Differences between Rolex and Tudor Movements

[jlovda]

Could someone please describe the basic differences between Rolex and in-house Tudor movements? Is a Rolex movement more complicated with additional components, are the movement materials cheaper, are there fewer jewels, are the machining tolerances of Rolex parts finer? How much of the cost difference is due to the movement in relation to the case and band? Does a Tudor watch use less skilled handwork?
Thanks

[MikeyV]

I'd love to hear what anyone has to say about this.
I just got my first Tudor (Blue Pelagos) and the feel of the movement was sooo different, I was really surprised.

Also, the date sets by turning the crown CCW, which was weird!

[MikeyV]

I know that the new Tudor movements have the ball bearings on the self-winding rotor, like the new 32 series Rolex movements.
They also both have a full bridge instead of a one sided balance cock. But so did the 3135. And maybe before that.

These are similarities, not differences I know. But you can cross those two off!

[Bill_H]

I read this article a while back that compares Tudor and Rolex production
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/articl...-watch-factory

Rolexes advertises accuracy to +/-2 sec per day and Tudor to -2/+4.

[Ssunnylee24]

Originally Posted by Bill_H

I read this article a while back that compares Tudor and Rolex production
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/articl...-watch-factory

Rolexes advertises accuracy to +/-2 sec per day and Tudor to -2/+4.

Great info, thank you.

[Waxtactic]

Excellent article. Thank you.

[roadie1]

Thanks for posting this article

[Ashton_Horologist]

The new in-house Tudor movements are actually incredibly accurate. They use silicon balance springs which are very stable timekeepers. The construction of certain elements of the movement is similar to their Rolex counterparts. The reversing wheels in the automatic work are the same style of construction that Rolex use.

I have partially disassembled one of the automatic movements and can say that the execution overall is cheaper than a Rolex movement.

The wheels are not as sturdy in their construction, and neither are the bridges. They are more similar to an ETA style movement in that respect. Having said that, they have a very respectable power reserve and as already stated, are very good timekeepers.

They have one HUGE draw-back in my opinion. That is the fact that they cannot be serviced. They are exchange only. When you send the watch in, even for a warranty repair the whole movement is replaced with a refurbished model and then COSC records are updated to match.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

The new in-house Tudor movements are actually incredibly accurate. They use silicon balance springs which are very stable timekeepers. The construction of certain elements of the movement is similar to their Rolex counterparts. The reversing wheels in the automatic work are the same style of construction that Rolex use.

I have partially disassembled one of the automatic movements and can say that the execution overall is cheaper than a Rolex movement.

The wheels are not as sturdy in their construction, and neither are the bridges. They are more similar to an ETA style movement in that respect. Having said that, they have a very respectable power reserve and as already stated, are very good timekeepers.

They have one HUGE draw-back in my opinion. That is the fact that they cannot be serviced. They are exchange only. When you send the watch in, even for a warranty repair the whole movement is replaced with a refurbished model and then COSC records are updated to match.

I've read this is standard procedure for new movements as a way for manufacturers to review any possible future changes.
dP

[Ashton_Horologist]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

I've read this is standard procedure for new movements as a way for manufacturers to review any possible future changes.
dP

As far as I am aware it has to do with cost and lack of qualified watchmakers. It is very common among other brands, but certainly not Rolex. All new Rolex movements are serviced, as opposed to replaced. It all has to do with de-skilling the industry and keeping turnaround times lower.

[base924]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

That is the fact that they cannot be serviced. They are exchange only. When you send the watch in, even for a warranty repair the whole movement is replaced with a refurbished model and then COSC records are updated to match.

So the service intervals of around 5 years is not because of oils drying up. It´s for Tudor to make more money!

Such crap! I really do not like to put my money into "buy and throw away" items. Hope it keeps running for 20 years then!

[vipereaper30]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

They are exchange only. When you send the watch in, even for a warranty repair the whole movement is replaced with a refurbished model and then COSC records are updated to match.

That answers the when to service question for Tudor. Wear till it dies, thanks for the info!

[g_luck]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

They have one HUGE draw-back in my opinion. That is the fact that they cannot be serviced. They are exchange only. When you send the watch in, even for a warranty repair the whole movement is replaced with a refurbished model and then COSC records are updated to match.

I don't know much about Tudor but their website talks about having your Tudor Serviced and it doesn't say anything about replacement. It only talks about disassembly and cleaning. Re-lubricating and replacing worn parts. Is that not what is done?

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

They have one HUGE draw-back in my opinion. That is the fact that they cannot be serviced. They are exchange only. When you send the watch in, even for a warranty repair the whole movement is replaced with a refurbished model and then COSC records are updated to match.

This is the first time I have seen this said and as a Tudor fan I generally read everything I see related to Tudor. Do you have evidence of this because if it's a "have on good authority" or "my AD told Me" I'd be calls BS on this. It also doesn't fit with everything that is known about the brand and parent brand.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[daysky1]

How do you know you're not exchanging a newer movement for a older refurbished one?

[Snow-Dweller]

Good article. Thank you.

[Ashton_Horologist]

I am an ex-Rolex watchmaker who worked in the warranty section of the service department and personally swapped Tudor in-house movements. Trust me, this is not the kind of thing you will read in a press release on their website!

