Is “New” Tudor the “Old Rolex”?

[ryangambrill]

Not here to compare the brands today. Just a few of my thoughts about buying and wearing Rolex watches for 20+ years and my recent Tudor GMT purchase.

I remember a time when you could find the Rolex watch you wanted with little drama. New pieces were sold at MSRP. Used items could save you a few dollars. At the very least you knew you could buy, hold, and sell and not lose your shirt.

Since that time, well…..we all know how the market has changed.

Due to my past with the the brand, I have a difficult time justifying the significant premium that is being demanded on the grey market.

While I do have some Rolex pieces on my short list, I have really taken to some of the pieces from Tudor.

Rolex will never be Tudor nor vice versa. And I would not want them to be. Now that I own both, I can clearly see the appeal of the Tudor over the Rolex in some situations. The quality piece, the tool watch of the past that flies under the radar.


Current:
- 16622 & 18078
- Tudor GMT - 79830
Past:
- Sub Serti Silver 16613
- Sub SS w/Date

[mquarter]

Looks like it. It's a cringey expression but "the shield protects the crown" describes it perfectly. While Rolex is going upmarket into unobtainium territory, Tudor is there to stem the attrition to other brands.

Rolex have leveraged Tudor's own vintage pedigree and updated the branding to make so popular in the present. You just have to applaud their execution.

[espanol]

Originally Posted by Ryan.Gambrill

Not here to compare the brands today. Just a few of my thoughts about buying and wearing Rolex watches for 20+ years and my recent Tudor GMT purchase.

I remember a time when you could find the Rolex watch you wanted with little drama. New pieces were sold at MSRP. Used items could save you a few dollars. At the very least you knew you could buy, hold, and sell and not lose your shirt.

Since that time, well…..we all know how the market has changed.

Due to my past with the the brand, I have a difficult time justifying the significant premium that is being demanded on the grey market.

While I do have some Rolex pieces on my short list, I have really taken to some of the pieces from Tudor.

Rolex will never be Tudor nor vice versa. And I would not want them to be. Now that I own both, I can clearly see the appeal of the Tudor over the Rolex in some situations. The quality piece, the tool watch of the past that flies under the radar.


Current:
- 16622 & 18078
- Tudor GMT - 79830
Past:
- Sub Serti Silver 16613
- Sub SS w/Date

Apples and oranges. Too many variables have changed since “old Rolex” was old Rolex. For example, watches were not remotely seen as ‘investments’ or even that valuable for that matter.. We’re in a renaissance of sorts for mechanical watches- as luxury items.

Rolex was very much a metier watch for professionals when the technology was needed. Now, the tech is antiquated, and Tudor, Rolex are merely luxury for 99% of consumers.

When old Rolex was old Rolex, watches served more of a purpose which the reputation of Rolex benefited from. Now, we’re all merely wearing luxury goods, just one is more expensive than the other. I wouldn’t put much stock on Tudor having the Paul Newman of today make their image more of what Rolex was.

[ryangambrill]

Originally Posted by mquarter

Looks like it. It's a cringey expression but "the shield protects the crown" describes it perfectly. While Rolex is going upmarket into unobtainium territory, Tudor is there to stem the attrition to other brands.

Rolex have leveraged Tudor's own vintage pedigree and updated the branding to make so popular in the present. You just have to applaud their execution.

Yep. This is exactly what happened to me. I looked at every other brand. Omega, Breitling, Tag, Cartier, etc. you name it, I looked at their offerings. Omega was my #2 behind Tudor. Overall I feel Omega has better movements than Tudor, I just could not find an one with the aesthetics that loved. Also the Omega catalog is so very overwhelming. So many variations and special editions. Everything felt diluted as they were trying to be everything to everyone.

As of right now the Tudor Chrono “panda” and Black Bay 41 “Blue” are next in my list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ryangambrill]

Originally Posted by espanol

Apples and oranges. Too many variables have changed since “old Rolex” was old Rolex. For example, watches were not remotely seen as ‘investments’ or even that valuable for that matter.. We’re in a renaissance of sorts for mechanical watches- as luxury items.

Rolex was very much a metier watch for professionals when the technology was needed. Now, the tech is antiquated, and Tudor, Rolex are merely luxury for 99% of consumers.

When old Rolex was old Rolex, watches served more of a purpose which the reputation of Rolex benefited from. Now, we’re all merely wearing luxury goods, just one is more expensive than the other. I wouldn’t put much stock on Tudor having the Paul Newman of today make their image more of what Rolex was.

