Tudor gateway to rolex?

[turkeysub93]

Originally Posted by KonradvonMarburg

Rolex. I wouldn't buy a Tudor because, while they may be fine watches, they just appear to me to be watches people who can't afford Rolex end up purchasing.

Just my opinion. :)

To be fair, Tudor was originally created for those who may not be able to afford of willing to pay for Rolex. That is just the fact of the matter. However, I don't think it's fair to assume every Tudor owner cannot afford a Rolex. Tudor has a couple references (BB58 & Pelagos) that match a blue dial and bezel with a stainless steel case...a configuration that Rolex does not offer at the moment and one that I have flirted with purchasing many times even though I already have a Rolex.

Tudor affords those with the means to wear a Rolex the opportunity to buy a great watch in a configuration otherwise not available from Rolex. That is my take.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by KonradvonMarburg

Rolex. I wouldn't buy a Tudor because, while they may be fine watches, they just appear to me to be watches people who can't afford Rolex end up purchasing.

Just my opinion. :)

And Rolex is for those that can’t afford Patek by your logic. I’m less impressed by the people picking up a new Rolex because of Instagram hype, and more impressed by someone buying a Tudor, grand seiko, etc because it fills a gap in their collection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kieselguhr]

Rolex first then Tudor. I appreciate both equally

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by turkeysub93

Tudor affords those with the means to wear a Rolex the opportunity to buy a great watch in a configuration otherwise not available from Rolex. That is my take.

100%, you nailed it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cbalster]

I bought a Tudor BB58 black when it was "hot" because the sales assistant at the AD suggested I pick it up because "they go out quick." After a few months of wear, I just wasn't that into it. I ended up selling it. Lesson learned.

My overall progression is JLC>Tudor>Seiko>Rolex Vintage>RGM>Breitling>Rolex. It's a unique progression but we are all individuals after all.

I did also purchase a Patek Calatrava but then the dealer fumbled the sale, and refunded my money.

My next watch will also be a Rolex and it will also be with a AD. I am sort of over buying used watches to discover issues or warranty repairs, etc. Nothing like an unworn modern rolex set to rolex spec +/- 2 secs per day IMHO.

[Token74]

Originally Posted by winst

Rolex then Tudor. Can’t believe comments I see sometimes by people that say Tudor is for people who can’t afford Rolex!

To be fair, whilst it is a nonsensical argument in lots of cases, there is an element of truth to this. Bear in mind that the Tudor brand was originally created to offer up an affordable Rolex. So it’s in the DNA.

I do though think it would be more appropriate if it was pitched more along the lines of ‘can’t justify or don’t want to spend the extra on a Rolex’. I don’t believe for one moment that someone who can splash out £3k for a watch can’t afford to splash out £6k if they really wanted to.

I bought my son a Tudor and I could easily have afforded Rolex, but didn’t want to! I also have friends far far wealthier than me that have gone for Tudor as they like the watches and don’t feel the extra money for Rolex is worth it.

Perception is always a problem when their are two brands under one roof in this way, regardless of which way round it happens. There are a lot of folk who still don’t give Lexus the credit it deserves, because people see it as a jumped up Toyota. The same is true of Tudor, a cheap Rolex. However, the only people that see it this way are those that are brand conscious, if you know your onions you know that Lexus is epic, as is Tudor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StevePirates]

Tudor is a great brand. The BB58 is just a fantastic watch. But I get the brand anxiety. It’s a perfect brand for Rolex owners who want some variety (e.g. the Pelagos), or a beater watch (a BB when you’re doing rough work that you don’t want to sacrifice a submariner to). It also truly is a great brand for people who aspire to a Rolex but either don’t have or don’t feel comfortable dropping five digits for a six digit ref.

But, I can respect people who worry that if they have a Tudor instead of a Rolex, they’ll look like they’ve settled for a pale imitation. Some people want the best or nothing. I grew up abjectly poor, and I’d be lying if I said I didn’t occasionally worry that people will think I’m trashy if I’m not doing the “best”.

[cbalster]

Tudor is Prince Harry. Rolex is Prince Charles.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by cbalster

Tudor is Prince Harry. Rolex is Prince Charles.

Out of all the variety of brand analogies I've heard, this might be the most spot on.
dP

[StevePirates]

Originally Posted by cbalster

Tudor is Prince Harry. Rolex is Prince Charles.

Who’s Prince William then?

[BNA/LION]

Only Rolex. No tudor.

[P7M8]

Rolex then Tudor. I purchased my GMT II and couldn’t stop looking at the BB58 Blue. I loved the blue color and the price point. I already have a leather strap and a nato coming so I can swap them out, it was exactly what I wanted. I buy what I want and not what other people think I should buy. Next will be a Bluesy!

