Tudor gateway to rolex?

[cowie89]

BLNR then Harrods BB, haven't worn my BLNR since i picked up the BB.

[Onikage]

Tudor is an additional habit for many on here. I think it's more likely people are raging watch addicts by the time they get into Tudor. Totally beyond help.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by KonradvonMarburg

I'm sorry you got so upset. I hope you recover quickly and will be ok.

However, my opinion remains the same: Tudor is a poor man's Rolex. If you don't like that opinion then we just have to agree to disagree.

Might I suggest you take off your Rolex blinkered glasses tone down the attitude then take a deep breath and take some time to learn about the history of the brand. Is Tudor a poor mans watch most definitely not the Tudor line go way back to the early 1920s then mainly sold then in Canada and Europe, no Rolex or Tudor watches were even sold then in the USA, it was very much later the the Rolex brand arrived for sale in the USA. Hans Wilsdorf from the RWC first opened Tudor watch to world wide production in 1946. And one of the main reasons why he chose the brand name Tudor, was that he wanted to pay tribute to the Tudor history period of old England UK.

The Tudor line prior to around 1990 was all Rolex except for movement, Tudor watches are made by Rolex. The major difference between a Tudor and a Rolex is that Rolex contracted the manufacturing of the movement out to a 3rd party manufacturer (ETA in 95% of them) but now today many modern day Tudors do have a in-house made movement. Much like Rolex did with there chrongraphs before 2000 they used ETA Valjoux and Zenith movements. The ETA ebauche movements were made to Rolex's specifications and signed Tudor and are top grade chronometer movements . This movement was then sent to Rolex where it was assembled into a watch with all Rolex remaining parts (Rolex case, bezel, strap or bracelet, dial, crystal and crown, seals, etc.). These parts are the same parts used in the Rolex line of watches up till around 1990. The older Tudor movements were high grade 17, 21, 25, or 26 jewel Automatic or Manual chronometer grade movements which when correctly cleaned, timed, and oiled, will keep time almost as well as any normal Rolex. Tudor now have many new models with many now with in-house made movements, and in many ways released more real 100% new models than Rolex.

The case screw backs were engraved original oyster case by Rolex, on all the oyster models. In the gold or TT models Tudor uses genuine solid gold Rolex bezels and crown caps, but their bracelets are normally only gold filled, to reduce the cost while Rolex uses solid gold in their bracelets. The French Navy (among others) opted for the Tudor Submariner watches, instead of the Rolex Subs, the French Navy demanded rigorous testing and tested several brands. These watches were tested to carefully calibrated abusive tests in an attempt to destroy them to see how much abuse it could take before losing accuracy or malfunctioning .After testing they choose the Tudor and the only thing the French navy didn't order was the Oyster bracelets. They chose a nylon strap because it would be much more easy to change, and easily replaced if broken. And today the only step down in quality with Tudor watches in general is the price. The the main difference between a Rolex Sub and say a Tudor Sub is they used a top range Chronometer grade ETA a first class all in-house built movement but not Rolex made, and in watches like the Tudor Prince they used a light Oyster bracelet, on Subs they used the heavy Oyster bracelet. Now today the Tudor line has quite a long high heritage with Hans Wilsdorf the founder of Rolex.

In today's market quite a few vintage Tudor watches command higher prices than there Rolex brothers same could be said for Rolex, many of the most collectable Rolex don't even have a Rolex made movement in there cases but ones from ETA Valjoux and Zenith .The Tudor line are still made in the same now highly automated factory as Rolex, Tudor are still a very important part of the Rolex history and are great watches in there own right.

[Galaga167]

Originally Posted by padi56

Might I suggest you take off your Rolex blinkered glasses tone down the attitude then take a deep breath and take some time to learn about the history of the brand. Is Tudor a poor mans watch most definitely not the Tudor line go way back to the early 1920s then mainly sold then in Canada and Europe, no Rolex or Tudor watches were even sold then in the USA, it was very much later the the Rolex brand arrived for sale in the USA. Hans Wilsdorf from the RWC first opened Tudor watch to world wide production in 1946. And one of the main reasons why he chose the brand name Tudor, was that he wanted to pay tribute to the Tudor history period of old England UK.

