Are Modern Tudors As Good as Rolexes?

[Foxfeather]

Personally I love the Black Bay but that is it. Much prefer the look of Rolex as well a the better quality.

[brogue]

I feel there is a long margin between those watches .... They are not even comparable

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

"How do you think the Tudors shown compare in movement, build, and quality to their similar Rolex counterparts."

Movement isn't a consideration for me. The ETA/Tudor 2824, as used in my BB and Ranger, has been fine-tuned for over a half-century by ETA, will run forever, and keeps better time than any of my Rolexes. And any decent watchmaker can service it. The new in-house is yet to prove itself, but seems to be doing ok so far.

Build quality is roughly on a par with Rolex, I think, and QC issues seem to be nowhere near as common as they are for Rolex watches, here on TRF anyway. With Heritage models you're also getting case chamfers, which Rolex apparently gave up on as too time consuming (?) some years ago.

Tudors made 50 and 60 years ago hold their own in the Vintage market today better than most other brands, and are not far behind Rolex in collectibility and investment potential. I doubt that will change significantly in the future.

Thanks for the insight based on your personal experience. I'm surprised that your ETA keeps better time than any of your Rolexes. Interesting.....

Less QC issues on Tudor than Rolex. Wow.....

[emersm]

It's all about "perception" with Tudor and Rolex.

[Ragna]

If you really want to say it... then say: "modern Tudors are as good as old Rolexes"

Just kidding ;)

[kwingy]

I had a Tudor Blackbay to compliment my Hulk at the time and I wore it a lot to be fair but in the end it felt like surplus to requirements. When I needed cash it was an easy decision to let it go. The ETA movement on mine also wasn't up to scratch as the power reserve was quite weak compared to the Green Sub.

[Maiden]

Both great watches. Been to several AD's that carry both, held both in my hands many times, head to head, divers to divers, etc. Only my opinion but not even close in terms of fit and finish. Marketing does not make me feel this way. Whether that makes one better than the other is subjective. Again my opinion only, I am not a quality expert, just how I feel based on my experiences. Again, both great watches and brands.

[Maiden]

Originally Posted by GB-man

This should be a sticky

So true, whether, Tag, Omega, Breitling, ect........take good care and proper service and the watch will perform and will most likely outive you.

[drgoro]

I bought a pelagos blue, couldn't stand the way the bezel mechanism sounded or felt. It quickly went bye bye

[River]

Originally Posted by locutus49

In fashion Tudor would be known as a Bridge Line. Entry level to the brand.

For example: Ralph Lauren's Purple Label is their Rolex of lines, the best quality and high cost. Polo line is the one most people are familiar with and would be the Tudor equivalent. Both lines are excellent IMO, only each line has models that appeal to different people.

Most people will not know that you are wearing a Purple Label Ralph Lauren jacket, but the owner knows the quality, fit and style. Kind of like owning a WG or Platinum watch, except for very few, most people will assume you are wearing SS. But the owner knows.

Maybe my comparison is off, but food for thought.

I totally agree with this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[josephvman]

I have three Tudors, a Heritage Chrono, Black Bay Black, and Black Bay Bronze, and a lot more Rolex's. I've been wearing my BLNR almost exclusively for the past few weeks, and tonight I decided to switch my blue Nato strap on the Chrono back to the bracelet, and the leather strap on my BB Black also back to the oyster bracelet. I looked at all of them with a loupe, and I didn't find a heck of a lot of difference. The dials on the Tudors are excellent and I couldn't find any discernible difference in quality between them and my Rolex's. I really couldn't find any flaws in the cases of the Tudors either, but the edges of the cases just have a sharper feel to them, as do the edges of the Tudor oyster bracelets. The Rolex's just have a "softer" feel in the hand, for lack of a better term, and I really think it's less a difference in quality as it is the difference between the 904L and 316L steel. The brushing on the Tudor bracelets is somewhat more coarse, but just as well-done as the Rolex. The Tudor oyster bracelets don't taper to the clasp, which on make wrist makes them less comfortable, and probably much cheaper to make. The feel of the bezels when rotated is different, but I wouldn't say the Tudors feel cheaper, just different. The chamfers on the Tudor lugs are gorgeous, and something that I really wish Rolex was still doing.

One thing I notice when I take off a Rolex at the end of the day is that the watch feels very warm to the touch, much more so than the Tudor. I think this must be a characteristic of the 904L steel over the 316L on the Tudor. There's no question that the 904L has a different lustre to it, and I think that's really the biggest difference between them.

I can say that I think Tudors are superior in quality and finishing to anything else in their price range, including my Omegas.

[Black Bay Dan]

Originally Posted by josephvman

I have three Tudors, a Heritage Chrono, Black Bay Black, and Black Bay Bronze, and a lot more Rolex's. I've been wearing my BLNR almost exclusively for the past few weeks, and tonight I decided to switch my blue Nato strap on the Chrono back to the bracelet, and the leather strap on my BB Black also back to the oyster bracelet. I looked at all of them with a loupe, and I didn't find a heck of a lot of difference. The dials on the Tudors are excellent and I couldn't find any discernible difference in quality between them and my Rolex's. I really couldn't find any flaws in the cases of the Tudors either, but the edges of the cases just have a sharper feel to them, as do the edges of the Tudor oyster bracelets. The Rolex's just have a "softer" feel in the hand, for lack of a better term, and I really think it's less a difference in quality as it is the difference between the 904L and 316L steel. The brushing on the Tudor bracelets is somewhat more coarse, but just as well-done as the Rolex. The Tudor oyster bracelets don't taper to the clasp, which on make wrist makes them less comfortable, and probably much cheaper to make. The feel of the bezels when rotated is different, but I wouldn't say the Tudors feel cheaper, just different. The chamfers on the Tudor lugs are gorgeous, and something that I really wish Rolex was still doing.

One thing I notice when I take off a Rolex at the end of the day is that the watch feels very warm to the touch, much more so than the Tudor. I think this must be a characteristic of the 904L steel over the 316L on the Tudor. There's no question that the 904L has a different lustre to it, and I think that's really the biggest difference between them.

I can say that I think Tudors are superior in quality and finishing to anything else in their price range, including my Omegas.

Excellent insight into Tudor and Rolex differences/similarities.

Dan