The Tudor 79190 vs 75190: A Watch Size Study

With the Tudor 79190 Submariner recently joining my collection and in the process taking the wrist time of my previously acquired Tudor 75190, I thought it was a great opportunity to compare the two in terms of wearability and dimensions. For reference, I have a 6.6″ wrist.

The Submariner Complex

For many, the pinnacle of dive watch collecting comes down to one watch – the Rolex Submariner. For those who love the iconic look but are chasing something a bit different, Tudor offered a line of Submariners in the mid ’90s that were built with many of the same parts as their Rolex big brothers.

While the Rolexes of the era used mostly an in-house 3135 movement, the Tudors of the time utilized ETA movements. What does this mean? Depends on who you ask. Some argue that the Tudor inherently can’t be as desirable with a third-party movement inside, others will stand by the lower maintenance cost considering the cheaper parts and widespread use of the ETA movement.

From a design standpoint, I’ve always liked the Tudor 79190/79090 and 75190/75090 dials. While you’d have to source an increasingly expensive 5513 to obtain a matte dial Rolex, almost all of the Tudor Submariners (minus the steel bezel 79190 and some configurations of the 75190) feature matte lume plots. It’s a matter of preference, but mine is the less blingy aesthetic of the matte plots vs the white gold surrounds.

Further, there’s something about the slightly elongated minute markers and inverted triangles at 12-6-9 on the Tudor that creates the “crosshair” aesthetic that I just love. Finally, there’s the “if you know, you know” factor that comes with a Tudor Submariner when compared to the more common Rolex. 

The 36mm vs 39mm Dilemma

Until recently, I wasn’t sure a 40mm watch would fit comfortably on my wrist, and the Tudor had the added benefit of being available in a 36mm mid-sized configuration, the reference 75190. After purchasing and wearing the Tudor 75190 for several months, it became my absolute favorite watch. Versatile, comfortable, and just flashy enough on the jubilee bracelet, it was an everyday staple.

After some time, I saw a few pictures of the 75190 on my wrist and thought “Maybe it is a little small”. While a strong proponent of the mid-sized diver, I just couldn’t get the thought of the “full size” Tudor 79190 out of my head. 

A few months later, I took the chance on a fantastic example of the full-size 40mm (well, technically 39mm but we’ll get to that) Tudor 79190. I had plans to keep both around until I could make a final decision on which fit the best, but it didn’t take long to start choosing the full size over the 75190.

While the 75190 always felt good on my wrist, it’s smaller in every dimension. This had the effect of making my hand look huge. Not only are the proportions of the 79190 better in relation to itself, but I also find them better in relation to my body overall. That’s not to say that I don’t enjoy 36mm or smaller watches, but something about the Submariner aesthetic lends itself to the fuller case size.

The more robust crown guards, chunkier bezel and wider 20mm oyster bracelet all add up to create a watch that has more presence and balance, but still looks at home on a smaller wrist.

While the official sizing of these Submariners is 40mm, the actual measurement with calipers is 39mm, making this case even more wearable. The Tudor 79190, while larger in all width dimensions, still retains its 10mm thickness which in turn allows it to sit fantastically on the wrist.                                                               

This isn’t an in-depth review of the individual watches – that’s soon to come! Rather, a brief look at their sizes in comparison and how they wear. If you’re on the fence about trying a 40mm sports watch, I urge you to give it a go!