Tudor vs Omega

[DaninFlorida]

Originally Posted by tacotaco

Another question is, if Tudor has no relationship with Rolex, how would it compare?

I think Tudor is in the same class as Oris, Tag, etc.

Much better than tag or Oris.

[jbsmith]

For me it's Omega, due to history, finish, detail, aesthetics, comfort, etc. Tudor doesn't have a model that really sings to me. Buy what you like though. My only Omega, but when it came out I knew I had to have.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[tbk]

Originally Posted by jbsmith

For me it's Omega, due to history, finish, detail, aesthetics, comfort, etc. Tudor doesn't have a model that really sings to me. Buy what you like though. My only Omega, but when it came out I knew I had to have.

That is a beauty. If it had been an automatic I would have bought one immediately, unfortunately I have too many watches to fit a manual into my rotation. My GSOTM will have to do for now, but I really love yours!

[henrylee]

Rolex > Omega > Tudor

[jbsmith]

Originally Posted by tbk

That is a beauty. If it had been an automatic I would have bought one immediately, unfortunately I have too many watches to fit a manual into my rotation. My GSOTM will have to do for now, but I really love yours!

Thank you and understand. It's my only manual and fell in love with the lasered "moon movement" with yellow accents. Love all the 44mm moon watches with co axials as well. Enjoy that GSOTM, it's a beaut.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Chewbacca]

Today, Omega's premier range is equal or better than Rolexeses.

80's and 90's, early 00's, not so much. Rolex owned it. But Omega design had a renaissance.

Where Omega falls short today is in their dealer network and ASS process.

Tudor benefits from leaning on RSC and the Rolex AD network.

[franktehtank]

All my opinions:

- Omega has more cache as a brand than Tudor.
- Tudor is cheaper, and can be had cheaper second hand than (current) Omega.
- Omega is technically superior to Tudor from a watchmaking perspective.

I'll still often choose Tudor over Omega, even though I believe Omega to be a superior brand. Mostly it's due to design preferences, second hand price points, and what "tool" I'm looking for. Tudor represents a fantastic value for an every day piece.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by eteokles

Both brands make high quality watches that should last a lifetime and more.

This!

[watchwatcher]

I like both and have owned both. Both great.

It's sad that posters have to be negative, bitter, and downright disrespectful in threads like these. But, that seems to be the state of things here lately. Anyway...

OP, Concerning the Harrods, I would say this. It's certainly a watch worthy of consideration for your collection, whether it's now or later. And I wouldn't think having a Seamaster (one of the nicest diving watches I've owned over the years) would disqualify it, either.

[HogwldFLTR]

For me there isn't really a choice between these two. Both are great watch manufacturers and both make a great product. For me I've chosen to buy other than these. For the moment my choice has become Ball which employs Tritium lume and is now being made with both Eta and inhouse movements.

[Krash]

Omega all the way.

Omega is closer to Rolex than Tudor is to Omega.

[Art 1]

I own both brands and are happy with each.

[Bluside]

Didn't read the whole thread. But, which 2 watches are we talking about? Are we just generalizing everything?

I like my Tudor GMT better than my Omega Seamster Pro quartz. Does that fit this scenario?

[Hulkhunter]

Wow, this thread has blown up.

Thanks for all the responses guys, quite a few good points. Too many to respond to individually.

I know Omega is more expensive at retail but grey they can be had for a similar price to Tudor. Im leaning more towards the Omega SMP just need to decide dial colour.

[trippinjimmy]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

Today, Omega's premier range is equal or better than Rolexeses.

Where Omega falls short today is in their dealer network and ASS process.

I'd agree from a most of this. Rolex's bracelets are much better too, though. My new Seamaster hasn't gained/lost a second in 3 days. Pretty impressive.

Originally Posted by Hulkhunter

I know Omega is more expensive at retail but grey they can be had for a similar price to Tudor. Im leaning more towards the Omega SMP just need to decide dial colour.

Go see them in person and get the one that sings to you.
FWIW, I have a 114060, and I now have two SMPcs. The watch is comfy, gorgeous, interesting, and one of the best all around watches. With the exception of my sub bracelet and that is was my late Father's, I like my Seamasters better.

I will say this too...the Sub is a better "formal" if you will watch. Definitely pulls "dressy" better than the seamasters.

[Brny11]

I can make a strong case that the co axial movement is technically superior to any Rolex makes. I can make the same argument with 58 over a sub. I can also make the argument in favor Rolex vs. both.

To answer your question, people have different view points. I have owned two Omegas and never vibed with them. Sold them both. My 58 on the other hand... I love as much as my SubC date. I prefer Tudor, but Omegas are damn good watches.

[Saoirse32]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Omega’s new watches fitted with the Master Chronometer movements are a lot better than anything from Tudor. The METAS certified Omega movements are some of the best in the industry. Outstanding.

Well said, and they’re quite striking too! (Not that the Tudors are not).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk