What is the general consensus about Tudor watches ?

[Bostonbert]

Originally Posted by jimcameron

You are seeking advice on a Rolex forum, so expect many endorsements for the Tudor. To do yourself a favor, find a Jewelry business that carries all of your alternatives. I have owned Oris, Omega and Tag, and would recommend both. I would also consider a Ball as well. Personally, I feel that Tudor is overpriced compared to the competition.

Yes, this is true. I have their advisor. Although it’s their most complicated watch and one of the priciest at list (they discount it), the quality isn’t up to omega Planet ocean level or Rolex level for an equivalently priced model. The alarm complication is rare so they get away with the high price. It’s still half the price of a JLC alarm watch (JLC is also better quality than Tudor).

[chazadams]

These posts regarding "I would have a hard time because its not a Rolex" confuse me. I owned 4-5 SS Rolex before I purchased the Tudor GMT. I have most of the coveted SS Rolex pieces coveted here including the BLRO.

The Tudor is built like a tank and has tons of Rolex DNA but its its own watch. I wear my Tudor more than the others right now and its just simply because I like it more.

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by chazadams

These posts regarding "I would have a hard time because its not a Rolex" confuse me.

It's one of the aspects of watch collecting (in most cases "brand" collecting) which is to bash other brands that do not coincide with the brand identity that one has assimilated. There was a post by another member in the open discussion forum about an NPR podcast that discussed brands shaping people's identity that explains this phenomena pretty well. It was a good listen.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/28/73694...-of-who-we-are

[bay-dweller]

I really like the Tudor Big Blocks. If my wrist were a bit smaller, I would own one.
Many have rolex case, some have rolex bracelets.
I guess it used to be a middle class Daytona, but since it has a date, it's more practical.

[bay-dweller]

Also, consider the cost of ownership over a few decades.
To me, the math doesn't work out very well to maintain a $3-5k watch.

[Muxi]

Originally Posted by bay-dweller

Also, consider the cost of ownership over a few decades.
To me, the math doesn't work out very well to maintain a $3-5k watch.

Agree, plus the unserviceable in-site movement on some models. It’s a dealbreaker for me.

[omitohud]

Originally Posted by privv

I thought the fastrider looked great but was worried that the black ceramic would scratch too easily so opted for the Bell & Ross diver.

Ceramic doesn’t scratch, chip or fade which is why Rolex use it for insert. That said, it could shatter with enough impact.


I blame it on autoconnect.

[omitohud]

My advise is if u decide on a Tudor is to buy it used. As for the fastrider new, I would rather add some money n get the Rolex explorer I. If u r looking for a chronograph, get the omega speedy pro. To me Tudor is entry level with a big price tag. Is it a good watch? Absolutely, as I own quite a few. Here are some of my tudors that I wear occasionally. The others in my collection r vintage, which is a whole different story.






I blame it on autoconnect.

[iLLGT2]

Originally Posted by chazadams

These posts regarding "I would have a hard time because its not a Rolex" confuse me. I owned 4-5 SS Rolex before I purchased the Tudor GMT. I have most of the coveted SS Rolex pieces coveted here including the BLRO.

The Tudor is built like a tank and has tons of Rolex DNA but its its own watch. I wear my Tudor more than the others right now and its just simply because I like it more.

Agreed! TRF is getting so stuck up (not as a whole but this new wave of so called "enthusiasts"" on here

Not that it truly matters but coming from someone who only owns precious metal Rolex (YMII, SKY D, Plat DD II) I also own a tudor black bay bronze and monte carlo and let me tell everyone something .... they are AMAZINGLY built, finished, looking watches and exciting on the wrist

I told my buddy who has a ridiculous collection that if it said "Rolex" on the dial they would demand 15-20k and he agreed... thats the point, its only separated by a name and hype

Go for the Tudor and wear it proudly.

