Tudor Heritage Chrono vs Omega Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch

[psholtz]

I like the THC in pictures, but on the wrist it just didn't do anything for me.

The burgundy Black Bay, though, is gorgeous.

I've got a 3570.50 Speedie, great piece. I voted Speedmaster in the poll.

[NYCREBROKER]

Originally Posted by josephvman

I've got both and if pressed to pick a favorite I'd have to go withe the Speedy. The THC is a fantastic piece, but it doesn't have the history and iconic place in history that the Speedy has. The chunky case proportions lack the finesse of the Speedy, and no other Chrono can match the perfect symmetry and legibility, IMO. The downside to the Speedy is true water resistance, which would be a deal breaker if it were any only watch.

I wear my speedy while swimming all the time. Never had an issue. My vote is Speedmaster.

[Watch Rob]

Speedy

[alex1979]

Speedy pro

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[jefe1999]

I've got one of each. No question at all, by a large margin: Speedy

[jdmi32]

I like my Speedmaster even more than most of my Rolex watches.

[tbreihan]

I'll preface this by readily admitting my bias for the Speedy. It is my favorite watch (of all time) and was my first truly nice watch.

The Speedmaster Professional is a watch that shouldn't exist anymore, yet it does. This is due to it being one of only a handful of watches that all the world's space agencies use for extra-vehicular activity (EVA) and, up till the early 2000s (IIRC) was the only watch certified by NASA for EVA. Thus, due to these approval regulations, it has been produced virtually unchanged since about 1968. It is a horological relic. However, with the exception of perhaps some Patek Philippe models, it is basically the only vintage watch that you can buy brand new from an AD.

Can you imagine if, due to some regulatory certification, Rolex was required to keep producing 1680s or 5513s alongside their modern Sub-Cs? Sure, it would have made the vintage Sub market non-existent. But, would you not buy a brand new 1680 with full factory warranty for a reasonable price if it was available? I sure would.

To me, the Speedmaster Pro is the best piece of horological history you can buy for less than $6k.

[sensui]

This thread makes it too easy... Speedmaster.

[fania123]

I approve this comment

Originally Posted by xjeeunitx

A Speedy is a must have for any watch enthusiast's collection. I would even say that not having one in a collection isn't a collection at all. =)

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by bmpregler

Same thoughts for me almost word for word, expect I bought the blue Tudor.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by xjeeunitx

A Speedy is a must have for any watch enthusiast's collection. I would even say that not having one in a collection isn't a collection at all. =)

I don't think you're in a position to dictate what makes a collection and what does not.

I agree the that, historically, the Speedy Pro is a very important watch and I agree that it is a worthy addition to any collection.

Beyond that, I think you're just blowing smoke.

[Quicksilver]

It has to be the Speedmaster. Not only is it the more handsome of the two it has the heritage and classic status. Buying a new Speedmaster Professional is one of the best watch buying experiences on the planet - a brand new vintage watch with hesalite crystal almost identical to the one you could buy in the late 60's. An authentic piece of horological history and a very handsome watch.

Here's mine -

[PaulChronometer]

The Speedy Pro is truly timeless, and arguably the most functional/legible dial layout (for a chronograph) as one could come up with.

At some point in time (the 70s and 80s?), I guess Heuer Carrera was somewhat comparable in terms of clean chronograph dial design.

[HogwldFLTR]

Speedmaster is truly the watch of heritage imho.

[xjeeunitx]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I don't think you're in a position to dictate what makes a collection and what does not.

I agree the that, historically, the Speedy Pro is a very important watch and I agree that it is a worthy addition to any collection.

Beyond that, I think you're just blowing smoke.

LMAO. Position? I never said that I was. I was just expressing my opinion on the matter. Relax bud.

[sea-dweller]

Tudor...

[KBM]

Speedy looks more versatile, but you're really choosing between two pretty girls there.

[Case61]

I have two Speedys, one 1974 and one new model. Love them both. I like the look of the Heritage Blue, and have come close a couple of times to pulling the trigger. But I just have a feeling I might get tired of the "busy-ness" of the dial and the watch's bulk. The Speedy dial is iconic, and will never go out of style (IMHO). The size and weight is just about perfect for a chrono.

[Spoonage]

If I was buying and it's between those I would go Omega.

[gav329]

Originally Posted by fania123

and I've got both

Think this chap has it nailed they are both chronographs but that's it they are both different and you need both!! Lovely watches both of them, the Omega a legend with the moon landings. Both fantastic however.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[doramas]

Thanks

[actionkwj]

Originally Posted by faz

Both are beautiful watches.

There are a couple of Omega watches that I like, Speedmaster being one of them, although I must say when I saw it in person, it wasn't nearly as good looking as the pictures make it look. It looked somewhat lower quality compared to Rolex.

I am just starting to warm up to Tudor, mainly after being on this forum and seeing nice things being said about them. Personally I always thought of Tudor as a watch with toy'ish look. Again, I am now starting to like the looks so no offense to those who own Tudor watches (probably on the horizon for me somewhere.)

So there, for a watch newbie like me, a Speedmaster purchase will happen way before a Tudor.

To be fair a Speedy is a true vintage design and you'd have to compare it to the quality of a mid-60s Sub and the quality is comparable or better. Its also thinner and flatter since it's not a dive watch and an even more modern size. Of course there's no date and it is a 55 year old design with a hesalite crystal though you can buy a sapphire version too (but why?)

It's no match in build quality compared to a 2016 Sub but to be fair it's a third of the price. The Speedy is probably still the best bang for your watch buck there is and a true modern classic tool watch.

Of course that only matters if you like them and you can count me in!

[Blackdog]

As it has been pointed out already, the Speedy is a "Living fossil".

Omega make a zillion versions of the Speedmaster today, but they always kept in the line a version that remains essentially unchanged since 1969. And it is still worth buying !

As it was said, one of the very few vintage watches you can buy new, today.

Iconic, legendary, AND functional ! I have not yet seen (in more than 4 decades) any other chronograph with a dial so clean and legible.

I really like the THC, seems to be a great watch, but for me it doesn't really compare with the Speedy.

[S2000_driver]

Speedmaster professional!!! Absolute classic!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shichinin]

Originally Posted by beshannon

The Speedmaster without any question

This is the first time I agree with your opinion.

[pampam]

I like the looks of the THC but when heritage comes to picture its the speedmaster.

[landroverking]

One a very cool looking watch, one a true tool chronograph.
SMP.

[kopykopy]

Because of this thread and the beautiful pictures of both watches posted by the OP, I went in search of both. I can only find the Moonwatch at ADs but none in used watch dealers (a very hot item, it seems). For the Tudor Heritage Chrono, I can't find at any ADs but only found a used one in one used watch dealer. I have tried both on my wrist and unfortunately both at 42mm are too big for my 6.5 inch wrist. I went home unhappy for my wrist as 2 iconic watches do not sign to me. But happy for my wallet.