A Poor Man's Rolex...

[stil]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Tudor used ETA ebauches since day one and after Swatch announced that they would be cutting back on their distribution of ETA movements and ebauches, it was announced that Swatch would continue to provide Rolex with them, because of the longstanding relationship and because Rolex is an honest to goodness manufacture, unlike so many companies that just jam a movement in a case and call it a day.

Then Rolex announced that they were developing their own movements for Tudor, so basically I'm not sure what's going on, but in the matter of Tudor movements vs. Rolex movements, technically, I guess they are or were inferior, but that in no way means that Tudor ever used crap movements.

I guess one might say that a Honda is inferior to an Acura, but that's really only if you'd rather have an Acura instead of a Honda.

If one prefers Honda to Acura, then one might express it differently.

Thanks for the points, Grady. I'm under the impression that the ETA movements in Tudor are Top grade...which are fairly solid moments that are capable of COSC from what I understand. In fact, I've read a number of things out there that suggest the 2892-A2 is worthy of being in the same class of performance as some of the Rolex movements.

I always wonder if some think ETA movements are inferior from a collectibility standpoint as opposed to mechanical superiority.

I am anxious to see how the new Tudor in house movements perform. The Pelagos has my eye.

[stil]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Inferior to a collector, or inferior in terms of actual movement quality? Those are two different questions. ETA is certainly capable of making a technically great movement.

I have this impression as well. Now don't get me wrong...if I had to chose between a watch with an ETA movement and a Rolex I'd probably go with the Rolex as there's something to be said about a manufacturer that builds the whole thing from the ground up.

[stil]

Originally Posted by Number3

True - fair point.

That it is...I didn't think about this one being an older piece.

[stil]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

...and what's wrong with poor? Most of the kindest and most interesting people I have met over the last 50 years have been poor.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by stil

I have this impression as well. Now don't get me wrong...if I had to chose between a watch with an ETA movement and a Rolex I'd probably go with the Rolex as there's something to be said about a manufacturer that builds the whole thing from the ground up.

Not to get too off track, but vertical integration doesn't always mean better quality, although Rolex has done a good job to imply as much.

General Motors was pretty vertically integrated, and they had several plants in my hometown growing up (my dad worked there.) The first thing to go in my awful 1988 Chevy was an alternator...made by a plant in my hometown by a GM owned company.

If anything, I'd think that Rolex being vertically integrated would make their watches less expensive, if it was done right, but these are Veblen goods, so it's an interesting balance of public opinion for them to achieve, in order to promote exclusivity. They seem to be pulling it off nicely, especially considering Tudor watches probably don't cost them all that much less to make.

[stil]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Not to get too off track, but vertical integration doesn't always mean better quality, although Rolex has done a good job to imply as much.

General Motors was pretty vertically integrated, and they had several plants in my hometown growing up (my dad worked there.) The first thing to go in my awful 1988 Chevy was an alternator...made by a plant in my hometown by a GM owned company.

If anything, I'd think that Rolex being vertically integrated would make their watches less expensive, if it was done right, but these are Veblen goods, so it's an interesting balance of public opinion for them to achieve, in order to promote exclusivity. They seem to be pulling it off nicely.

I totally agree.

That said, I think a lot of this can be chalked up to marketing superioirty.

[Mak2013]

Daytona aint much better. Most overrated Rolex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danny83]

I like it

[stil]

...oh, and to the OP. I like the watch. I don't think it's a poor man's anything...nor are any of the Tudor's IMO.

[nick c]

Built very well like a tank

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by stil

...oh, and to the OP. I like the watch. I don't think it's a poor man's anything...nor are any of the Tudor's IMO.

Agreed. Gorgeous watch!

[bdex75]

Originally Posted by enginerd

Yes! But way "cheaper" than the same year Daytona, you know, for the poor man that only spends $8-9k on watch.



