Fitz's Youtube Channel

Blanchy90 · 29-05-2021 07:15PM

Fitz II wrote: »

The verdict is in......Vostock Review, and apologies to Blanchy this was queued up yesterday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uGVpYS11TM

https://youtu.be/6uGVpYS11TM

No worries we probably won't have too much crossover with our reviews

I'll give it a watch later on

dakar · 29-05-2021 09:01PM

Only a dentist could wield that springbar tool so professionally!

I’m enjoying your videos very much. Very refreshing, not necessarily unbiased, but very open about where your opinions are coming from.

Blanchy90 · 29-05-2021 11:27PM

I see why you said sorry now haha, loved the video interesting to see a luxury watch collectors view on it.

+-60 is way off I've never seen that much except in vintage movements (or when I drop them...)

Laughed the whole way though the video and felt like you were talking directly to me as a Vostok fan.

So how much are you selling the scuba dude for? Haha I've always room in my collection for more vostoks

Cyclingtourist · 30-05-2021 12:47AM

Top marx.

Fitz II · 30-05-2021 06:54AM

Blanchy90 wrote: »

I see why you said sorry now haha, loved the video interesting to see a luxury watch collectors view on it.

+-60 is way off I've never seen that much except in vintage movements (or when I drop them...)

Laughed the whole way though the video and felt like you were talking directly to me as a Vostok fan.

So how much are you selling the scuba dude for? Haha I've always room in my collection for more vostoks

Lol, I am glad you took it in good spirits. Of course not aimed at anyone in particular. The accuracy seem to be highly dependant on spring energy and storage and the luck of the draw. Mine is obviously a dud. If we all agreed we would all have the same watches

When I hit 100 subs I will give away a few of the watches including this one as a job lot on the channel, hopefully to somebody on here.

Fitz II · 05-06-2021 05:48AM

Latest Vid on the Tudor Black Bay Chrono - TLDR I dont like it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI4awcGIX6w

https://youtu.be/vI4awcGIX6w

redlead · 05-06-2021 06:53AM

Its an interesting point you make about the face of a watch always being what you are shown. The rounded case of the Daytona and yachtmaster really is elegant and not something you see a lot on a sports watch. The case is so important but not really emphasised enough.

Cyclingtourist · 05-06-2021 07:50AM

But is C&B a TWC killer?

Fitz II · 05-06-2021 08:58AM

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

But is C&B a TWC killer?

I am unworthy to touch the helm of his garment.

893bet · 05-06-2021 09:26AM

Fitz II wrote: »

I am unworthy to touch the helm of his garment.

You don’t have the same level of financial backing

Cyclingtourist · 05-06-2021 09:37AM

Fitz II wrote: »

I am unworthy to touch the helm of his garment.

That guy Ocean O'Smelly isn't in your league when it comes to steering his way through high horology.

One day you'll be bigger than him. All you need is patients, lots of patients.

Wibbs · 05-06-2021 10:06AM

Very good review F. I can't get over the sheer bulk of it and you have shown that better than others. From the side the bracelet almost looks like it's fitted to the wrong case. The handset looks unbalanced to me? I prefer Tudor hands to Mercedes, but in this form the hour hand is huge, the minute hand is anorexic. To my eye anyway.

Just a two things F, though it can depend on the type of clutch involved(vertical better than horizontal, in general), leaving a chronograph running is considered a bad bet because of extra wear in the movement and it doesn't matter whether it's column wheel or cam as that's not where the wear occurs. The Breitling derived movements have had issues with this. The pusher is a reset rather than flyback. AFAIK the Tudor is't a flyback movement(I don't think the Daytona is either?), IE it can't be reset to zero while running and continue to run to measure intervals. So flyback is an extra function/complication. That might confuse some looking for that function.

Fitz II · 05-06-2021 01:33PM

Thanks Wibbs, always though that the vertical clutches in Daytonas and this new Tudor put very little wear on the mechanism and is safe to leave running 24/7? You are right its not a flyback it needs to be stopped first.

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

That guy Ocean O'Smelly isn't in your league when it comes to steering his way through high horology.

One day you'll be bigger than him. All you need is patients, lots of patients.

Ah he is a performer and a good one at that, and really my motives and aspirations are far more mundane and parochial than his

banie01 · 05-06-2021 01:34PM

Enjoyed it Fitz, much as I said to or other YTer, content and delivery is improving with each video.
The high bar you set is being met and exceeded.
Left a further comment on the video but sure I'll just reiterate my enjoyment of the video here too.

Wibbs · 05-06-2021 02:32PM

Fitz II wrote: »

Thanks Wibbs, always though that the vertical clutches in Daytonas and this new Tudor put very little wear on the mechanism and is safe to leave running 24/7?

Vertical is less likely to cause trouble alright F. Seiko had one in their first late 60's chronos and seem to last forever. I've read all sorts over the years pro and con running a chronograph for long periods, my only conclusion tbh is that 9 times outa 10 it's going to be fine a few times a week say, but not permanently, simply because you're adding many more moving parts to the going works.

You are right its not a flyback it needs to be stopped first.

Ah right F, though it has long surprised me that particularly in the luxury expensive end that this function isn't a given. It's not that complex a mechanism and is useful with it. All military officially issued pilots chronos had it since the late 30's. Though I like its pretentious name, "faux rattrapante".

Blanchy90 · 06-06-2021 12:02AM

Another good one Fitz, you definitely don't pull your punches.

I don't normally watch luxury watch reviews so it's nice getting an honest take on them. It was great that you had a Daytona to hand for the comparison it really solidified your points

We certainly have different definitions of bargain lol if I sold my whole collection I might get half the cost of the Tudor

Fitz II · 06-06-2021 09:21AM

Blanchy90 wrote: »

We certainly have different definitions of bargain lol if I sold my whole collection I might get half the cost of the Tudor

These are all expensive watches, thats why I am hard on them. For 5k I would expect a thinner chrono movement. Watch reviews are so saccharine sweet and positive in general, any time I get a watch I am not happy with I wonder why the negative aspects are not pushed.

Wibbs · 06-06-2021 09:52AM

+1 Looking at the Sinn and Longines chronos they're in the 14mm thickness range too, but don't look nearly so bulbous and are half the price. Maybe Tudor are going for the never mind the quality feel the width angle? Though more likely going for the get into a baby Rolex until you can afford the Daytona angle. If it were more svelte at that price point it might hit the higher end stuff?

Cyclingtourist · 06-06-2021 11:13AM

Fitz II wrote: »

These are all expensive watches, thats why I am hard on them. For 5k I would expect a thinner chrono movement. Watch reviews are so saccharine sweet and positive in general, any time I get a watch I am not happy with I wonder why the negative aspects are not pushed.

Your video was essentially a comparison review, "if you want but can't afford a Daytona this will leave you disappointed", "the Daytona is the watch everyone wants" etc. Fair enough if that's the purpose of your review.

There is another side of the coin however, that people just might be wanting a Tudor and not a Rolex. Maybe they're people who want to 'fly under the radar' so to speak or appreciate the brand for the value it offers.

The thickness of the watch is, as I understand it, less than a Daytona if you measure using callipers but probably wears bigger due to its flat case profile. This may be due to the movement but probably has more to do with Tudor styling.

A bigger negative IMO that you didn't mention is the matter of the snowflake hour hand which obscures the subdials.

Hope I'm not coming over as negative towards your video, just trying to be constructive.

Fitz II · 06-06-2021 01:11PM

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

Your video was essentially a comparison review, "if you want but can't afford a Daytona this will leave you disappointed", "the Daytona is the watch everyone wants" etc. Fair enough if that's the purpose of your review.

Well it is really, I dont know why anyone would buy this watch which is a unsubtle nod to the vintage Daytona without actually being a daytona fan? This watch was designed to extract the money from Daytona fans who cant afford or cant get a Daytona with what is in my opinion a vastly inferior watch.

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

There is another side of the coin however, that people just might be wanting a Tudor and not a Rolex. Maybe they're people who want to 'fly under the radar' so to speak or appreciate the brand for the value it offers.

Anyone who want to fly under the radar would be better without such a large shiny watch. A Daytona is far easier to get away with, much less in your face. My opinion would be the Chrono fan should go to the speedmaster, its more its own thing and wears much better. I am a big tudor fan, I have had three of them now. Price is what you pay value is what you get, this Tudor offers a more palatable price (but only to those in the rolex mindset anyway, as 5k is hardly a bargain) but its offers no value for that price.

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

The thickness of the watch is, as I understand it, less than a Daytona if you measure using callipers but probably wears bigger due to its flat case profile. This may be due to the movement but probably has more to do with Tudor styling.

The Tudor is 2mm thicker than a daytona. Daytona is famous for fitting a nice chrono movement into a slim profile. The tudor movement is a big yolk they had to move the dial closer to the crystal to get the 0.4mm improvement over the old Chrono. But you are not wrong the case design is very blunt sided and straight adding to the thickness. But its not just perceived thickness.

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

A bigger negative IMO that you didn't mention is the matter of the snowflake hour hand which obscures the subdials.

That actually doesn't bother me. Those hands are a tudor staple at this stage and I like them. Its a 45 minute register and a running seconds. If the chrono is running you can judge seconds anyway and as its only 45 minutes the obscuring of the subdials will only be for short periods. Make the hands smaller and you seriously effect legibility like on a Daytona (very difficult to tell the time on a Daytona) and the lume is decreased which will equally have people giving out. Its one of those pick you poison decisions.

Wibbs · 06-06-2021 01:16PM

To be fair CT in the new watch collector world Tudor are very much seen by many as a stepping stone to the big brother. In the wider non watch weirdo world of people walking into a jewellers and buying a "good watch" that wouldn't be in play to nearly the same degree. As for value I'd agree with Fitz on that score. For around half the price you'd get a "better" chrono with a recognisable name that wears better. TBH I prefer the look of the Tudor over the Daytona, much of it because I don't like three register chronos. Well I did, from the dial view(though agree the hands are wrong IMHO) and other reviews didn't get across the unnecessary bulk, again IMH, of the Tudor the way Fitz' spot did(though Jenni Elle's review alluded to it, her being of the itty bitty wrist).