The Tudor line prior to around 1990 was all Rolex except for movement, Tudor watches are made by Rolex. The major difference between a Tudor and a Rolex is that Rolex contracted the manufacturing of the movement out to a 3rd party manufacturer (ETA in 95% of them) but now today many modern day Tudors do have a in-house made movement. Much like Rolex did with there chrongraphs before 2000 they used ETA Valjoux and Zenith movements. The ETA ebauche movements were made to Rolex's specifications and signed Tudor and are top grade chronometer movements . This movement was then sent to Rolex where it was assembled into a watch with all Rolex remaining parts (Rolex case, bezel, strap or bracelet, dial, crystal and crown, seals, etc.). These parts are the same parts used in the Rolex line of watches up till around 1990. The older Tudor movements were high grade 17, 21, 25, or 26 jewel Automatic or Manual chronometer grade movements which when correctly cleaned, timed, and oiled, will keep time almost as well as any normal Rolex. Tudor now have many new models with many now with in-house made movements, and in many ways released more real 100% new models than Rolex.

The case screw backs were engraved original oyster case by Rolex, on all the oyster models. In the gold or TT models Tudor uses genuine solid gold Rolex bezels and crown caps, but their bracelets are normally only gold filled, to reduce the cost while Rolex uses solid gold in their bracelets. The French Navy (among others) opted for the Tudor Submariner watches, instead of the Rolex Subs, the French Navy demanded rigorous testing and tested several brands. These watches were tested to carefully calibrated abusive tests in an attempt to destroy them to see how much abuse it could take before losing accuracy or malfunctioning .After testing they choose the Tudor and the only thing the French navy didn't order was the Oyster bracelets. They chose a nylon strap because it would be much more easy to change, and easily replaced if broken. And today the only step down in quality with Tudor watches in general is the price. The the main difference between a Rolex Sub and say a Tudor Sub is they used a top range Chronometer grade ETA a first class all in-house built movement but not Rolex made, and in watches like the Tudor Prince they used a light Oyster bracelet, on Subs they used the heavy Oyster bracelet. Now today the Tudor line has quite a long high heritage with Hans Wilsdorf the founder of Rolex.

In today's market quite a few vintage Tudor watches command higher prices than there Rolex brothers same could be said for Rolex, many of the most collectable Rolex don't even have a Rolex made movement in there cases but ones from ETA Valjoux and Zenith .The Tudor line are still made in the same now highly automated factory as Rolex, Tudor are still a very important part of the Rolex history and are great watches in there own right.

Nice post. I like mine as much as my Rolex GMT. Keeps time within superlative standard and is 41mm like the new Sub. A real mans watch.

[Weinboyz]

Originally Posted by padi56

Might I suggest you take off your Rolex blinkered glasses tone down the attitude then take a deep breath and take some time to learn about the history of the brand. Is Tudor a poor mans watch most definitely not the Tudor line go way back to the early 1920s then mainly sold then in Canada and Europe, no Rolex or Tudor watches were even sold then in the USA, it was very much later the the Rolex brand arrived for sale in the USA. Hans Wilsdorf from the RWC first opened Tudor watch to world wide production in 1946. And one of the main reasons why he chose the brand name Tudor, was that he wanted to pay tribute to the Tudor history period of old England UK.

The Tudor line prior to around 1990 was all Rolex except for movement, Tudor watches are made by Rolex. The major difference between a Tudor and a Rolex is that Rolex contracted the manufacturing of the movement out to a 3rd party manufacturer (ETA in 95% of them) but now today many modern day Tudors do have a in-house made movement. Much like Rolex did with there chrongraphs before 2000 they used ETA Valjoux and Zenith movements. The ETA ebauche movements were made to Rolex's specifications and signed Tudor and are top grade chronometer movements . This movement was then sent to Rolex where it was assembled into a watch with all Rolex remaining parts (Rolex case, bezel, strap or bracelet, dial, crystal and crown, seals, etc.). These parts are the same parts used in the Rolex line of watches up till around 1990. The older Tudor movements were high grade 17, 21, 25, or 26 jewel Automatic or Manual chronometer grade movements which when correctly cleaned, timed, and oiled, will keep time almost as well as any normal Rolex. Tudor now have many new models with many now with in-house made movements, and in many ways released more real 100% new models than Rolex.

