Tudor on same level as omega?

[teabags001]

Thinking about picking up a nice beach watch. Something to wear on vacation but not worried about beating up so much. In the grand scheme of things would you consider omega and Tudor on the same level? The one below Rolex but not by a lot? Or is it more in lines with a longines?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Investr]

My vote is no.

[Rolex Essex]

Omega is in another level to Tudor.

Check out their new seamaster 300m. It’s more superior than Pelagos.

[Gotgolf52]

Omega might be slightly below Rolex but they are way above Tudor IMO.

[Raynatic]

ofcourse not.

[Largoshark]

I've never handled a Tudor so I couldn't really say. Omega makes some fantastic watches though, and benefits from having some truly iconic models and a very rich history. Not to discredit Tudor as they seem to be well built and excellent value for the money. It's just that Tudor will always be associated with Rolex (definitely not a bad thing), while Omega has its own identity.

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by Largoshark

I've never handled a Tudor so I couldn't really say. Omega makes some fantastic watches though, and benefits from having some truly iconic models and a very rich history. Not to discredit Tudor as they seem to be well built and excellent value for the money. It's just that Tudor will always be associated with Rolex (definitely not a bad thing), while Omega has its own identity.

Absolutely agree.

[ap1]

Omega > Tudor but I think of Tudor as the king of the <4K ish watch

[JayHantz]

Originally Posted by Investr

My vote is no.

Another vote for no. Although Tudor is nice, I think Omega is on another playing field.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fencer]

I never understood the idea of Tudor, but Omega is an extremely strong company with some exceptional product. I would go for Omega.

[Beo3]

I have a Black Bay as well as a Seamaster. I love them both, but the Tudor gets a ton more wrist time.

[liboozers]

Ok I'm gonna chime in here as I just went through this. I was coming from a Tudor Pelagos and going into an Omega Planet Ocean Titanium 42 mm. To me it was as close as I could compare watches of the same. Both are divers, both are approx same size, both are titanium.
I was able to compare these in person side by side as opposed to just pictures and I can say the Planet Ocean is definitely a nicer watch. Not knocking the Pelagos at all but maybe the Planet Ocean is closer to a Submariner then a Pelagos. Now I don't have Seamaster 300 to compare them too but maybe that is closer in comparison to the Pelagos.

[JacksonStone]

I agree with the others: Omega is above Tudor, imo. I think the brand is closer to Rolex in regards to overall quality of workmanship and advances in design and technology, although I'd still give the overall nod to Rolex. The problem I have with Omega is the tendency toward ephemera: they change their designs too frequently and too drastically, with too many stylistic flourishes intended to grab attention, rather than stand the test of time. Also, they put out way too many LEs and variants of their core watches. However, for the designs they nail, they're a great brand.

[Pauln]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I agree with the others: Omega is above Tudor, imo. I think the brand is closer to Rolex in regards to overall quality of workmanship and advances in design and technology, although I'd still give the overall nod to Rolex. The problem I have with Omega is the tendency toward ephemera: they change their designs too frequently and too drastically, with too many stylistic flourishes intended to grab attention, rather than stand the test of time. Also, they put out way too many LEs and variants of their core watches. However, for the designs they nail, they're a great brand.

Well said and right on the money, IMO.

[T3F]

I own plenty of Rolex and Omega, as well as a Tudor, and can say that Omega definitely sits above Tudor. I doubt I'm going to get much support for this here, but I think Omega is on the same level as Rolex. The difference in quality is imperceptible, and Omega uses some more exotic materials and tries some more exciting (and more impressive, from a watchmaking perspective) than Rolex. My only complaint with Omegas is that most of the models don't hold value well relative to MSRP -- this can be helped by buying grey, though.

Some also complaint that Omega has too many variants and changes things up too often. I see how someone could have this point of view, but I think it's also equally valid to enjoy this fact. Rolex keeps the same models in production with very few variants for years, which, to me, can get a bit boring. I like that Omega is continually releasing new stuff, even if I don't like all of it.

[TakeYourTime]

Omega is way above! Tudor is more like Longines or Rado.

[Tmac478]

I have to agree with most here. I own both and I consider Omega just a step ahead of Tudor. I do love my BB Red though....

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by liboozers

Now I don't have Seamaster 300 to compare them too but maybe that is closer in comparison to the Pelagos.

