Poor man's Submariner

[1978]

Gosh OP, how is one of these dials a mashup of geometric shapes and the other not? They both literally have circles, rectangles, and triangles in literally the same places?

[GradyPhilpott]

"Poor man's" is a term that needs to stop being used to describe Tudor.

[Bigdaddy38]

Originally Posted by Tim Plains

Click bait title, sorry. :)

New watch day yesterday, the BB58 of course. Obviously, I'm honeymooning but I really like these, their timeless design, and how different it is to my 12-series Submariner.

People criticize the snow flakes and rivots but I like both. If I had one critism to give, it's the dial seems to be a mash up of geometric shapes - circles, triangles, bars and squares - but that's just nitpicking and I think it's an excellent design.

It's funny, my wife and I made a few AD purchases last year and the Submariner was allocated to me in under two months. I enquired about the BB when supply around Toronto dried up and waited longer, same AD, three months for the Tudor. Go figure.

Welcome! Love this one as well!

I call it the poor man’s Cookie Monster !



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tim Plains]

^ nice.

Originally Posted by 1978

Gosh OP, how is one of these dials a mashup of geometric shapes and the other not? They both literally have circles, rectangles, and triangles in literally the same places?

I was referring to the addition of the square snow flake on top of the more common mash up. Again, nitpicking. I like everything about these.

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by Purple Hayz

Great pickup OP. I've got plenty of Wilsdorf siblings in the stable as well, and I marvel at how little daylight there is between them. Sure, there are differences, both subtle and less so, but as a value proposition the Tudors are hard to beat. Basically 8/9 tenths of the Rolex experience (quality wise) for a quarter the street value.

What's not to love?

Attachment 1294109

Nice pair of watches! great choice on both!

[Ensign]

I think the rivots are super cool in a retro way.

[Adam84]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

"Poor man's" is a term that needs to stop being used to describe Tudor.

Indeed, it’s like Glashutte being called a poor mans lange…..not sure I know many poor men who can fork out £9000 on a watch!

Anyway back on topic, I actually prefer the BB58 to the current sub. More retro sizing and smaller case means it’s perfect for my smaller wrists

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

"Poor man's" is a term that needs to stop being used to describe Tudor.

+1 on that, quality watch and not so cheap. They are a brand all to themselves. They seem to be enough differences between the two brands with movements and design not to be called a poor mans Rolex. They are NOT that similar anymore. There a great watch all on there own.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

"Poor man's" is a term that needs to stop being used to describe Tudor.

Well said GP.

If you can spend hours on this Forum talking about things that tell time nobody’s ‘poor’.

[amh]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

"Poor man's" is a term that needs to stop being used to describe Tudor.

Ok then, straight out of Hans' mouth: 'Affordable'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Wilsdorf

Wilsdorf established the high-quality lower-priced watch brand Tudor, a subsidiary company of Rolex, in 1946. While the Tudor name had appeared on previous watches made under the auspices of Rolex, at this time Tudor expanded into an affordable alternative to Rolex-branded offerings. On March 6, 1946, Wilsdorf made the following statement regarding Tudor:

"For some years now I have been considering the idea of making a watch that our agents could sell at a more modest price than our Rolex watches, and yet one that could attain the standards of dependability for which Rolex is famous, I decided to form a separate company, with the object of making and marketing this new watch. It is called the Tudor Watch Company."

Tudor IS a poor man's Rolex. There's no doubt about it and no reason to get upset either.

These days we talk about cities getting "Affordable Housing." Everyone knows what that means. Are the people living there literally poor? Around here that still means 500k.

I have a Tudor and I may well get another one some time (eg. a vintage Sub.) They make some nice watches. If they would just ditch the riveted bracelet and stop putting the Snowflake hand on everything they'd become a whole lot more attractive. The designs are deliberately sabotaged in order to avoid encroaching on Rolex territory.