The case screw backs were engraved original oyster case by Rolex, on all the oyster models. In the gold or TT models Tudor uses genuine solid gold Rolex bezels and crown caps, but their bracelets are normally only gold filled, to reduce the cost while Rolex uses solid gold in their bracelets. The French Navy (among others) opted for the Tudor Submariner watches, instead of the Rolex Subs, the French Navy demanded rigorous testing and tested several brands. These watches were tested to carefully calibrated abusive tests in an attempt to destroy them to see how much abuse it could take before losing accuracy or malfunctioning .After testing they choose the Tudor and the only thing the French navy didn't order was the Oyster bracelets. They chose a nylon strap because it would be much more easy to change, and easily replaced if broken. And today the only step down in quality with Tudor watches in general is the price. The the main difference between a Rolex Sub and say a Tudor Sub is they used a top range Chronometer grade ETA a first class all in-house built movement but not Rolex made, and in watches like the Tudor Prince they used a light Oyster bracelet, on Subs they used the heavy Oyster bracelet. Now today the Tudor line has quite a long high heritage with Hans Wilsdorf the founder of Rolex.

In today's market quite a few vintage Tudor watches command higher prices than there Rolex brothers same could be said for Rolex, many of the most collectable Rolex don't even have a Rolex made movement in there cases but ones from ETA Valjoux and Zenith .The Tudor line are still made in the same now highly automated factory as Rolex, Tudor are still a very important part of the Rolex history and are great watches in there own right.

Thank you for making those out the that are not, "Woke"!!!!!

First Rolex then Tudor. By far my Tudor (Pelagos) is probably the most comfortable watch I have ever worn. Plus they both tell the same time, all the time.

[1William]

I like my Tudor watches just as much as my Rolex watches. I started with Rolex because I had not learned of Tudor but I find Tudor watches to be great.

[Atone]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Looking briefly through your posts it seems you only got your first Rolex (an old entry-level Datejust) about six months ago. Since then you have asked if it should be ticking, how to make the date change at midnight instead of midday, and how to change the strap. I imagine there are quite a number of Tudor fans among all the people who helped you out with these and other queries, so you might want to tone down the attitude a bit.

Well, that’ll about do it.

[Danny83]

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!

One Time when I was at the Airport in Los Angeles I was wearing my BB41. So there was a guy next to me that said, is that a Tudor ? I said yes then he said I should have just saved 3-4000 more and bought a Rolex .
Crazy thing is I have only seen a Tudor one time in the wild.

[Oyster Sauce]

For me, I happened to acquire my first Rolex before my first Tudor. No specific reason, as each brand has various models that appeal to me. Going forward, open to additional watches from either brand. Love 'em both.

[KonradvonMarburg]

Originally Posted by padi56

Might I suggest you take off your Rolex blinkered glasses tone down the attitude then take a deep breath and take some time to learn about the history of the brand. Is Tudor a poor mans watch most definitely not the Tudor line go way back to the early 1920s then mainly sold then in Canada and Europe, no Rolex or Tudor watches were even sold then in the USA, it was very much later the the Rolex brand arrived for sale in the USA. Hans Wilsdorf from the RWC first opened Tudor watch to world wide production in 1946. And one of the main reasons why he chose the brand name Tudor, was that he wanted to pay tribute to the Tudor history period of old England UK.

The Tudor line prior to around 1990 was all Rolex except for movement, Tudor watches are made by Rolex. The major difference between a Tudor and a Rolex is that Rolex contracted the manufacturing of the movement out to a 3rd party manufacturer (ETA in 95% of them) but now today many modern day Tudors do have a in-house made movement. Much like Rolex did with there chrongraphs before 2000 they used ETA Valjoux and Zenith movements. The ETA ebauche movements were made to Rolex's specifications and signed Tudor and are top grade chronometer movements . This movement was then sent to Rolex where it was assembled into a watch with all Rolex remaining parts (Rolex case, bezel, strap or bracelet, dial, crystal and crown, seals, etc.). These parts are the same parts used in the Rolex line of watches up till around 1990. The older Tudor movements were high grade 17, 21, 25, or 26 jewel Automatic or Manual chronometer grade movements which when correctly cleaned, timed, and oiled, will keep time almost as well as any normal Rolex. Tudor now have many new models with many now with in-house made movements, and in many ways released more real 100% new models than Rolex.

