Mechanical differences of Rolex vs Tudor

[santoshlv426]

I'm sure this "comparison" has been done ad nauseum. Indulge my engineering inquisitiveness though.

Watchfinder did a recent video on this topic and I subsequently perused the 2024 price list (from this forum) of Rolex and Tudor.

Apart from 3 Tudor models, the most expensive Tudor is still less than the cheapest Rolex

Surely there must be some fundamental difference in the materials, movement or construction between the two to justify this massive price difference and that said the Tudor's are actually very "well priced" when compared to Rolex's competitors e.g. Breitling, Omega, Cartier.

The question is, why is Tudor (a sister brand of Rolex) so well priced not only to Rolex but to the market in general ?

[DOUBLE 0 SE7EN]

I don't think there will be too much difference on the movement since the power reserves are similar.. but sure the price difference comes from the brand value.. and of course the name..

[Ninja Master]

Originally Posted by santoshlv426

The question is, why is Tudor (a sister brand of Rolex) so well priced not only to Rolex but to the market in general ?

This is the entire point of branding.

You can have two similar products, but the one with the great brand can charge significantly more.

Let me put it to you this way:

Go out onto the street and ask 100 people if they'd like a free Rolex or a free Tudor. Everyone will say Rolex, and likely none of them have heard of Tudor.

Tudor's brand is aimed at people who buy Omegas (e.g. school teachers who think they're 007), so it needs to be in a similar price range.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by santoshlv426

I'm sure this "comparison" has been done ad nauseum. Indulge my engineering inquisitiveness though.

Watchfinder did a recent video on this topic and I subsequently perused the 2024 price list (from this forum) of Rolex and Tudor.

Apart from 3 Tudor models, the most expensive Tudor is still less than the cheapest Rolex

Surely there must be some fundamental difference in the materials, movement or construction between the two to justify this massive price difference and that said the Tudor's are actually very "well priced" when compared to Rolex's competitors e.g. Breitling, Omega, Cartier.

The question is, why is Tudor (a sister brand of Rolex) so well priced not only to Rolex but to the market in general ?

Like all of todays high end watches and so called designer products you pay around 30% for the product and around 70% for the name. Now when the the product has more hype to the name it costs more in general Tudor make fime watches, much like Rolex does, like many others that dont cost as much.

[EEpro]

External finish quality is similar but the Tudor designs are much less complex than Rolex. Fewer parts in the clasps. Less contours on the cases. Simpler bezel design that don't require multiple cut and polish steps. There is a lot of expense in hundreds of additional machining steps and then that is multiplied up to the final MSRP.

The movements of the Tudors are rugged and basic and not finished as well as Rolex (which themselves are simply finished). At service the movements are swapped and do not stay with your watch.

Anyway that's my 30 seconds.

[Marcjvr]

Originally Posted by Ninja Master

This is the entire point of branding.

You can have two similar products, but the one with the great brand can charge significantly more.

Let me put it to you this way:

Go out onto the street and ask 100 people if they'd like a free Rolex or a free Tudor. Everyone will say Rolex, and likely none of them have heard of Tudor.

Tudor's brand is aimed at people who buy Omegas (e.g. school teachers who think they're 007), so it needs to be in a similar price range.

Incredibly lame statement

[Ninja Master]

Originally Posted by Marcjvr

Incredibly lame statement

It's a joke, don't read into it too much.

[Kap007]

Ha. I found the statement true. As a retired teacher we never made a lot of money. However, I wear a Rolex because I'm super cool!

[Njkdog]

Many tutors do use ETA movements. Not all of them, of course.

[RTG]

Originally Posted by santoshlv426

I'm sure this "comparison" has been done ad nauseum. Indulge my engineering inquisitiveness though.

Watchfinder did a recent video on this topic and I subsequently perused the 2024 price list (from this forum) of Rolex and Tudor.

Apart from 3 Tudor models, the most expensive Tudor is still less than the cheapest Rolex

Surely there must be some fundamental difference in the materials, movement or construction between the two to justify this massive price difference and that said the Tudor's are actually very "well priced" when compared to Rolex's competitors e.g. Breitling, Omega, Cartier.

The question is, why is Tudor (a sister brand of Rolex) so well priced not only to Rolex but to the market in general ?

