Is TUDOR a poor mans watch?

[Connoissieur]

I’ve called rolex ad snd they sayed that waiting list is 3 years. Is it good option to get tudor pelagos instead of sport rolex?

[173rdabn]

Poor man's Rolex? Good grief.

[garyk]

My wife chose a Tudor S & G Chrono on Bund over any Rolex in the store at Christmas. I do not think they are a poor mans (or woman’s) watch by any stretch of the imagination...Obviously that comes from many years ago when they were considered an economy line of Rolex but today, they totally stand on their own as a legitimate brand.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Connoissieur

I’ve called rolex ad snd they sayed that waiting list is 3 years. Is it good option to get tudor pelagos instead of sport rolex?

Is Tudor a poor mans watch most definitely not the Tudor line go back to the 1920s then mainly sold in Canada and Europe, Rolex or Tudor watches were not 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.

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 some 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. 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 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,instead of the Rolex Sub,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 bracelet.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 have a Rolex made movement 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.

[watchwatcher]

No. Poor people don't generally spend the money on a watch that a Pelagos costs.

[Oyster Sauce]

Great response Padi56...a perfect answer to then OP’s thread title question of whether Tudor is a poor man’s Rolex. I love my Tudor Sub...quality feels every bit as good as my Rolex from the same era.

With regard to the second question about the Pelagos, it really depends on what you are looking for (especially in your heart). The Pelagos is an extremely capable, rugged dive watch with certain vintage design cues. On its own a great watch. Get it if your honest, primary objective is to get a tough, luxury dive watch now. Caveat: try it on first, of course. Love the blue.

That being said, if you really want a Rolex Submariner, I don’t think you will long term be happy with the Pelagos. It is different enough to stand on its own (I think that’s a good thing)...psychologically it’s not a Sub. Also, my recollection when I tried it on was that it felt different (not better or worse, just different) than a Sub.

I’ll let those who own both to chime in. Happy hunting!

[kieselguhr]

Great answer from Peter!

[raclaims]

Many consider Tudor, Rolex's cooler little brother.

I like them but I can understand the stigma from the non WIS world

[Frontier]

That is a complete misnomer. If anything wearing a Tudor is opportunity to enjoy a fine Swiss timepiece without the concerns of wearing similar Rolex timepieces.
For example when I owned a Rolex Pepsi I often reached for the more practical Tudor BB GMT or when I want to wear a durable chronograph I enjoy one of my Tudor Heritage Chronographs.

[chinaski]

Most people don't drop more than $1000 on watch in their entire lives, let alone a watch that costs 3 to 5 times that.

[Rolex_AG]

[schoolboy]

I mean it’s a matter of perspective.

I guess you can say Tudor is a poor mans Rolex just like Toyota is a poor mans Lexus

Or Nissan a poor mans Infinity or whatever

But again, it depends what you value; and who you want to impress, yourself or the rest of the world?

[SMD]

Dude joins today and immediately starts trolling. Don't feed him and hopefully he will go away soon.

[cmcm3]

100% troll

[ras47]

There is no "poor man's Rolex." There is Rolex, and there is everything else.

[yesnaya]

Yeah. Basically. As a standalone brand they make great looking watches and are an amazing bang for the buck. But there is no denying that the creation of Tudor was aimed at offering something at a more reasonable price. So the stigma is there, and will remain. If you want a rolex (with rolex written on the dial), no tudor will ever be enough. Is the pelagos a great watch? Absolutely. Will it ever be a submariner? Nope. Rolex will always be the more prestigious brand, especially to non-wis. So if you have to explain that Tudor is the sister company of Rolex you've just explained why it is the "lesser" brand. Not that they make a bad product... just not as "prestigious" as Rolex.