The case screw backs were engraved original oyster case by Rolex, on all the oyster models. In the gold or TT models Tudor uses genuine solid gold Rolex bezels and crown caps, but their bracelets are normally only gold filled, to reduce the cost while Rolex uses solid gold in their bracelets. The French Navy (among others) opted for the Tudor Submariner watches, instead of the Rolex Subs, the French Navy demanded rigorous testing and tested several brands. These watches were tested to carefully calibrated abusive tests in an attempt to destroy them to see how much abuse it could take before losing accuracy or malfunctioning .After testing they choose the Tudor and the only thing the French navy didn't order was the Oyster bracelets. They chose a nylon strap because it would be much more easy to change, and easily replaced if broken. And today the only step down in quality with Tudor watches in general is the price. The the main difference between a Rolex Sub and say a Tudor Sub is they used a top range Chronometer grade ETA a first class all in-house built movement but not Rolex made, and in watches like the Tudor Prince they used a light Oyster bracelet, on Subs they used the heavy Oyster bracelet. Now today the Tudor line has quite a long high heritage with Hans Wilsdorf the founder of Rolex.

In today's market quite a few vintage Tudor watches command higher prices than there Rolex brothers same could be said for Rolex, many of the most collectable Rolex don't even have a Rolex made movement in there cases but ones from ETA Valjoux and Zenith .The Tudor line are still made in the same now highly automated factory as Rolex, Tudor are still a very important part of the Rolex history and are great watches in there own right.

I am entitled to my opinion which I stated humbly and without malicious intent. To suggest that I have an attitude (when in fact I was shown deep disrespect by some who disagreed with my opinion) is completely disingenuous.

Second, to the poster who commented on my first Rolex acquisition, I fail to see how this matters. I might not have a Patek, but that doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge the superiority of Patek over Rolex when it comes to watches.

Yes, many people who can afford a Tudor can afford a Rolex. I think Bill Gates wears a Casio.

That being said, as Tudors (in general) go for far less than their Rolex counterparts, my point is not without some truth. I never stated that people who buy Tudor can't afford Rolex or even more expensive brands.

There seems to be some insecure people who became triggered by my opinion to the extent that they made outright derogatory comments against my person. This is no way to behave when you disagree with someone's humble opinion. To these people I urge some introspection.

[Atone]

Originally Posted by KonradvonMarburg

I am entitled to my opinion which I stated humbly and without malicious intent. To suggest that I have an attitude (when in fact I was shown deep disrespect by some who disagreed with my opinion) is completely disingenuous.

Second, to the poster who commented on my first Rolex acquisition, I fail to see how this matters. I might not have a Patek, but that doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge the superiority of Patek over Rolex when it comes to watches.

Yes, many people who can afford a Tudor can afford a Rolex. I think Bill Gates wears a Casio.

That being said, as Tudors (in general) go for far less than their Rolex counterparts, my point is not without some truth. I never stated that people who buy Tudor can't afford Rolex or even more expensive brands.

There seems to be some insecure people who became triggered by my opinion to the extent that they made outright derogatory comments against my person. This is no way to behave when you disagree with someone's humble opinion. To these people I urge some introspection.

I think the more salient point being made is that the Rolex you wound up with costs less than many of the current Tudor offerings which is terribly ironic. You are correct, we are all entitled to our opinions and when put forth unsolicited as it was in this case, you agree to receive feedback. It appears that you wanted to indirectly lob an insult towards some brand buyers while at the same time enjoying some kind of insulation from responses. It doesn’t work like that. Offering opinions that would put folks down isn’t akin to sharing ones thoughts. We also need to clarify the difference between a theory and an opinion, you’re conflating the two. What people are keying into is that you don’t even know much about Rolex and your desire to own one above all other brands leaves folks with a bit of a head scratcher.

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by KonradvonMarburg

I am entitled to my opinion which I stated humbly and without malicious intent. To suggest that I have an attitude (when in fact I was shown deep disrespect by some who disagreed with my opinion) is completely disingenuous.

Second, to the poster who commented on my first Rolex acquisition, I fail to see how this matters. I might not have a Patek, but that doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge the superiority of Patek over Rolex when it comes to watches.