Completely agree. Expecting Tudor to have a “Paul Newman” is like expecting a Honus Wagner with baseball cards of today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mquarter]

Originally Posted by Ryan.Gambrill

. Omega was my #2 behind Tudor. Overall I feel Omega has better movements than Tudor, I just could not find an one with the aesthetics that loved. Also the Omega catalog is so very overwhelming. So many variations and special editions. Everything felt diluted as they were trying to be everything to everyone.

I can really relate to your comments about Omega. It took me a while to get in to Omega because their product range is so massive and it's hard to digest as newbie to the brand.

I agree about Omega's aesthetics. Over time I've come to really appreciate the aesthetics of the Moonwatch and its variants (as opposed to the broader Speedmaster) range - the dial of the Daytona looks like an absolute meal next to the classic 3 subdial Moonwatch.

But I just can't get in to the SMP when the Submariner exists. One looks refined, the other brutish. One looks classy, the other toy-like. It's partly because I revile the big-watch trend.

[Dan Pierce]

The OP's observations have mirrored my experience and the BB GMT sealed the deal.
dP

[shaunylw]

Tudor make a lot of really great stuff, and they seem to experiment a bit more than Rolex. Im rarely excited at any new Rolex release as it tends to be a bit like the iPhone, same stuff in different packages. I can’t remember the last original Rolex release, maybe a skydweller?

Tudors doing a nice job with their releases and the prices feel very 5 digit Rolex before they exploded. If i were looking to buy a 14060 for example, i would buy a bb58 instead. Tudor has done a nice job packing a lot of value into an inexpensive package. Pricing reminds me of Rolex in the mid 2000s. They are very well positioned, and have done a nice job with their pricing. I think they are in the sweet spot for watch collectors, or new to luxury watch buyers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Seddyspaghetti]

Not to me no, never.

[Nikita70]

Just bought my first Tudor last week. Very impressed with this watch. Black Bay S&G. I have a Rolex 16760 I bought five years ago. It has been my favorite but this Tudor is giving serious competition.
The new Tudor chronograph is next, my only decision is panda or reverse panda.
Needless to say I am a fan. I agree with the thinking that Tudor is kind of what Rolex was before it became a status symbol. A damn good watch for the money.

[ryangambrill]

Originally Posted by Nikita70

Just bought my first Tudor last week. Very impressed with this watch. Black Bay S&G. I have a Rolex 16760 I bought five years ago. It has been my favorite but this Tudor is giving serious competition.
The new Tudor chronograph is next, my only decision is panda or reverse panda.
Needless to say I am a fan. I agree with the thinking that Tudor is kind of what Rolex was before it became a status symbol. A damn good watch for the money.

My AD called me a few days after picking up my GMT as they received a Bb Chrono black dial.

I love it. Will be adding white dial to the collection after some “breathing room” from this GMT transaction.

Agreed on all of your points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nikita70]

I am really liking the new chrono. Unfortunately they didn’t have a black or white in stock. They did have the two tone on a bund but that’s not what I want.

[TswaneNguni]

The GMT Red/blue is the best bargain in watch world .Beautiful watch .

[butchcoolidge]

Tudor is obviously not Rolex, but their watches are excellent. It blows Omega out of the water. Omega still can't figure out a 70 hr power reserve watch.

[GradyPhilpott]

I like my Tudor watches quite a lot.

To me they stand on their own.

I think it would be a good thing, if Tudor could step completely out of Rolex's shadow.

I'm wearing this one today, from when the case-back was branded with the Rolex coronet and the name.

[kieselguhr]

I believe that’s the intention.

Rolex ascends while Tudor holds the line by taking its previous position.

[28mm]

Well, similar to you, I got my Tudor 928 today and I have a substantial Rolex collection all bought from AD's back in the day.

All I can add to this thread is that for me personally, yes there is that feeling that reminds me of when I bought my first Rolex. Which wasn't cheap (1997 I think) but wasn't crazy expensive either. There was a feeling of having arrived I supposed in a way but it wasn't a huge big deal either.

I'm probably getting 126610LV from an AD this week. I'm blown away by the luck and I love the green bezel.

That being said, it's obviously a luxury item, and has just a bit of the same attached stress of a new expensive car. I'll have to insure it for a stupid replacement number and unfortunately in these times, have to pay a bit more attention when I am out and about as I live in a major city with the accompanying expected crime.

None of this is really a reflection of Rolex per se, it's about luxury goods vs not inexpensive items but not so great a value as to have to consider someone might take your life to have it.

But more to the point, besides any of it, there's something exciting and fun about a watch that doesn't carry that baggage or cost. I'm going to pick up a Black Bay 58 Navy Blue soon too.