To use Rolex marketing lingo the Tudor is a great automatic watch and the Rolex is a Superlative Perpetual Timepiece.

I recently acquired my first Tudor and love it. You notice the difference in movement refinement when setting the watch. Rolex quickset date is rapid and dual direction. Tudor is slower and only single direction. Rolex winds easier and more smoothly. Tudor requires more force. When winding and setting the watch/timepiece, the Rolex feels superior. Where your fingers touch the watch, bezel and crown, the Tudor feels solid and the Rolex feels more refined, more luxurious. My Tudor fixed chrono is otherwise totally different from any Rolex I have owned, so that’s the only comparison I can offer.

[TinFoilCat]

Tudor’s are great watches and excellent value… I have a Pelagos 39 and I absolutely love it…. It’s just that everything on a Rolex is slightly better, the quality of the materials, the movements, the finishing…. They are not big differences individually, but when added up they make a tangible difference.

Additionally, the Rolex name carries reputational value too…. But it’s not as simple as “paying for the name” (although that is a small factor)… you are paying for decades of evidence that the watch will out live you (if you are not careless with it)… when you buy a Rolex you are also paying for that. If you want vast complexity or cutting edge innovation then you probably don’t buy a Rolex…. however if you want iconic designs that are excellently built and will last a lifetime then Rolex’s reputation is almost unmatched in it’s price bracket…. That’s why they cost more.

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by Njkdog

Many tutors do use ETA movements. Not all of them, of course.

Nothing wrong with ETA

[Krash]

Watchfinder was better when it was “talking hands.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by padi56

Like all of todays high end watches and so called designer products you pay around 30% for the product and around 70% for the name. Now when the the product has more hype to the name it costs more in general Tudor make fime watches, much like Rolex does, like many others that dont cost as much.

Am open to correction but my understanding is it costs Rolex about $1k to make a SS Rolex

[thenewrick]

Tudor is improving in quality reducing the gap between the brands. Less precious metal, gemset Tudor options. Rolex uses gold dial appliqué and afaik Tudor uses non precious metal. Lots of little things.

I suspect we will see Rolex quality increase along with price to differentiate even more.

With luxury goods or tech or anything really that last 10% of additional quality or performance often costs an extra 50%.

It would be interesting to see a watchmaker breakdown a no date sub and a BB58 or Pelagos and create an extensive list of differences in materials and finishing and performance but that would be incredibly expensive and time consuming and require a lot of expertise and dedication.

For me, the biggest difference I notice when trying on a Rolex and other brands is the immediate feeling of comfort and quality in Rolex and how other brands feel like they’re almost there but not quite. Particularly in the bracelets and clasps.

[WatchSmith]

Originally Posted by EEpro

External finish quality is similar but the Tudor designs are much less complex than Rolex. Fewer parts in the clasps. Less contours on the cases. Simpler bezel design that don't require multiple cut and polish steps. There is a lot of expense in hundreds of additional machining steps and then that is multiplied up to the final MSRP.

The movements of the Tudors are rugged and basic and not finished as well as Rolex (which themselves are simply finished). At service the movements are swapped and do not stay with your watch.

Anyway that's my 30 seconds.

Balance bridge on the RLX vs balance cock on the Tudor. A very significant difference IMO.

[Know1isgod]

Tudor remains a way for the Hans Wildorf Foundation to make money at a lower price point. That was always the mission.

I sold a Sub to pick up a BB58. Rolex made money each way. Omega, Tag-Heuer, Breitling, etc.. did not. It's that simple.

[Tim Plains]

Originally Posted by santoshlv426

The question is, why is Tudor (a sister brand of Rolex) so well priced not only to Rolex but to the market in general ?

I think you've been sipping the Kool-aid because none of the brands you mentioned are priced well. Longines, Seiko and a slew of others offer well build mechanicals for a fraction of the price of a Tudor.

I own Rolex, Tudor and Omega but don't fool myself into thinking any of them were a great value.

[bioyuki]

Originally Posted by WatchSmith

Balance bridge on the RLX vs balance cock on the Tudor. A very significant difference IMO.

Most (all?) new Tudor/Kenissi movements (MT5400/MT5600 series, etc) have full balance bridges.