Yes, many people who can afford a Tudor can afford a Rolex. I think Bill Gates wears a Casio.

That being said, as Tudors (in general) go for far less than their Rolex counterparts, my point is not without some truth. I never stated that people who buy Tudor can't afford Rolex or even more expensive brands.

There seems to be some insecure people who became triggered by my opinion to the extent that they made outright derogatory comments against my person. This is no way to behave when you disagree with someone's humble opinion. To these people I urge some introspection.

You should try out for the Olympic back peddling squad, I'm sure you'd medal on current form.

You said and I quote - ‘they just appear to me to be watches people who can't afford Rolex end up purchasing’. So in fact you did say what you are now denying....

[HiBoost]

Being as objective as possible here, I think we'd all have to admit that referring to anything as a "poor man's ___" inherently sounds condescending. As well, it's a bit laughable given the actual prices of the watches. Swatch may be a poor man's watch, but any multi-thousand-dollar watch is clearly in the upper stratosphere of costs for such an item.

But on the other side of the argument, taken from Tudor's own history page on their website we have this:

“For some years now, I have been considering the idea of making a watch that our agents could sell at a more modest price than our Rolex watches, and yet one that would attain the standard of dependability for which Rolex is famous.” - H. Wilsdorf

So you have the founder of the company literally pointing to the price point as the motivation for the brand. He doesn't say he wanted to offer different styles or different functionality, he says "more modest price". So can we not say conclusively that this is the DNA of the Tudor line? That in no way restrains it from being a great watch, or having a history of its own, but it's not completely crazy to suggest price is a major differentiation between the brands. Nobody gets mad if you imply the same about Lexus vs Toyota, or Audi vs VW.

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Being as objective as possible here, I think we'd all have to admit that referring to anything as a "poor man's ___" inherently sounds condescending. As well, it's a bit laughable given the actual prices of the watches. Swatch may be a poor man's watch, but any multi-thousand-dollar watch is clearly in the upper stratosphere of costs for such an item.

But on the other side of the argument, taken from Tudor's own history page on their website we have this:

“For some years now, I have been considering the idea of making a watch that our agents could sell at a more modest price than our Rolex watches, and yet one that would attain the standard of dependability for which Rolex is famous.” - H. Wilsdorf

So you have the founder of the company literally pointing to the price point as the motivation for the brand. He doesn't say he wanted to offer different styles or different functionality, he says "more modest price". So can we not say conclusively that this is the DNA of the Tudor line? That in no way restrains it from being a great watch, or having a history of its own, but it's not completely crazy to suggest price is a major differentiation between the brands. Nobody gets mad if you imply the same about Lexus vs Toyota, or Audi vs BMW.

You are spot on with this summary. Most people who are lucky enough to be able to buy Tudor and Rolex watches know exactly where both brands sit within their respective hierarchy. But calling anything a poor man's version is a tasteless and condesending way to put people down, hence the backlash.

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Being as objective as possible here, I think we'd all have to admit that referring to anything as a "poor man's ___" inherently sounds condescending. As well, it's a bit laughable given the actual prices of the watches. Swatch may be a poor man's watch, but any multi-thousand-dollar watch is clearly in the upper stratosphere of costs for such an item.

But on the other side of the argument, taken from Tudor's own history page on their website we have this:

“For some years now, I have been considering the idea of making a watch that our agents could sell at a more modest price than our Rolex watches, and yet one that would attain the standard of dependability for which Rolex is famous.” - H. Wilsdorf

So you have the founder of the company literally pointing to the price point as the motivation for the brand. He doesn't say he wanted to offer different styles or different functionality, he says "more modest price". So can we not say conclusively that this is the DNA of the Tudor line? That in no way restrains it from being a great watch, or having a history of its own, but it's not completely crazy to suggest price is a major differentiation between the brands. Nobody gets mad if you imply the same about Lexus vs Toyota, or Audi vs VW.

[tlbarrs]

Originally Posted by Fred48

Tudor is what Rolex used to be, and what many brands have never been.