Another problem with Omega: their naming scheme. Some of the model names are so similar, people end up talking about different models without even knowing it. The Seamaster 300 is several cuts above the Pelagos, and is in a slightly higher pricing tier than the Planet Ocean. However, the Seamaster Diver 300m (which is an entirely different watch) is entry level, and more comparable to the Pelagos, but for the depth rating.

Seamaster 300


Seamaster Diver 300M

[WJGESQ]

Originally Posted by Investr

My vote is no.

I assume the OP is joking.


Omega has a huge history and maybe the biggest claim to fame in the history of man.


Tudor, on the other hand is generic Rolex.


Each to his own but I don't think many rank the two as comparators.

[mistercoach32]

IMO, Tudor is the best bang for your buck, but not on the same quality and ingenuity level as Omega.

[jfmiii]

Omega>Tudor by a long shot. As you mentioned, Id put Tudor on the same level as Longines. Both have a rich history of use as military tool watches but Rolex and Omega are THE Swiss tool watches. Historically speaking, that is, as they are both jewelry now.

[airchitect]

Omega was Rolex before Rolex was Rolex. Make sense? No, Tudor is not on the same level.

[faaaaaaaasterrrrr]

Omega is a notch above Tudor, but I love my pelagos for the exact reasons OP mentioned.

[Craigdwh]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I agree with the others: Omega is above Tudor, imo. I think the brand is closer to Rolex in regards to overall quality of workmanship and advances in design and technology, although I'd still give the overall nod to Rolex. The problem I have with Omega is the tendency toward ephemera: they change their designs too frequently and too drastically, with too many stylistic flourishes intended to grab attention, rather than stand the test of time. Also, they put out way too many LEs and variants of their core watches. However, for the designs they nail, they're a great brand.

I was going to say the same thing.

Fit and finish I would say Tudor and Omega are quite close. Only difference being is Omega carries significant more brand recognition.

[Craigdwh]

Originally Posted by jfmiii

Omega>Tudor by a long shot. As you mentioned, Id put Tudor on the same level as Longines. Both have a rich history of use as military tool watches but Rolex and Omega are THE Swiss tool watches. Historically speaking, that is, as they are both jewelry now.

Hmm, I would have to argue your standpoint. Comparing Tudor to Longines? That's a first for me.

Longines is the high end brand you find in most retail jewelry stores positioned in the same display case next to Bulova.

I'm a bit of a Tudor fan boy and you should be slapped for this comparison lol.

[watchmavan]

Better than anything coming out of Omega ATM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Craigdwh]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kingfish01]

I’ve owned omegas (wife and I) for 20 years (speedmaster, planet ocean, constellation, aqua terra) yet never owned a Tudor. In my experience of just handling them and trying them on in shops, I’ve always thought they were far ahead of Omega. But that’s just the impression I got without actually owning a Tudor. Maybe if I owned one, I’d have a different opinion, but fit, finish, feel, are all better than omega, in my opinion. Actually, I feel Omegas newer watches dipped in quality as they even look “flashy-cheap” to me

[Stew7]

Originally Posted by T3F

I own plenty of Rolex and Omega, as well as a Tudor, and can say that Omega definitely sits above Tudor. I doubt I'm going to get much support for this here, but I think Omega is on the same level as Rolex. The difference in quality is imperceptible, and Omega uses some more exotic materials and tries some more exciting (and more impressive, from a watchmaking perspective) than Rolex. My only complaint with Omegas is that most of the models don't hold value well relative to MSRP -- this can be helped by buying grey, though.

Some also complaint that Omega has too many variants and changes things up too often. I see how someone could have this point of view, but I think it's also equally valid to enjoy this fact. Rolex keeps the same models in production with very few variants for years, which, to me, can get a bit boring. I like that Omega is continually releasing new stuff, even if I don't like all of it.

I happen to agree as an owner of both.

[asiparks]

Are you wearing the label or a watch? Both Omega and Tudor make somewhat ropey watches, they also make some great ones, so forget the brands, focus on the watch you like and compare that to the other ones you like.

Omega’s newer movements are exceptional, the new Seamaster 300 is a startlingly attractive watch in real life, the Pelagos is fantastic, but in a more matte, businesslike way. Black Bays are very attractive, but do you want a heavily vintage vibe ? The Seamaster is young and fun. Both brands are made to a standard where you’d have to try really hard to break them in normal use.