[rominvicta]

I personally would not wear a Tudor. A knock-off of Rolex. This is the way I comprehend it. I do not say anything of quality etc. Simply the visual appearance of Tudor is too much of resemblance with Rolex. And my personal opinion that its a mistake. But whether it is like that only Rolex knows and from what I’ve seen in the latest decades Rolex does not do any mistakes especially marketing wise! So potentially there is a bigger chance for me being in wrong assessment rather than Rolex doing a mistake.

[Seibei]

Tudor says second best so loud that I would not consider it. I would rather have something else.

[jsausley]

I gave the Black Bay 58 a shot. To me it felt like 50% of Rolex quality at 50% of the price. The bracelet isn't even close to Oyster bracelet quality and for me was the major reason I let it go.

Other issues I had with it were more personal -- I prefer a more robust and scratch proof ceramic bezel, and I didn't particularly enjoy the fake patina.

[APPRF]

Tudor means in a lot of people minds, I can't afford Rolex so I settled for Tudor. Not a strong name outside US and UK. Omega means I like Omega over Rolex. Go for Omega or Rolex second hand. Omega competes with Rolex and once upon a time was a stronger brand than Rolex. Omega is a renowned brand all over the world, and some people still consider it as a brand on par with Rolex. Buy Tudor only if you really like the design, and need quality watch, but keep in mind it's not considered a luxury brand.

[Fire bloke]

The best chronograph for Tudor type money has to be
The omega man on the moon ...A classic and if you go to the moon you can wear it

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by APPRF

Tudor means in a lot of people minds, I can't afford Rolex so I settled for Tudor. Not a strong name outside US and UK. Omega means I like Omega over Rolex. Go for Omega or Rolex second hand. Omega competes with Rolex and once upon a time was a stronger brand than Rolex. Omega is a renowned brand all over the world, and some people still consider it as a brand on par with Rolex. Buy Tudor only if you really like the design, and need quality watch, but keep in mind it's not considered a luxury brand.

Just how out of touch does one have to be that they would look down their nose at someone who only wears a $4K watch?
dP

[MisterG12]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Just how out of touch does one have to be that they would look down their nose at someone who only wears a $4K watch?

dP

Exactly


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[APPRF]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Just how out of touch does one have to be that they would look down their nose at someone who only wears a $4K watch?
dP

Nobody is looking down on anybody. If you think of it that way then a PP owner will look down on a person wearing a Rolex too. Read again, it's just the common perception most people have towards Tudor vs Omega and Rolex. As you should know a lot of people can buy loads of Rolex and other watches, but will buy a Tudor because they like the brand.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by APPRF

Nobody is looking down on anybody. If you think of it that way then a PP owner will look down on a person wearing a Rolex too. Read again, it's just the common perception most people have towards Tudor vs Omega and Rolex. As you should know a lot of people can buy loads of Rolex and other watches, but will buy a Tudor because they like the brand.

This is what I’m calling BS on. Most people have no clue about brand status pi$$ing contests or could care less.
dP

[Norbert]

I'm old school enough to remember that Tudor was the affordable Rolex, made by Rolex. So I don't get the distain for them now. They weren't sold in the US and it was fun to pick one up on travel. I guess the new collectors don't know the history.

[winger14]

I own to Rolex watches (Hulk and TT GMT) but my next purchase will be a GMT Tudor. Why? Because I like the watch and don’t really care if anyone else sees it as ‘a step down’.

[Spoonage]

Tudors are nice. I have a vintage Sub, BBN (ETA), and my wife have a Ranger. All great watches. I dont have much experience with the fast rider other that seeing them in the cases. I Had a Tag and it's one of the very few watches I ever sold.

[nick c]

It’s September 1st, I will start wearing Rolex on the left and Tudor on the right. LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by thejerseyrock

I understand the "not a rolex" comments above, but When I think of tudor, I dont think anything negative - first thing I think of is, excellent value

PS. Also,



X2 on this. Very good deals on pre-owned omegas out there, if you're exploring non-Rolex brands with lower price point.

Agree. Absolutely nothing negative about Tudor. My personal pet peeve regarding modern Tudors is the thick Cases and lack of a half link on the bracelets.