Fitz II · 06-06-2021 01:20PM

Somebody online put if very well, I forget who to give them proper credit.

"New Tudor is old Rolex".

Wibbs · 06-06-2021 01:20PM

Fitz II wrote: »

Make the hands smaller and you seriously effect legibility like on a Daytona (very difficult to tell the time on a Daytona)

That's one aspect where the vintage ones were better IMH. The ones you looked at in your Pride and Pinion visit are more legible than the current models.

Blanchy90 · 06-06-2021 01:37PM

Fitz II wrote: »

These are all expensive watches, thats why I am hard on them. For 5k I would expect a thinner chrono movement. Watch reviews are so saccharine sweet and positive in general, any time I get a watch I am not happy with I wonder why the negative aspects are not pushed.

Absolutely, if your spending that sort of money if should tick all the boxes

I'd say reviewers aren't pushing the negatives because they don't own the watches and are afraid they wont get future watches for review

Cyclingtourist · 06-06-2021 02:19PM

Fitz II wrote: »

Well it is really, I dont know why anyone would buy this watch which is a unsubtle nod to the vintage Daytona without actually being a daytona fan? This watch was designed to extract the money from Daytona fans who cant afford or cant get a Daytona with what is in my opinion a vastly inferior watch.

Well presumably 'a Daytona fan' likes their chronos with three sub-dials (just like Paul Newman's) and wouldn't be satisfied with just two.

Anyone who want to fly under the radar would be better without such a large shiny watch. A Daytona is far easier to get away with, much less in your face. My opinion would be the Chrono fan should go to the speedmaster, its more its own thing and wears much better. I am a big tudor fan, I have had three of them now. Price is what you pay value is what you get, this Tudor offers a more palatable price (but only to those in the rolex mindset anyway, as 5k is hardly a bargain) but its offers no value for that price.

No €5k isn't a 'bargain' AD price but it's still competitive with say the Breitling Premier B01 which if you discount the non- screw down pushers is the watch closest to it in style and movement.

The Tudor is 2mm thicker than a daytona. Daytona is famous for fitting a nice chrono movement into a slim profile. The tudor movement is a big yolk they had to move the dial closer to the crystal to get the 0.4mm improvement over the old Chrono. But you are not wrong the case design is very blunt sided and straight adding to the thickness. But its not just perceived thickness.

Right my mistake, the Daytona is 12.5mm.

That actually doesn't bother me. Those hands are a tudor staple at this stage and I like them. Its a 45 minute register and a running seconds. If the chrono is running you can judge seconds anyway and as its only 45 minutes the obscuring of the subdials will only be for short periods. Make the hands smaller and you seriously effect legibility like on a Daytona (very difficult to tell the time on a Daytona) and the lume is decreased which will equally have people giving out. Its one of those pick you poison decisions.

Well to me if you want a chrono complication and the minute sub-dial is obscured for about 40 minutes in every 24 hours that's a serious design flaw.

Fitz II · 06-06-2021 03:30PM

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

Well to me if you want a chrono complication and the minute sub-dial is obscured for about 40 minutes in every 24 hours that's a serious design flaw.

Its honestly not that bad. All Chronos have the issue to a greater or lesser degree, some even have thick hands (espically the minute hand, giving it more oppertunity per hour to be an annoyance) like your seiko chrono which are worse (comparison below).

Just to be pedantic, while it may be 40 minutes every 24 hours where the hour hand obscures some part of the right hour sub reg, 20 of those minutes are in the 2 - 4am time period when you are unlikely to be timing anything, your seiko chrono is obscured for much more of the waking hours with that sub dial arrangement. Also there are only a few minutes a day where the sub reg hand is fully obscured meaning the rest of the time you can read it with a little more effort, and if you cant see it at all you can use where the hour hand intersects the subreg to read it.

Serious design flaw makes it sound a bit dramatic, and a vostock owner like me would call it a feature, or charming idiosyncrasy.

On a side note look like I will hit 100 subs today. Must arrange a give away (a real one).

Cyclingtourist · 06-06-2021 04:19PM

Fitz II wrote: »

Serious design flaw makes it sound a bit dramatic, and a vostock owner like me would call it a feature, or charming idiosyncrasy.

Well my Seiko cost less than €100 new so it can be forgiven.

On a side note look like I will hit 100 subs today. Must arrange a give away (a real one).

Congratulations.

Fitz II · 06-06-2021 04:49PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFek9qDh6Ac

https://youtu.be/sFek9qDh6Ac

Blanchy90 · 06-06-2021 08:14PM

Congratulations fitz your flying with it

The Floyd p · 06-06-2021 10:16PM

Well done Fitz! You're making some excellent content, much better to see someone who's not necessarily chasing the immediacy with more bombastic types of reviews!

Fitz's Youtube Channel

Comments