Submariner 14060 Black Bay 58

[doramas]

I'm not talking about value or price. Which has more quality and is better made? The Submariner 14060 or the Tudor BB58?




We are talking about a watch like the Submariner 14060 that was sold from 1990 to 1999 with the calibre 3000 and the Tudor Black Bay 58 is current and has the manufactured calibre MT5402

[G3Z]

The Sub is better quality and better made. Tudor was/is the sister ‘Budget’ brand for Rolex.

That aside, I think the BB58 is a fantastic watch and is amazing value for money- I’d have one myself.

From what I’ve read by owners, the bracelet is the biggest pitfall for the BB58.

[djyolky]

I've heard Tudor is a poor man's Rolex. Is this true?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Polarexplorerii]

Originally Posted by G3Z

The Sub is better quality and better made. Tudor was/is the sister ‘Budget’ brand for Rolex.

That aside, I think the BB58 is a fantastic watch and is amazing value for money- I’d have one myself.

From what I’ve read by owners, the bracelet is the biggest pitfall for the BB58.

this

[eteokles]

With proper maintenance, both should outlive you.

[ap1]

Sub, no faux

[doramas]

I don't think you understand me. We are talking about a watch like the Submariner 14060 that was sold from 1990 to 1999 with the calibre 3000 and the Tudor Black Bay 58 is current and has the manufactured calibre MT5402

*** I edited the post to clarify my question

[garyk]

My wife wears a Tudor, it is awesome!!

[juve]

Sub

[giorgio.a]

A new Tudor Black Bay 58 vs an old 5 digit sub?

Black bay is MUCH better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Etschell]

in this instance bb 58. vs 114060 the subc slays it.

[Gimoozaabi]

I much prefer the appearance of the classic 5 digit 14060 over the BB58. In fact I have the 14060M which are in the same niche and much more prefer the classic monochrome look of the Submariner. The drilled lugs, the two line text on the dial give such a great old-school vibe (heck, I even love the bracelet as it is a part of a certain 'era', it has its charm). The BB58 is a great watch in its own right but the original is trying too hard with its modern-vintage appeal (the blue BB58 I believe is better).

[nachopc]

Submariner, it’s a Rolex!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Panos Cosmatos]

Op’s question is not which watch looks better, it’s a question of which is better made.

I would hope overall it would be the Black Bay 58. The sub is a Rolex, sure, but it would actually be a little insulting to Rolex if their current entry level piece were not better made than their mid level piece that is -thirty years older-. It would be like a 1990 BMW 5-series being a better car than a 2019 3-series. (It’s not.)

I don’t know enough about movements to weigh in, but the Tudor does have the 72-hr power reserve, and the benefit of whatever else Rolex learned the past 3 decades.

Both beautiful watches though and the 14060 is a classic worth every penny.

[rafaquarius21]

Sounds like an unfair comparison and especially if you’re comparing eras.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dr. T]

I reckon the Rolex - better bracelet and bezel (nice sharp edges and finishing). Movement in the Rolex probably better finished. Tudor has a nicer clasp but overall I think the 5 digit Rolexs are superior to current Tudors, especially if you can get a 5 digit Rolex with solid end links. Tudors are great, but I think the bracelet is a noticeable step down in quality...

[LOWERCASE GUY]

Originally Posted by djyolky

I've heard Tudor is a poor man's Rolex. Is this true?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Not sure if serious?

[djyolky]

Originally Posted by LOWERCASE GUY

Not sure if serious?

As serious as your name.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[putterlert]

Not sure why you guys think the 5 digit sub is better made, have you handled the bracelet? It's kinda garbage.

The Tudor is better built than a 90's sub for sure. Obviously the SubC slays it though.

[Panos Cosmatos]

Originally Posted by Dr. T

I reckon the Rolex - better bracelet and bezel (nice sharp edges and finishing). Movement in the Rolex probably better finished. Tudor has a nicer clasp but overall I think the 5 digit Rolexs are superior to current Tudors, especially if you can get a 5 digit Rolex with solid end links. Tudors are great, but I think the bracelet is a noticeable step down in quality...

I have to say the Tudor bracelet is much better, the clasp is obviously and the links are not really different, other than the rivets which are an aesthetic choice and not a craftsmanship thing.

[ltmgeller]

Sub for sure

[Generation]

I would have to go with the Tudor Black Bay Fifty-Eight because of the technology of the movement. Does a 70-hour power reserve and silicon hairspring -- in addition to other modern technology -- sound good to you? If so, the BB58 is the winner.

Here is a review of the Tudor North Flag, which was released in 2015: https://timelessluxwatches.com/revie...h-flag-review/

This was the first watch by Tudor with an in-house movement, the MT5621.

I recommend anyone on the fence between these two watches to read it.

Of course, the Submariner is a Rolex. If that's all that matters to you, get the Rolex.

[LOWERCASE GUY]

Originally Posted by djyolky

As serious as your name.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Haha

[jmed]

Originally Posted by djyolky

I've heard Tudor is a poor man's Rolex. Is this true?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Oh boy here we go again

[iTreelex]

sub. faux rivets suck

[gmtln]

Originally Posted by Panos Cosmatos

Op’s question is not which watch looks better, it’s a question of which is better made.

I would hope overall it would be the Black Bay 58. The sub is a Rolex, sure, but it would actually be a little insulting to Rolex if their current entry level piece were not better made than their mid level piece that is -thirty years older-. It would be like a 1990 BMW 5-series being a better car than a 2019 3-series. (It’s not.)

I don’t know enough about movements to weigh in, but the Tudor does have the 72-hr power reserve, and the benefit of whatever else Rolex learned the past 3 decades.

Both beautiful watches though and the 14060 is a classic worth every penny.

In that case, pointless thread.
Why not compare the 14060 to a 79090 or a BB58 to a SubC

[LOWERCASE GUY]

Originally Posted by jmed

Oh boy here we go again

Don't take the bait

[scousejames]

I guess it's a testament to the 5 digit sub if we are going to compare a 30 year old watch to a brand new one

[Wllnv19]

Sub.

[Rashid.bk]

Well Hans Wilsdorf already answered this question. Without taking away anything from Tudor, the Rolex will always be better.

There’s only two things that Tudor does better, one is subjective aesthetics and feel. The other is economics, it’s priced lower, for reasons.