You hit the nail on the head

I love Rolex I really do but 90% of the time when I open the watch box I go for a Tudor there not as well made as a modern day Rolex by any means but they feel just like a pre ceramic Rolex and that’s what I like the warm aluminium bezel and tool watch feel rather than the bling that Rolex has evolved into


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KonradvonMarburg]

Originally Posted by Atone

I think the more salient point being made is that the Rolex you wound up with costs less than many of the current Tudor offerings which is terribly ironic. You are correct, we are all entitled to our opinions and when put forth unsolicited as it was in this case, you agree to receive feedback. It appears that you wanted to indirectly lob an insult towards some brand buyers while at the same time enjoying some kind of insulation from responses. It doesn’t work like that. Offering opinions that would put folks down isn’t akin to sharing ones thoughts. We also need to clarify the difference between a theory and an opinion, you’re conflating the two. What people are keying into is that you don’t even know much about Rolex and your desire to own one above all other brands leaves folks with a bit of a head scratcher.

Why do you assume that Rolex is the only mid-to-higher-end watch I own? Why do you assume that Rolex is the only watch brand I desire to own above all others? These two assumptions are entirely false.

Second, I do not expect insulation from responses whatsoever. Some people have responded with insults and acrimony. This is unhelpful.

You then say I don't know much about Rolex- which is relative. Do you know much about Rolex or Tudor? If so, a helpful and constructive response to my original post would have been something akin to "Well hold on Konrad. I understand that this is a common opinion some people have, but it isn't entirely accurate. Tudor produces excellent watches that can compete with their more expensive Rolex counterparts (and other independent brands) because of X, Y, Z."

A response like this would have been more mature and educational than "LOL WHAT A DUMBASS" etc etc.

A reading from Paul in his letters to the Romans, Chapter 12 - Verse 20:

"Vengeance belongs to me. I shall repay" says the Lord. "Therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him. If he thirst, give him drink. For in so doing, thou shall heap coals of fire upon his head."

I will no longer be following this thread.



Instead,

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by KonradvonMarburg

Why do you assume that Rolex is the only mid-to-higher-end watch I own? Why do you assume that Rolex is the only watch brand I desire to own above all others? These two assumptions are entirely false.

Second, I do not expect insulation from responses whatsoever. Some people have responded with insults and acrimony. This is unhelpful.

You then say I don't know much about Rolex- which is relative. Do you know much about Rolex or Tudor? If so, a helpful and constructive response to my original post would have been something akin to "Well hold on Konrad. I understand that this is a common opinion some people have, but it isn't entirely accurate. Tudor produces excellent watches that can compete with their more expensive Rolex counterparts (and other independent brands) because of X, Y, Z."

A response like this would have been more mature and educational than "LOL WHAT A DUMBASS" etc etc.

A reading from Paul in his letters to the Romans, Chapter 12 - Verse 20:

"Vengeance belongs to me. I shall repay" says the Lord. "Therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him. If he thirst, give him drink. For in so doing, thou shall heap coals of fire upon his head."

I will no longer be following this thread.



Instead,

But it's ok for you to insult millions of people who own Tudors? If don't want to get called out, don't post asinine statements on the internet. And quit with the religious quotes, it's a watch forum not a church.

[Etschell]

tudor right now is on top of its game. the brand and the watches have never been better.

enjoy it while it lasts. one day it may be different.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by KonradvonMarburg

I am entitled to my opinion which I stated humbly and without malicious intent. To suggest that I have an attitude (when in fact I was shown deep disrespect by some who disagreed with my opinion) is completely disingenuous.

Second, to the poster who commented on my first Rolex acquisition, I fail to see how this matters. I might not have a Patek, but that doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge the superiority of Patek over Rolex when it comes to watches.

Yes, many people who can afford a Tudor can afford a Rolex. I think Bill Gates wears a Casio.

That being said, as Tudors (in general) go for far less than their Rolex counterparts, my point is not without some truth. I never stated that people who buy Tudor can't afford Rolex or even more expensive brands.

There seems to be some insecure people who became triggered by my opinion to the extent that they made outright derogatory comments against my person. This is no way to behave when you disagree with someone's humble opinion. To these people I urge some introspection.

Yes you are entitled to your opinion but my opinion is based on knowledge of the Tudor brand. What's your knowledge based on to call Tudor a poor mans Rolex or is all down to ££££$$$ with you.

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by TudorTommy

Exactly this!

To the original post- Tudor was sort of a gateway.