[Jona]

I have a Tudor Pelagos blue, BB Bronze, GMT, and BB Chrono. I am completely satisfied by these watches. I don't care how they compare to Rolex or any other brand; to me they are worth the $, look and perform great. I never much cared what anyone else thought about what I drove, wore, etc. The older I get the less I care about what others may think.

[teck21]

Originally Posted by Jona

I have a Tudor Pelagos blue, BB Bronze, GMT, and BB Chrono. I am completely satisfied by these watches. I don't care how they compare to Rolex or any other brand; to me they are worth the $, look and perform great. I never much cared what anyone else thought about what I drove, wore, etc. The older I get the less I care about what others may think.

That’s true, I am aware of the connection between the two brands, and while it is positive connection for me (ie if it’s the same company, how bad can it be!)...

I still absolutely regard Tudor as a separate breed of watch from Rolex.

Why must it be a hierarchy? In that case people should just skip Rolex and go straight for PP or the even more exotic and niche watch makers.

Unless they can’t, in which case laughing at Tudor for ‘not being a Rolex’ makes even less sense.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rcclarkie]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Vintage Tudors offer a Rolex Oyster case w/ more options [dial colors, bezels, sizes] than found on Rolex of the same era.

Modern Tudors have stepped out on their own in terms of design and branding, utilizing vintage styling, new in house movements, and updated modern construction.

I've owned and enjoyed both vintage and new releases. Having owned Patek, Rolex, as well as many of other brands, including the ones listed by the OP, I find Tudor to be the best value in terms of design, build quality, and features. Tudor is a great alternative if status is not the primary motivation for what is worn on your wrist.
dP

+1 this.

Personally, I've worn an Oris titanium diver for +10 years and it has been bombproof - the watch was never about movement for me (Sellita/ETA). As I progressed in my career and needed something more professional for the office a few years ago, I looked at Rolex but $10k was (and is still) a lot of money in my world for a watch. So I moved over one display case and found that the Tudors were of similar quality for half the price (and double the availability). My BBB ETA has been a fantastic watch for everything I've thrown at it - from board shorts to board meetings.

Don't be misled to believe Tudor (or other similarly priced brands) are inferior - comparison is ultimately the thief of joy. Just wear what makes you happy, not what TRF tells you to.

[eco8gator]

I think the best watch in the line up is a BB58. They are great for the price though I would hold out for a preowned Rolex preceramic model

[Gotgolf52]

I think Omega is better than Tudor as far as quality and in-house movement just my personal opinion.

[Late]

Originally Posted by lilylo13

I'm planning to treat myself with the first expensive watch for my birthday in the next month. I have been looking at quite a few options including Tag, Ball, Oris and now I came across Tudor. Particularly I'm interested in Fastrider Chronograph Automatic (42010N-0006 model) with a leather strap.

You asked "value for money". In that group, that comparison doesn't make a lot of sense.

• Ball watches have great history, and are the only ones on your list with Tritium (a major Ball point), but are huge. They likely won't fit under shirt-cuffs. But... Ball are the best "social object" watches on this like - i.e. the best to start a conversation with. Due to their history, their suspension, their size and the tritium.
• Tudor watches are, well, solid but largely unexciting. Only watch snobs will know it has a history and is expensive.
• Much like Tudor, nobody will recognize an Oris off the bat.
• Tag watches come in all quality levels. If you want a recognizable watch, something that says, "I have an expensive watch", a recognizable Tag is your best choice from this list. It's the closest to having a BMW roundel on your wrist. (Us Audi/Rolex fans will sniff with a bit of feigned disdain, but it's still recognition. )

Depending on what you really are looking for, you might consider Christopher Ward for fantastic high quality "value for money", or perhaps a Tissot Seastar for a diver, a Hamilton Jazzmaster or Khaki for a dress/field watch, or a Grand Seiko for art and history on your wrist.

[landroverking]

I own both Rolex and Tudor. I will never understand Rolex fan boy.
I guess they are just cult followers.