It’s real simple... Tudor is the new Rolex

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by torifile

There may be some truth to the perception by the general public of Rolex being a hype brand like Harley Davidson. But among people who know their stuff, I don’t think it’s an apt comparison at all. There isn’t a single WIS out there that would tell you a Rolex isn’t a good watch. The same can’t be said about Harleys.

A better comparison might be Apple. (People who are biased against the company aside) objective observers and tech lovers would tell you Apple hardware (at least the iOS devices and iMac) is second to none. But they do carry a stench around them.

It depends what you classify as "good." Outdated tech, overpriced, status symbol, a swell of middle-aged buyers...am I talking about Rolex or Harley???

[kangajack]

Originally Posted by Polarbears

Tudor is the brand that people will aspire to own. Rolex if you’re wealthy.

That was good for a laugh. Thanks.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mattomatic]

It's been interesting reading all of the comments. It's obvious that everyone has different motives when buying a watch.

Personally, it's for the pure love of watches and what they mean to me. Wearing a piece with a rich history (Modern or Vintage) and feeling connected to the past, while knowing that this watch will be around much longer than I will is what makes these watches special - they actually humble me as a person. I feel connected in some weird way.

I own a few Rolex's which I love, but I know that a Tudor is in my future. It has nothing to do with price point or brand recognition, and everything to do with the love of watches. For those who truly love Rolex watches and their history, it's impossible to ignore Tudor. Tudor is essentially a part of Rolex's D.N.A. and vice versa.

This passion is much more fun when it's about your own personal relationship with these watches and NOT the outside perception. I feel like those who buy watches for status are missing out on what makes this hobby so fascinating.

As a certified watch dork, I am MUCH more likely to make a comment if you're wearing a Tudor vs a Rolex. Why? Because I know you're wearing it for the love of watches and not to be recognized, and I think that's !#$%&*@ cool! :)

[FiguredMaple]

I really like the size of the 41 Tudor models. Their comfortable, have solid movements, but unfortunately they don't say Rolex on them.

[DylanFox]

Originally Posted by Mattomatic

It's been interesting reading all of the comments. It's obvious that everyone has different motives when buying a watch.

Personally, it's for the pure love of watches and what they mean to me. Wearing a piece with a rich history (Modern or Vintage) and feeling connected to the past, while knowing that this watch will be around much longer than I will is what makes these watches special - they actually humble me as a person. I feel connected in some weird way.

I own a few Rolex's which I love, but I know that a Tudor is in my future. It has nothing to do with price point or brand recognition, and everything to do with the love of watches. For those who truly love Rolex watches and their history, it's impossible to ignore Tudor. Tudor is essentially a part of Rolex's D.N.A. and vice versa.

This passion is much more fun when it's about your own personal relationship with these watches and NOT the outside perception. I feel like those who buy watches for status are missing out on what makes this hobby so fascinating.

As a certified watch dork, I am MUCH more likely to make a comment if you're wearing a Tudor vs a Rolex. Why? Because I know you're wearing it for the love of watches and not to be recognized, and I think that's !#$%&*@ cool! :)

Well said

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Mattomatic

It's been interesting reading all of the comments. It's obvious that everyone has different motives when buying a watch.

Personally, it's for the pure love of watches and what they mean to me. Wearing a piece with a rich history (Modern or Vintage) and feeling connected to the past, while knowing that this watch will be around much longer than I will is what makes these watches special - they actually humble me as a person. I feel connected in some weird way.

I own a few Rolex's which I love, but I know that a Tudor is in my future. It has nothing to do with price point or brand recognition, and everything to do with the love of watches. For those who truly love Rolex watches and their history, it's impossible to ignore Tudor. Tudor is essentially a part of Rolex's D.N.A. and vice versa.

This passion is much more fun when it's about your own personal relationship with these watches and NOT the outside perception. I feel like those who buy watches for status are missing out on what makes this hobby so fascinating.

As a certified watch dork, I am MUCH more likely to make a comment if you're wearing a Tudor vs a Rolex. Why? Because I know you're wearing it for the love of watches and not to be recognized, and I think that's !#$%&*@ cool! :)

Originally Posted by DylanFox

Well said

Agreed.
dP

[hugs]

Originally Posted by thomaswentworth

I just don't agree... I don't think Rolex wants to destroy the most respected brand in the world so they can convert into becoming the little brother to Tudor. Even the name is reminiscent of someone who needs a tutor... a younger person.

Haha so that’s the American accent covered.

Australians think Tudor a kind of canned fish.

[f458]

Oh really? Op is mad!

[American Jedi]

Originally Posted by Mattomatic

It's been interesting reading all of the comments. It's obvious that everyone has different motives when buying a watch.

Personally, it's for the pure love of watches and what they mean to me. Wearing a piece with a rich history (Modern or Vintage) and feeling connected to the past, while knowing that this watch will be around much longer than I will is what makes these watches special - they actually humble me as a person. I feel connected in some weird way.