[Georgevlado]

If you want a Rolex get a Rolex don’t get a tudor because you wanted a Rolex get a tudor because it speaks to you .... if you buy a tudor as an alternative it will never scratch that itch ... if you think tudor is a poor mans Rolex then it will always be like that in your mind until you purchase the Rolex . I love tudor I own two of them & they bring me great joy. You gotta love what you buy.

[johnorpheus]

OP, perhaps you shouldn't be buying your watch just yet. You seem very uniformed starting with that headline. That said, some good responses here on the history of Tudor. I personally love my black bay. Heard good things about Pelagos.

[slus]

Originally Posted by yesnaya

Is the pelagos a great watch? Absolutely. Will it ever be a submariner? Nope.

Nah, it's better than a Sub at everything, except being shiny and saying Rolex on the dial

/flamesuit

[GradyPhilpott]

Oh, poor, pitiful me.

[SoixanteSecondes]

....Not this kind of thread again. Must be trolling.

[Brny11]

Good responses here across the board. Non-wis typically have never heard of Tudor. You’d raise more eyebrows with a Movado. If that is important to you then get yourself a Rolex. I absolutely love my Tudor 58. The more you research, the more you come to appreciate Tudor’s brand and products.

[samson66]

Oh Jesus...

[worldfamoussam]

God, get some perspective, OP ...

[htrap2294]

Yes, it's a poor man's watch. You shouldn't buy it. It will forever remind you that you bought a Tudor, not a Rolex. LOL, how could you do such a thing? So despicable. Please stop making threads, OP. I can feel the poverty rubbing off.

[CPRWATCH]

Well if this is what poor means , please sir give me more .

[htrap2294]

Originally Posted by CPRWATCH

Well if this is what poor means , please sir give me more .

Beautiful Tudor :)

Methinks OP just wants a ROLEX on the dial.

I've noticed the thought process goes like this:

1. I want a *insert SS model here*
2. I can't get *insert SS model here*
3. What can I get?
4. I don't want *insert TT/DJ model here*
5. What is still hyped?
6. Tudor BB and Pelagos are hyped.
7. It doesn't say Rolex on the dial.
8. Let me make a thread asking if there's less prestige when wearing a Tudor.

Those kind of guys simply need a Rolex. They can get a DJ36 or DJII on jubilee with fluted bezel and it will garner all kinds of compliments. It just won't be "hot" in the WIS community. These people should pick their battles.

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by Georgevlado

If you want a Rolex get a Rolex don’t get a tudor because you wanted a Rolex get a tudor because it speaks to you .... if you buy a tudor as an alternative it will never scratch that itch ... if you think tudor is a poor mans Rolex then it will always be like that in your mind until you purchase the Rolex . I love tudor I own two of them & they bring me great joy. You gotta love what you buy.

Agree 100%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[garyk]

Excellent responses but Peter, your response and info is amazing. Thank you.....and the blue bezel Tudor, wow!

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by yesnaya

Yeah. Basically. As a standalone brand they make great looking watches and are an amazing bang for the buck. But there is no denying that the creation of Tudor was aimed at offering something at a more reasonable price. So the stigma is there, and will remain. If you want a rolex (with rolex written on the dial), no tudor will ever be enough. Is the pelagos a great watch? Absolutely. Will it ever be a submariner? Nope. Rolex will always be the more prestigious brand, especially to non-wis. So if you have to explain that Tudor is the sister company of Rolex you've just explained why it is the "lesser" brand. Not that they make a bad product... just not as "prestigious" as Rolex.

Damn.

That is a little harsh, but I do see some reasoning in there.

Because yes, if you want a good watch, Tudor and Rolex are both great options.

If you want a Rolex, only Rolex will do the trick. Tudor is the little brother.

That being said, to me, the LHD Pelagos is more attractive than the Submariner or Submariner date.

If I buy one it will be because I liked it more. Not because I wanted a Rolex and couldn’t afford one.

Will I be a cool guy with a Rolex Sub? Nope.

But I could still be a bad ass that didn’t need the Rolex name to make q decision.