[Ballzzz]

@ BAS -- Where You At??

For what its worth I enjoy wearing my Tudor vs any of my Rolex, I think there great for what they are.

[Jack T]

Originally Posted by Ninja Master

It's a joke, don't read into it too much.

Then why post it?

[Ninja Master]

Originally Posted by Jack T

Then why post it?

I don't really understand. It was a lighthearted comment. Let's not try to be offended or argue.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Ninja Master

I don't really understand. It was a lighthearted comment. Let's not try to be offended or argue.

Nothing wrong with your tongue-in-cheek statement.

As to the actual questions at hand.

Omega is a Swatch, so is Blancpain, they are not exactly the same and aren't priced the same.

Tudor is a Rolex, they aren't exactly the same or priced the same.

Little else can be drawn from enthusiasts' comparisons.

[~Ocho1~]

Originally Posted by Ninja Master

This is the entire point of branding.

You can have two similar products, but the one with the great brand can charge significantly more.

Let me put it to you this way:

Go out onto the street and ask 100 people if they'd like a free Rolex or a free Tudor. Everyone will say Rolex, and likely none of them have heard of Tudor.

Tudor's brand is aimed at people who buy Omegas (e.g. school teachers who think they're 007), so it needs to be in a similar price range.

I know Tudor very well, have a couple. I'll take the free Rolex over the free Tudor.

Thank you very much.

[kieselguhr]

Tudor MT5621


Rolex 3235


Both utilize balance bridge architecture with free sprung balance. Additionally, both use adjustable screw system for regulation (i.e Microstella), both have Kif based anti shock system, both have extended barrels with 70hour reserve length mainsprings. They’re both hideous.

The difference is mainly proprietary which Tudor utilizes their own version of, i.e. the chronergy escapement vs Tudor variant, parachrom bleu vs silicon, etc.

However you want to justify the price difference is a personal battle you can have with yourself in your own mind.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

Nothing wrong with ETA

Exactly many think because it's ETA it's a Inferior movement but ETA makes everything in-house and at one in every Rolex there was a ETA made nivourax hairspring.And in most all ETA movements they make 5 grades the top two are chronometer grades and can be as accurate and long lasting as any Rolex movement.

[fooey]

Originally Posted by TinFoilCat

Tudor’s are great watches and excellent value… I have a Pelagos 39 and I absolutely love it…. It’s just that everything on a Rolex is slightly better, the quality of the materials, the movements, the finishing…. They are not big differences individually, but when added up they make a tangible difference.



Additionally, the Rolex name carries reputational value too…. But it’s not as simple as “paying for the name” (although that is a small factor)… you are paying for decades of evidence that the watch will out live you (if you are not careless with it)… when you buy a Rolex you are also paying for that. If you want vast complexity or cutting edge innovation then you probably don’t buy a Rolex…. however if you want iconic designs that are excellently built and will last a lifetime then Rolex’s reputation is almost unmatched in it’s price bracket…. That’s why they cost more.

Gotta love the Pelagos

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

[pa1113]

Originally Posted by Ninja Master

I don't really understand. It was a lighthearted comment. Let's not try to be offended or argue.

I don't even care about the topic at this point .... but why can't people relax and stop being offended by, literally, EVERYTHING? It was a joke and I chuckled. I like omega and have owned omega. Didn't change anything for me. Keep the fun comments coming and everyone feel free to thicken their skin just a little bit. I'm done now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Old Expat Beast]

On mechanical differences: I haven't checked since, but last year my ETA Black Bay (2012) and ETA Ranger (2014) were both showing great numbers on the timegrapher. Neither watch has ever been serviced. I wouldn't bet on a Rolex 32xx movement showing similar after a decade.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by EEpro

External finish quality is similar but the Tudor designs are much less complex than Rolex. Fewer parts in the clasps. Less contours on the cases. Simpler bezel design that don't require multiple cut and polish steps. There is a lot of expense in hundreds of additional machining steps and then that is multiplied up to the final MSRP.

The movements of the Tudors are rugged and basic and not finished as well as Rolex (which themselves are simply finished). At service the movements are swapped and do not stay with your watch.

Anyway that's my 30 seconds.

Great assessment apart from comparing the complex Daytona movement to the more basic Tudor movement