I own a few Rolex's which I love, but I know that a Tudor is in my future. It has nothing to do with price point or brand recognition, and everything to do with the love of watches. For those who truly love Rolex watches and their history, it's impossible to ignore Tudor. Tudor is essentially a part of Rolex's D.N.A. and vice versa.

This passion is much more fun when it's about your own personal relationship with these watches and NOT the outside perception. I feel like those who buy watches for status are missing out on what makes this hobby so fascinating.

As a certified watch dork, I am MUCH more likely to make a comment if you're wearing a Tudor vs a Rolex. Why? Because I know you're wearing it for the love of watches and not to be recognized, and I think that's !#$%&*@ cool! :)

100% agree. Rolex used to be a to watch that most working class could afford. They still build some of most durable watches around however the price point would discourage most people from using them as intended.

I have recently purchased a Tudor Pelagos, And pound for pound it is arguably the most capable tool watch on the market;
What’s more, it has a price that does not discourage a person from using it as intended. It also comes w/ a laundry list of features that competing brands do not even have at higher price points.

[Mattomatic]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Agreed.
dP

Originally Posted by DylanFox

Well said

Originally Posted by American Jedi

100% agree.

Cheers gents! Enjoy your night and your watches

[reeko]

Originally Posted by Mattomatic

It's been interesting reading all of the comments. It's obvious that everyone has different motives when buying a watch.

Personally, it's for the pure love of watches and what they mean to me. Wearing a piece with a rich history (Modern or Vintage) and feeling connected to the past, while knowing that this watch will be around much longer than I will is what makes these watches special - they actually humble me as a person. I feel connected in some weird way.

I own a few Rolex's which I love, but I know that a Tudor is in my future. It has nothing to do with price point or brand recognition, and everything to do with the love of watches. For those who truly love Rolex watches and their history, it's impossible to ignore Tudor. Tudor is essentially a part of Rolex's D.N.A. and vice versa.

This passion is much more fun when it's about your own personal relationship with these watches and NOT the outside perception. I feel like those who buy watches for status are missing out on what makes this hobby so fascinating.

As a certified watch dork, I am MUCH more likely to make a comment if you're wearing a Tudor vs a Rolex. Why? Because I know you're wearing it for the love of watches and not to be recognized, and I think that's !#$%&*@ cool! :)

I completely agree with this! Both histories are intertwined. One is not much better than the other in terms of some of their technical merits. Both make very capable tool watches. I enjoy my pelagos as much as my Rolex.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[sickened1]

Originally Posted by Mattomatic

Because I know you're wearing it for the love of watches and not to be recognized, and I think that's !#$%&*@ cool! :)

That's exactly why my collection went from this...



To this..



Of course, I still have a Rolex or two somewhere in there.

And hey, let's not forget that new Tudor GMT!

[koolkas]

No totally disagree... Tudor are Rolex fighting brand to attack the biggest market share between 3.000-5.000 usd, which no strong competitor available. (Omega are being used by Swatch to try to upscale).. Rolex are purposely make their sports model rare (to make their Brands go up), but there no scarcity in Rolex other product line (dress watches).. so don't be fooled by all the BS about Rolex purposely reduce production...

[Mattomatic]

Originally Posted by sickened1

That's exactly why my collection went from this...



To this..



Of course, I still have a Rolex or two somewhere in there.

And hey, let's not forget that new Tudor GMT!

Nice!!

Regardless, can't be easy letting go of any of those beauties! Which Rolex's made the final cut?

[sickened1]

Originally Posted by Mattomatic

Nice!!

Regardless, can't be easy letting go of any of those beauties! Which Rolex's made the final cut?

Thanks and it's the one below and 214270.

[Mattomatic]

Originally Posted by sickened1

Thanks and it's the one below and 214270.

Well played sir

[DLRIDES]

Something to ponder :

1975 Rolex Submariner 5513 cost $355, that’s $1,647 today.

What’s a new Rolex Submariner cost ?

As the OP eluded, has Rolex changed their buyer market to pure luxury?

Is Tudor the New Rolex ?

[Joearch]

I was able to add this at one third the cost of a used Submariner. The Tudor line is obtainable without any games or list bull. A remarkable watch in design and technology. I have been looking for a black watch that was relatively inexpensive. As i said in another thread the build quality is top notch. I have a decent Rolex collection that I imagine will stay around but the Tudor is wonderful addition. Makes for a nice blend. I did have a BB Bronze and DD red that did not stick. I am guessing thus one will be around. All the subtle details are good. Engraved crown, no “rotor” text, no rivets and very sharp markings.

[77T]

Originally Posted by DLRIDES

Something to ponder :

1975 Rolex Submariner 5513 cost $355, that’s $1,647 today.

What’s a new Rolex Submariner cost ?