More to the point that this thread has drifted to, after finally purchasing a Rolex, I am now looking back to adding more Tudors. I can afford Rolex, however the quality (excellent) to price (very reasonable) ratio of the Tudors, combined with the fact my watches will be worn used and abused, sends me back to Tudor.

I'm sure there are people out there who buy Tudor because they can't afford Rolex, but just as many or more who buy Tudor because Tudor, like so many other non-Rolex watch companies makes a great product!

To each his own! Wear the watch you like!


In order:
Tudor BB Black Rose - most special to me because it was my first
Tudor Double Date
Rolex OP39mm black dial
Tudor North Flag- my current favorite because it pops, is very comfortable on the wrist, and is easy to read.

Well said, There are a lot of excellent watches. Free to wear what you like regardless of cost. More expensive DOES NOT = better.

[doogan]

I started off with an entry level Rolex 6694 and then got a BB58 as I thought it looked fantastic and perfect for my requirements. I was so impressed I later added a BB36, which is now probably my favourite watch.

I would like to own a sub or an explorer but I'm honestly not sure if they are significantly better/different than what I have.

I really like the Tudor brand and the fact that they fly under the radar.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Being as objective as possible here, I think we'd all have to admit that referring to anything as a "poor man's ___" inherently sounds condescending. As well, it's a bit laughable given the actual prices of the watches. Swatch may be a poor man's watch, but any multi-thousand-dollar watch is clearly in the upper stratosphere of costs for such an item.

But on the other side of the argument, taken from Tudor's own history page on their website we have this:

“For some years now, I have been considering the idea of making a watch that our agents could sell at a more modest price than our Rolex watches, and yet one that would attain the standard of dependability for which Rolex is famous.” - H. Wilsdorf

So you have the founder of the company literally pointing to the price point as the motivation for the brand. He doesn't say he wanted to offer different styles or different functionality, he says "more modest price". So can we not say conclusively that this is the DNA of the Tudor line? That in no way restrains it from being a great watch, or having a history of its own, but it's not completely crazy to suggest price is a major differentiation between the brands. Nobody gets mad if you imply the same about Lexus vs Toyota, or Audi vs VW.

Jeff,

I don't think I've seen anyone on TRF deny Tudor is less expensive that Rolex. And yes, the inception of the brand was a cheaper price point.

The problem comes, as you know, from the status whores who stereotype Tudor owners [as well as other brands] as "less than" due to their choice of watch. I can afford [almost] any Patek or Rolex but I don't want a Patek or Rolex. Tudor provides the references I prefer, with the features I use, at a price I want to pay for a watch. I can afford a Lambo but I drive an Audi because they have the vehicle I prefer, with the features I want, at a price I want to pay for a car. When was the last time you saw someone driving a Mercedes and thought to yourself, poor bastard couldn't afford a Lambo. That's as insane & out of touch as looking down your nose [not you personally] at someone wearing a $4K watch. I mean, how do they live with themselves?

The fact so many Rolex owners have also found Tudor as another viable brand speaks volumes and shoots holes thru the "if they only saved enough and bought a Rolex" nonsense.

But some have paid good money and spent lots of time acquiring their status climbing brand. And the only way to justify their shallowness is by looking down at others. Which brings up another reason I prefer the Tudor brand. Little do the status whores realize prejudice runs both ways.
dP

[TswaneNguni]

I like this one

Maybe its just my poor taste ..

[Shadow Play]

In order of purchases, for me it’s been Rolex SD, Tudor BB58, Rolex Explorer, Rolex Submariner.

There are still quite a few Rolex watches I’d like to own. The only other Tudor watches I’d like to own would be the blue BB58 and a blue Pelagos. However, I honestly think I get the most enjoyment out of wearing my BB58.

As such, in no way do I consider buying a Tudor just a cheap option.