Their modern movements are amazing, you get a lot of watch for the money. But the quality of the movement is cold comfort if it means I'll be stuck staring at some faux rivets all day long.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by amh

Ok then, straight out of Hans' mouth: 'Affordable'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Wilsdorf




Tudor IS a poor man's Rolex. There's no doubt about it and no reason to get upset either.

These days we talk about cities getting "Affordable Housing." Everyone knows what that means. Are the people living there literally poor? Around here that still means 500k.

I have a Tudor and I may well get another one some time (eg. a vintage Sub.) They make some nice watches. If they would just ditch the riveted bracelet and stop putting the Snowflake hand on everything they'd become a whole lot more attractive. The designs are deliberately sabotaged in order to avoid encroaching on Rolex territory.

Their modern movements are amazing, you get a lot of watch for the money. But the quality of the movement is cold comfort if it means I'll be stuck staring at some faux rivets all day long.

You and I interpret the English language differently, besides the fact that I am speaking of 21st Century Tudor watches, not mid-20th Century Tudors. Regardless, Wilsdorf was fluent in English, so if he wanted Tudor to be the poor man's Rolex, he would have called it that.

You need to chill out a little--maybe take a nap or something.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

[Goupax]

I have heard the NATO strap Tudor uses are of the very best quality, I would try to get a hand on one of them as well as the suede one with the deployant clasp for the winter. Damn, I think I need to get a Tudor myself now...

[amh]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

You and I interpret the English language differently, besides the fact that I am speaking of 21st Century Tudor watches, not mid-20th Century Tudors. Regardless, Wilsdorf was fluent in English, so if he wanted Tudor to be the poor man's Rolex, he would have called it that.

You need to chill out a little--maybe take a nap or something.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

"Chill"? I just like the Tudor of yesteryear more than the modern versions

Like this:

[AzHadEnuf]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

You and I interpret the English language differently, besides the fact that I am speaking of 21st Century Tudor watches, not mid-20th Century Tudors. Regardless, Wilsdorf was fluent in English, so if he wanted Tudor to be the poor man's Rolex, he would have called it that.

You need to chill out a little--maybe take a nap or something.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

👏👏👏 I want to go bowling with you sometime!

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by AzHadEnuf

I want to go bowling with you sometime!

Oh man! I have been playing with a series of injuries that have played hell with my game. Most have healed okay, but I'm still plagued with a bruised heel.

I'm hoping to be well by the fall, though!

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

[Old Expat Beast]

As mentioned a couple of times above, the dial layouts are the same, but anyway that Tudor dial/hands combo first appeared several decades ago.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=326991

Incidentally the snowflake hands were developed in the 1960s in collaboration with French navy divers to be more legible underwater. The Sub's mercedes hands are a holdover from 1930s Rolex dress-watches.

[Harry-57]

They compliment each other nicely, although I wouldn't classify a watch retailing at around £3K in SS something a poor man would be able to afford. I suppose it's all relative.

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by amh

These days we talk about cities getting "Affordable Housing." Everyone knows what that means.

Yeah. It means housing that only the rich can afford. A misnomer often used in the UK. You have to laugh.

[Tudor66]

As my username suggests, I am huge Tudor fan. Congrats on your purchase.

I just sold this "poor man's Tudor" last weekend. It's the watch that resembled a submariner, but in my opinion stood out on it's own- yes, it's just a quartz watch, but I still think they are cool...

[beau007]

Congratulations on a beautiful watch! I can see what you said about the BB58 being a mash up of shapes. And I agree, now that you mention it. But it works somehow. Wear it in good health!

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by amh

Ok then, straight out of Hans' mouth: 'Affordable'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Wilsdorf




Tudor IS a poor man's Rolex. There's no doubt about it and no reason to get upset either.

These days we talk about cities getting "Affordable Housing." Everyone knows what that means. Are the people living there literally poor? Around here that still means 500k.