When I'm not wearing my 16600, I'm wearing a Tudor. I've owned 6 Tudors, all Big Blocks (sold 4, currently have 2), but not fortunate enough to find the affordable Monte Carlo, yet.



My latest, a pristine 94210 matte silver panda dial from 1989. It wears bigger (aka more modern) than a Daytona, and has a date. What's not to love?!!

Beautiful Tudor. I will not by a Daytona because of the lack of a date window. Will own a blue THC at some point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tkerrmd]

Ah the Tudor vs Rolex thread

[stil]

Originally Posted by tkerrmd

Ah the Tudor vs Rolex thread

Haha....I didn't mean to start it. Was an honest question...

[tkerrmd]

Originally Posted by stil

Haha....I didn't mean to start it. Was an honest question...

Oh I knew it would happen when OP accused Tudor of being a poor mans Rolex

[stil]

Originally Posted by tkerrmd

Oh I knew it would happen when OP accused Tudor of being a poor mans Rolex

Good point.

[tkerrmd]

Originally Posted by stil

Good point.

[joe100]

Sigh, nothing in the Rolex sphere is a "poor man's" anything.

[XZACM102]

It's a testament to Daytona.
I don't care if it's Tudor or Invicta, we all know what purpose this watch serves.

[skprd13]

Originally Posted by kilyung

Great watch but irritating to keep seeing references to Tudor being a poor version of Rolex.

X2 I have the same in Blue and enjoy and appreciate the quality like all of my other watches from Rolex, Omega, Seiko etc. Tudor makes one heck of a watch!

[locutus49]

In your opinion.

Originally Posted by Mak2013

Daytona aint much better. Most overrated Rolex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mvmbles]

Originally Posted by Rich Mickol

Cool Watch. Tell me about the Tele in the background.

x2

Some sort of 3 tone Sunburst Tele, but I'd like to see more photos.

Tudors are great!

[DCgator]

I had a choice between a DJ Quartz or a similar model by Tudor (I think it was manual wind). Sales rep told me the true story, that Tudor is made by Rolex but cost a lot less. He never said Tudors were inferior or less accurate or called it a poor man's Rolex. I chose the the quartz simply because it looked a lot cleaner and more solid. That was in 1990.

I have friends who own Tudor sports models and they love 'em and are proud to wear 'em to the office, on deployments, in jungles, in the desert, etc. One day Tudor will come out with a model I will like and I'd buy it without hesitation. In fact the new Pelagos w/ rubber strap is already on my radar.

[Marvoon]

Tudur! Beautiful...

[iLLGT2]

At first he was like , "hrm what an amazing watch" then thought "omg can't be seen without a Rolex, what will people think of me" .........

[bharat]

Beautiful watch! Congratulations! And great article as well - thanks for sharing.

[bkertzer89]

tudor is the same thing as rolex just way more cool and WAY less gold

[Bexsonn]

Originally Posted by fishingbear

This is a great thread! Thanks Christopher for the write up and beautiful photographs.

For those of you who did not see the link to the OPs write-up, regardless of how you may feel it is worth the read:
http://www.bexsonn.com/blog/a-retro-...eference-7159/

Originally Posted by bharat

Beautiful watch! Congratulations! And great article as well - thanks for sharing.

Thanks! I don't think it is a poor mans Rolex at all, it is what it is....

And to those who are wondering, no the pickups didn't magnetize the watch ;-)

Originally Posted by mvmbles

x2

Some sort of 3 tone Sunburst Tele, but I'd like to see more photos.

Tudors are great!

This is my Telecaster that I've had for about 15 years. Fender had a line called the Highway, which I'm not sure they even still make. It was a range that Fender lightly painted to allow the wood to breathe more giving it a more distinct sound.... Though I could never really hear much difference if you ask me :)

[steptoe]

Originally Posted by guelerct

I like it better than a Daytona personally

Originally Posted by joli160

Chrono with date

My exact thoughts as well...

[vette boy 52]

Nice Watch, nothing inferior there, enjoy