[Maxy]

Rolex Sub 114060 and then it's long lost brother - Tudor Black Bay!

[KonradvonMarburg]

Originally Posted by shaunylw

And Rolex is for those that can’t afford Patek by your logic. I’m less impressed by the people picking up a new Rolex because of Instagram hype, and more impressed by someone buying a Tudor, grand seiko, etc because it fills a gap in their collection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with your assessment of my logic. If I could afford a Patek I would certainly buy one over a Rolex any day of the week.

Until I can afford a Patek, Rolex is ok for me. :)

[CPRWATCH]

Originally Posted by StevePirates

Who’s Prince William then?

He could be Omegaman ,given William is known to almost exclusively wear an Omega Seamaster Quartz 300 mid size ( a gift from his mother ).

[KonradvonMarburg]

Originally Posted by Token74

To be fair, whilst it is a nonsensical argument in lots of cases, there is an element of truth to this. Bear in mind that the Tudor brand was originally created to offer up an affordable Rolex. So it’s in the DNA.

I do though think it would be more appropriate if it was pitched more along the lines of ‘can’t justify or don’t want to spend the extra on a Rolex’. I don’t believe for one moment that someone who can splash out £3k for a watch can’t afford to splash out £6k if they really wanted to.

I bought my son a Tudor and I could easily have afforded Rolex, but didn’t want to! I also have friends far far wealthier than me that have gone for Tudor as they like the watches and don’t feel the extra money for Rolex is worth it.

Perception is always a problem when their are two brands under one roof in this way, regardless of which way round it happens. There are a lot of folk who still don’t give Lexus the credit it deserves, because people see it as a jumped up Toyota. The same is true of Tudor, a cheap Rolex. However, the only people that see it this way are those that are brand conscious, if you know your onions you know that Lexus is epic, as is Tudor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a very fair and well-thought-out response to my post. I agree with you. It's a shame some people began to hyperventilate upon reading a post I submitted as only my humble opinion.

Moreover, I did not include any other brands in the comparison. OP was asking about Tudor/Rolex. My first watch was a Breitling, and there are a few Alain Silberstein models I would buy (if they came available) before I would buy another Rolex.

Buy whatever you like. :)

[madgpol]

Rolex to Tudor. Won't be reversing that anytime soon. Tudor are hitting it out of the ballpark

[ancientmariner]

Originally Posted by cbalster

Tudor is Prince Harry. Rolex is Prince Charles.

Brilliant!

[Steven1]

Have both, Rolex first then Tudor BB58 blue to follow.

[DandyAnt]

Originally Posted by turkeysub93

To be fair, Tudor was originally created for those who may not be able to afford of willing to pay for Rolex. That is just the fact of the matter. However, I don't think it's fair to assume every Tudor owner cannot afford a Rolex. Tudor has a couple references (BB58 & Pelagos) that match a blue dial and bezel with a stainless steel case...a configuration that Rolex does not offer at the moment and one that I have flirted with purchasing many times even though I already have a Rolex.

Tudor affords those with the means to wear a Rolex the opportunity to buy a great watch in a configuration otherwise not available from Rolex. That is my take.

This. I too am flirting with buying a blue Pelagos right now as Rolex have no SS ceramic blue sports model. Have always stuck with Rolex or Omega but swinging to Tudor for this reason.

[r_afficionado]

Rolex then Tudor.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[CyclePath1]

I picked up the Tudor BB black rose first then a SubC.

[johnorpheus]

Rolex, then Tudor, then Omega. Happy with them all

[Smookes]

Rolex, then Rolex

and now I'm thinking about another Rolex

[B2 Stealth]

In order:
Rolex Submariner
Rolex BLNR
Tudor BB GMT
Tudor Ranger
Rolex DSSD JC
Tudor BB58
Rolex BLRO

Love both brands! Wife loves her Ranger and BB58 (blue dial) on NATO. She pines for my Batman but will have to wait until I am 6' under.

[GCFA]

Three Rolex then a Tudor GMT

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by cbalster

Tudor is Prince Harry. Rolex is Prince Charles.

And Price Harry wears a Rolex Explorer 2 Polar.

[Vetracer]

My watch journey:

Rolex -> Breitling -> Seiko -> IWC -> Jaeger LeCoultre -> Omega -> Patek -> Tudor

[Santiago32]

Opposite effect on me...
Rolex was my gateway drug to Tudor.

DJII > BLNR > BB58 > Sub

[Pw92676]

Tudor is a fine brand. Rolex is a fine brand. In my mind it’s as simple as that, nothing more, nothing less.