I have a Tudor and I may well get another one some time (eg. a vintage Sub.) They make some nice watches. If they would just ditch the riveted bracelet and stop putting the Snowflake hand on everything they'd become a whole lot more attractive. The designs are deliberately sabotaged in order to avoid encroaching on Rolex territory.

Their modern movements are amazing, you get a lot of watch for the money. But the quality of the movement is cold comfort if it means I'll be stuck staring at some faux rivets all day long.

Lol. The designs aren’t deliberately sabotaged. They’re deliberately retro, and, while I don’t love the fake rivets, I still think the new Tudor line is better looking than the current Rolex line, overall, although I’m not really interested in either.

As far as Tudor being a poor man’s Rolex, maybe, although old Subs wouldn’t even be over $2k US today if they actually tracked with inflation. I’d maybe argue that today’s Tudor is yesterday’s Rolex, and today’s Rolex moved upmarket.

Also, the wise marketer that Wildorf was, I suspect that Tudor name was his way of getting around Rolex’s contract with Aegler. The old Tudor line basically recycled various Rolex parts into different combinations and then slapped in good, but non-COSC, movements, so he could sell more watches without being limited to only Aegler movements.

[stark1]

I agree with your assessment of the mashup of geometric shapes on the dial. I never liked that either, but don't let that spoil your fun - congrats!

[Purple Hayz]

Originally Posted by amh

"Chill"? I just like the Tudor of yesteryear more than the modern versions

Like this:

In fairness, is that really a Tudor, though? Swap the top grade ETA in the midcase for an Aegler of the same period, and that's a Rolex in everything but name. Literally ~95% of the watch would be interchangeable. Do we really miss that Tudor? The one that sold 'engine-swapped' Rolexes for decades?
rt1.jpg

At a mere ~35% discount?

Don't get me wrong, they were (and are) great watches, but if you like the Tudor of "yesterday," how do not LOVE the Tudor (rebadged Rolex) of yester-century?

Because the line from here:
ts7924a.jpg

to here...
tudor-black-bay-15.jpg

has basically two stops. The dial/hands from the CN ref. 94010 shown above (post #45), and (bezel) paint job from this late 90s (IIRC) prototype.
Screenshot 2022-05-24 000729.jpg

And the BB 58? Just read the name!

Is not as if they've taken great pains to conceal the provenance, no?
Picture1 (Custom).jpg

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Purple Hayz

In fairness, is that really a Tudor, though? Swap the top grade ETA in the midcase for an Aegler of the same period, and that's a Rolex in everything but name. Literally ~95% of the watch would be interchangeable. Do we really miss that Tudor? The one that sold 'engine-swapped' Rolexes for decades?

Yep, I miss those, because the old Tudor offered variations that Rolex didn’t, like the Submariner with the unique snowflake hands/dial, a steel date-day, a DateJust in a larger 1019 Milgauss case, etc.

[WILLIWALKER]

Originally Posted by EvelynWaugh

Im a poor man because I buy Rolex

Yep, Healthy people wear (wears?) 50usd watches or no watch

[jimcameron]

Casio Duro. Less than $50 and WR 200m

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Jack T

I don’t have any Tudors, but from what I’ve seen, felt and read they are pretty good watches. But please, don’t try to compare them to Rolex.

You should have stopped after "I don't have Tudors"

My BB58 blue is every bit as well finished and just as good quality as my SD43. Better in some regards (ceramic "bearings" inn the clasp for example) The only "improvement" the six digit Rolex has is the ceramic bezel.

Rolex is a fantastic brand that makes great products but lets not get carried away here.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

"Poor man's" is a term that needs to stop being used to describe Tudor.

Indeed Grady

[THC]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

"Poor man's" is a term that needs to stop being used to describe Tudor.

This

[Goin2drt]

Congrats.

I want to love this watch so bad but I just can't get my mind past the hour hand and the big square. It just looks dis-proportionate to the rest of the watch.

I also agree with the others that when I did own a Tudor (Heritage Sport Chrono) it just never got any wrist time with the Sub sitting at home.