[WatchNutcase]

I'm waiting on one last incoming from Rolex. After that I'm in the market for a travel watch I don't need to worry about as much as I would a Rolex, and right now Tudor / Omega are fitting that bill.

If Tudor made the GMT in a BB58 size that would be the one. But in the current selection I'm attracted to the BB58 blue, and the new Speedmaster Moonwatch. Both great value and also super versatile on straps which has always been hit or miss with Rolex IMO.

[Krash]

I’d never put Tudor in the Rolex category. I remember back in the 80s, Rolex was still the king of luxury watches. I remember thinking how much I wanted one. Tudor isn’t in the same category that Rolex was in back in the 80s, 90s, etc…no way…

Just because Tudor watches are available, that doesn’t mean they’re now the “old Rolex.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PaulChronometer]

What the OP wrote.

As a watch-lover, I like high-quality, honest, timeless toolwatches. Rolex has left that segment and apparently wants to occupy the high-luxury segment, where watches mostly signal economic status by people who don't seem to intrinsically care about them.

Given that I found my 39mm Explorer a bit too large, I got interested in the new 36mm model. The recent market situation (unavailability or having to pay an undecent mark-up, plus the flexing going on with the brand) got me thinking though. In the end I sold the Explorer and went for a 36mm Tudor Prince date+day in steel. Excellent watch: stylish, understated and functional.

[bluetrain]

Clearly Tudor is not Rolex (for a host of reasons) but that being said, I think they have both appeal and are innovative with a lot of nice models.

Will they ever be "Old Rolex"? I dont think so but the answer is not clear cut, to me at least.

I think however if they continue on this trajectoey, that they over time will have more appeal than Omega. Tudor has a lot of models but at least for now, I have not thought of any to be redundant or unnecessary. Browsing the Omega catalogue is something else. I cant understand all the "limited editions" they try to push. So if Tudor is not falling in that trap, things will be good going forward.

[1William]

Is Tudor the Rolex of old? Don't think so. They are better. If you measure the materials, cases, movements and a lot of the design elements you will find Tudor superior to the Rolex watches of old. The only thing lacking is the Rolex logo. I have numerous Rolex and Tudor watches and find them superior in a lot of ways to other brands. That has a lot to do with the fact that Rolex won me over in the early 90's and I have not been able to shake the crown since then. In any discussion personal choice plays into the outcome but dollar for dollar Tudor is spot on for what it is.

[DJ2020]

I find myself taking a look at Tudor lately. Mainly because of there on style and build. I had a couple of 58's in the past but sold them for two reasons I developed a lack of appreciation for. One being that I found I really needed a date function and the other was the trademark hour hand. The more I looked at it the more I didn't like it. Never could warm up to it. Other than that I thought they were fantastic watches.
Lately I have been looking hard at the 1926 line. I like everything about the watch except the Sellita movements. But with Tudor using top grade movements and there 5 year warranty now I'm warming up to it fast. They are thin, light and well built along with screw down crowns which is hard to find in a non diver these days.

[HMHM]

I personally feel that the built quality of both Rolex and Tudor are so similar such that sometimes its really hard to justify the insane prices a Rolex is going for.....

[Tikandtokalot]

Probably yes.
Tudor = Rolex without the Bollocks.

[m j b]

I love my Tudor, and although it is not quite up there with the quality of finishing that the Rolex has, neither is the Rolex worth 2 or 3 times the cost at MSRP. Not to mention "current market rates".

I couldn't get past the snowflake and fauxtina, but on the BB58 blue they dropped the latter and I find that I can deal with the hour hand OK.

Omega, unfortunately, no longer does it for me. And they keep raising their prices, which doesn't help.

[Jerrocop]

Well made watches with great style = Yes
Will increase in value exponentially and reach the level of unobtanium = No

[Tricolore66]

Tudor has certainly positioned itself as an entry-level Swiss watch brand that Rolex used to be. The Rolex newbies have a very distorted view of the brand based on the upmarket move that really started with the 6-digit series. They were always something of a status symbol but nothing remotely like they are perceived today.

[macrowatch]

Yep, agree with your sentiment.

[Finslayer83]

Tudor is the sports Rolex of the 60's-70's IMO.

A much more fun brand.

If Tudor re-issued the Sub or Snowflake sub - I'd go that route.

More fun for watch nerds and less "omg whats it worth" bs.

ETA: I'll say it - know what makes Rolex unappealing? A large majority of the folks that buy them. In my age group (35-45) it's all about the "Rollie" and frankly its a huge turnoff. Zilch for enjoyment of what they are and only bought for the image.

I get it, free country and do your thing - but the more douchey the owners get the more Tudor looks appealing.