[wrf2]

rolex then tudor

[afjag256]

Originally Posted by jaySL350

Firstly Omega then Rolex then Tudor,,,

This was my exact journey...and now I’m back to Omega (a 2254.50)

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Jeff,

Tudor provides the references I prefer, with the features I use, at a price I want to pay for a watch. I can afford a Lambo but I drive an Audi because they have the vehicle I prefer, with the features I want, at a price I want to pay for a car. When was the last time you saw someone driving a Mercedes and thought to yourself, poor bastard couldn't afford a Lambo. That's as insane & out of touch as looking down your nose [not you personally] at someone wearing a $4K watch. I mean, how do they live with themselves?

dP

Agree completely. And to extend the car comparison, I think (though I'm not a Tudor owner myself) the "underdog" aspect gives the brand even more allure. When I used to have a Camaro, nothing felt better than beating a Corvette. When I had a GT-R, the same was true with beating 911 Turbos. Doing more with less, and in particular giving a jab to the guy who spent 2x as much as you, honestly, feels pretty good.

But make no mistake, Rolex has found the hole in my deathstar. I have zero interest in any other luxury product but I'm a Rolex fanboy through and through. It does suck that to an onlooker this infatuation could very reasonably be perceived as simply a clamor for status. I just love the brand, the history, and the models. Sometimes I wish I didn't, but I do!

[Aberdein]

Originally Posted by padi56

Might I suggest you take off your Rolex blinkered glasses tone down the attitude then take a deep breath and take some time to learn about the history of the brand. Is Tudor a poor mans watch most definitely not the Tudor line go way back to the early 1920s then mainly sold then in Canada and Europe, no Rolex or Tudor watches were even sold then in the USA, it was very much later the the Rolex brand arrived for sale in the USA. Hans Wilsdorf from the RWC first opened Tudor watch to world wide production in 1946. And one of the main reasons why he chose the brand name Tudor, was that he wanted to pay tribute to the Tudor history period of old England UK.

The Tudor line prior to around 1990 was all Rolex except for movement, Tudor watches are made by Rolex. The major difference between a Tudor and a Rolex is that Rolex contracted the manufacturing of the movement out to a 3rd party manufacturer (ETA in 95% of them) but now today many modern day Tudors do have a in-house made movement. Much like Rolex did with there chrongraphs before 2000 they used ETA Valjoux and Zenith movements. The ETA ebauche movements were made to Rolex's specifications and signed Tudor and are top grade chronometer movements . This movement was then sent to Rolex where it was assembled into a watch with all Rolex remaining parts (Rolex case, bezel, strap or bracelet, dial, crystal and crown, seals, etc.). These parts are the same parts used in the Rolex line of watches up till around 1990. The older Tudor movements were high grade 17, 21, 25, or 26 jewel Automatic or Manual chronometer grade movements which when correctly cleaned, timed, and oiled, will keep time almost as well as any normal Rolex. Tudor now have many new models with many now with in-house made movements, and in many ways released more real 100% new models than Rolex.

The case screw backs were engraved original oyster case by Rolex, on all the oyster models. In the gold or TT models Tudor uses genuine solid gold Rolex bezels and crown caps, but their bracelets are normally only gold filled, to reduce the cost while Rolex uses solid gold in their bracelets. The French Navy (among others) opted for the Tudor Submariner watches, instead of the Rolex Subs, the French Navy demanded rigorous testing and tested several brands. These watches were tested to carefully calibrated abusive tests in an attempt to destroy them to see how much abuse it could take before losing accuracy or malfunctioning .After testing they choose the Tudor and the only thing the French navy didn't order was the Oyster bracelets. They chose a nylon strap because it would be much more easy to change, and easily replaced if broken. And today the only step down in quality with Tudor watches in general is the price. The the main difference between a Rolex Sub and say a Tudor Sub is they used a top range Chronometer grade ETA a first class all in-house built movement but not Rolex made, and in watches like the Tudor Prince they used a light Oyster bracelet, on Subs they used the heavy Oyster bracelet. Now today the Tudor line has quite a long high heritage with Hans Wilsdorf the founder of Rolex.

In today's market quite a few vintage Tudor watches command higher prices than there Rolex brothers same could be said for Rolex, many of the most collectable Rolex don't even have a Rolex made movement in there cases but ones from ETA Valjoux and Zenith .The Tudor line are still made in the same now highly automated factory as Rolex, Tudor are still a very important part of the Rolex history and are great watches in there own right.

Amazing how one stupid comment from one person can result in words of wisdom from another.

Am now educated on Tudor watches.

Thanks Mr Padi

[RJG]

Rewind the original idea a bit...I like Tudor...because I can simply go into my AD and get one.

Rolex I can have the luxury of staring at an empty case.