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

I am an ex-Rolex watchmaker who worked in the warranty section of the service department and personally swapped Tudor in-house movements. Trust me, this is not the kind of thing you will read in a press release on their website!

I still can't order anything for these movements. I hope they come up with a training so we can do the service in-house.

[Ashton_Horologist]

Originally Posted by SearChart

I still can't order anything for these movements. I hope they come up with a training so we can do the service in-house.

These will always be replace only. It is more cost-effective to swap them out and then service them in a sequential line back in Switzerland.

It's the way of the world...

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

These will always be replace only. It is more cost-effective to swap them out and then service them in a sequential line back in Switzerland.

It's the way of the world...

Damn... That is a sad state of affairs.

[mgsooner]

I've recently been trying to convince myself to go for a BB58 next instead of spending double (or more) on a 14060m, 16610 or a 16600. I had all but successfully convinced myself when I came upon this thread. It is a bit disappointing, although not altogether surprising, that the Tudor in house movements are of a lesser construction than Rolex movements. I could live with that, but I'm not sure I can live with a movement swap every single time I have a service. The idea that these Tudor in house movements are somehow "disposable" movements is very troubling to me. Do we think this is something that will continue in perpetuity or is it simply a temporary measure until technicians can gain the necessary expertise servicing these movements?

[johnjm]

Originally Posted by mgsooner

I've recently been trying to convince myself to go for a BB58 next instead of spending double (or more) on a 14060m, 16610 or a 16600. I had all but successfully convinced myself when I came upon this thread. It is a bit disappointing, although not altogether surprising, that the Tudor in house movements are of a lesser construction than Rolex movements. I could live with that, but I'm not sure I can live with a movement swap every single time I have a service. The idea that these Tudor in house movements are somehow "disposable" movements is very troubling to me. Do we think this is something that will continue in perpetuity or is it simply a temporary measure until technicians can gain the necessary expertise servicing these movements?

The in house Tudor movements are incredible IMO. Accurate and tough based on my experience.

Personally, I don't see the need to have to spend much more on a 5 digit Rolex when the 6 digits are tops.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Brew]

Fascinating. Part of the appeal of these watches, including Tudor, is the prospect of passing them to our loved ones. A disposable movement does not support that motivation.

[mgsooner]

Originally Posted by Brew

Fascinating. Part of the appeal of these watches, including Tudor, is the prospect of passing them to our loved ones. A disposable movement does not support that motivation.

Agreed, it is a tough pill to swallow. Is Tudor the only major brand adopting this method, or are there others out there as well?

It also begs the question - if Tudor is doing this, will Rolex adopt it as well with this new generation of movements?

[Jostack]

Originally Posted by Brew

Fascinating. Part of the appeal of these watches, including Tudor, is the prospect of passing them to our loved ones. A disposable movement does not support that motivation.

I don’t think what has been described indicates it is disposable. It means the service is being done to the movement off site. If when it comes time to have mine serviced, as long as the movement that gets swapped in performs similarly to the one I have now, why would I care?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brew]

Originally Posted by Jostack

I don’t think what has been described indicates it is disposable. It means the service is being done to the movement off site. If when it comes time to have mine serviced, as long as the movement that gets swapped in performs similarly to the one I have now, why would I care?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apparently, you wouldn't. And that's fine. For you.

[mgsooner]

Originally Posted by Jostack

I don’t think what has been described indicates it is disposable. It means the service is being done to the movement off site. If when it comes time to have mine serviced, as long as the movement that gets swapped in performs similarly to the one I have now, why would I care?

That's a fair point. The movements aren't "disposable" in the sense that they're going into the trash. It's more of a game of musical chairs. I guess I just like the idea of the same movement ticking away in my watch for decades, provided I take care of it.

It does serve to essentially cut out the local independent watchmaker and force you to send it to a RSC when it's time for a service. I'm not a fan of that at all.

[Dan Pierce]

Replacement movement or not my Tudor GMT has the smoothest feeling and most accurate setting and performance of any watch I've ever owned, including Rolex & Patek. If, in 5 years [or so], I get it serviced and the movement is replaced with same, I'm a happy camper.
dP

[Jostack]

I get the argument for the independent watchmaker, and I agree. But swapping a movement vs ‘servicing’ YOUR movement? What is the difference in the end? Is there an emotional attachment to the movement or certain parts within a movement? Isn’t YOUR movement fundamentally changed when it is serviced? Worn parts are replaced. Good parts are cleaned/lubed and reassembled.

I’m fairly ignorant about whether or not there are or may be core parts within a movement that constitute ‘part of the watch’ for say sentimental value. I’m not trying to be argumentative, just practical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Jostack

I get the argument for the independent watchmaker, and I agree. But swapping a movement vs ‘servicing’ YOUR movement? What is the difference in the end? Is there an emotional attachment to the movement or certain parts within a movement? Isn’t YOUR movement fundamentally changed when it is serviced? Worn parts are replaced. Good parts are cleaned/lubed and reassembled.
. . .

I agree with you.

This is very common throughout the world now days as there are very few new-generation individuals who want to learn a trade.

Circuit boards, mechanical parts, generators, compressors, motors; almost nobody will rebuild these, they are all "core" products swapped-out and sent back for rebuild.