube design crown is similar to the older Triplock crowns, how are the newer Triplock/Twinlock crowns different. I thought Twinlock/Triplock were essentially the same design over the years.

Just curious what the difference is between older Triplock and newer Triplock.

Thanks,

-Sheldon

[multimedia]

Yes, thank you very much for sharing this with the forum. Much appreciated! Very interesting read.

Cheers,
Joe

[Blackdog]

So, if the BB tube design crown is similar to the older Triplock crowns, how are the newer Triplock/Twinlock crowns different. I thought Twinlock/Triplock were essentially the same design over the years.

Just curious what the difference is between older Triplock and newer Triplock.

Thanks,

-Sheldon

Both Triplock designs work in the same way regarding the water ingress protection through the stem/tube: 2 stacked o-rings inside the tube and one additional o-ring inside the crown. There's a lip on the top edge of the tube that bottoms against the inside of the crown when completely screwed down. The o-ring inside the crown sits in a recess and it's only compressed up to a pre-designed point.

On the 7020/702 Triplock the threads are on the bottom part of the tube (outer-most part of the crown). There's no visible o-ring when the crown is unscrewed.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/rolex_image637346_zpse51eab3d.jpg

On the 7030/703 Triplock, the thread is on the top part of the tube (inner-most part of the crown). And there's an additional (fourth) o-ring that is visible when the crown is unscrewed. This o-ring actually protects the threads of the crown/tube against water, dust, sand, etc.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/rolex_image637351_zpsedb440a0.jpg

The Twinlock is a simpler design. It has just one o-ring inside the tube and a flat gasket inside the crown, which is compressed against the top of the tube until the crown bottoms against the case.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x166/Blackdog_017/BlackBay/TwinLock2O-Ring_zps3fdbecc5.jpg

The very early Subs: big-crowns, and 5512/5513s used an oversized version of the Twinlock. I believe that with the introduction of the Sea Dweller the 7020 Triplock was introduced, and later on the current version that is the 7030. Hope this clarifies the issue further...

[1William]

Thank you for a very informative post. I learned a lot.

[sheldonsmith]

Yes, very cool. Thank you. This is the kind of post that makes TRF a must visit for anyone interested and appreciates Rolex. :cheers:

[RHJ]

Thanks for this interesting post!