In 1975 an oz. 24k Gold was $139.29, today it’s $1,295.20...

Today a 5513 fetches anywhere from $14,000~$20,000 depending upon many factors.

A new Sub is $7,500

The luxe world is far ahead of inflation.
I wouldn’t say a Rolex an investment but...it tends to retain value. Not so much with the Tudors (albeit exceptions exist).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[faz]

Originally Posted by sickened1

That's exactly why my collection went from this...



To this..



Of course, I still have a Rolex or two somewhere in there.

And hey, let's not forget that new Tudor GMT!

Hey, that before picture closely resembles our household!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wickets]

That's exactly why my collection went from this...

As someone with obvious watch cred, how do you rate the ranger? Also, is the ranger considered a spin on the perpetual? Thanks in advance

[DLRIDES]

Originally Posted by 77T

In 1975 an oz. 24k Gold was $139.29, today it’s $1,295.20...

Today a 5513 fetches anywhere from $14,000~$20,000 depending upon many factors.

Not relevant unless future value is guaranteed at time of purchase.

[Gibraltar]

After owning the Pelagos for a couple years now I'm convinced it's the closest thing on the market today to what Rolex intended when they designed the first Submariner. It's a watch built for a purpose and without any embellishments.

The Rolex brand itself carries so much history and connotation now that they can no longer release a watch like this. So yeah, in some ways Tudor embodies the Rolex spirit better than Rolex itself.

[TudorTuesday]

Originally Posted by Mattomatic

As a certified watch dork, I am MUCH more likely to make a comment if you're wearing a Tudor vs a Rolex. Why? Because I know you're wearing it for the love of watches and not to be recognized, and I think that's !#$%&*@ cool! :)

Well, said, and my sentiments exactly!

[piratepress]

Just not a fan of Tudor. They make some nice watches, but I'm sticking with Rolex.

[Phrank]

Originally Posted by TudorTuesday

Well, said, and my sentiments exactly!

See where you're going with that sentiment; however, in my opinion, I'd reserve that comment for someone I saw wearing a Grand Seiko, much more applicable if you're talking about elegant movements and bleeding edge design.

[jstan9]

Originally Posted by bdex75

And this is one of the many reasons why I wear Tudor. I may be in a situation where I want to wear a dive watch but don’t want the world knowing it’s a Rolex. (Certain times in the business world.) And then there are cases where I would not mind if people knew. When I will then wear my vintage Tudor sub or even a Speedy in leather.

What is also funny is what the non watch person thinks a Rolex Submariner cost. When I had a sub we had several other people in the office that liked nice watches. Couple had small collections of Michael Koors type watches and some had Citizen or Seiko. Always said they would love to own a Rolex and always liked the sub. When asked what they thought it cost the answers were enlightening. Most said $1500-$2500. If you went to those same people now (or anyone for that matter) and said a SS Rolex Submariner was $8000 they would never aspire to own one because for most that number is unattainable.

Cannot count the number of times I heard. “I thought they were like $2000. So if I saved for a while I could afford one. But even if I could save $8000 I could never allow myself to spend it on a watch”.

And that is Tudors opportunity IMHO. The SKX or Citizen Ecodrive buyer that will spend $800. Getting them to step up to $2500-$3000.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This makes a lot of sense to me. I was in that club for years before I took the plunge with my first Rolex (SS/PL YM in 2000).

[77T]

Originally Posted by DLRIDES

Not relevant unless future value is guaranteed at time of purchase.

The data is relevant as context.

The only thing close to a guarantee of future value at time of purchase is short term Treasuries. That is, as long as the sovereign debt issuer is not at risk of complete failure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sickened1]

Originally Posted by wickets

As someone with obvious watch cred, how do you rate the ranger? Also, is the ranger considered a spin on the perpetual? Thanks in advance

Sorry for late reply. I usually get notified when someone quoted me but didn't get one this time.

You would have to see and try Ranger in person to truly appreciate the watch. Pictures don't do it justice. It's one of those highly underated watches. I used to see people post pictures of it and then said to myself, meh.. it looks just like another Explorer wanna be but when I tried it on, it has its own personality plus that vintage vibe (ie. bracelet with no end-link). I highly recommend you try one on if your AD has it.

Here's the link to Tudor Ranger thread.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=396350

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by sickened1

Sorry for late reply. I usually get notified when someone quoted me but didn't get one this time.

You would have to see and try Ranger in person to truly appreciate the watch. Pictures don't do it justice. It's one of those highly underated watches. I used to see people post pictures of it and then said to myself, meh.. it looks just like another Explorer wanna be but when I tried it on, it has its own personality plus that vintage vibe (ie. bracelet with no end-link). I highly recommend you try one on if your AD has it.

Here's the link to Tudor Ranger thread.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=396350

Yeah, I recently saw one in the wild for the first time on leather, and it looked great.