I must admit...I'm confused

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by Ss22525

Is it normal to hate the whole brand after seeing the 1926 tudor ?

Did you see the new Daytona? Does that make you hate the entire Rolex brand?

To your point....It's ok to loath that piece.

E-

[Polarbears]

Originally Posted by stil

What are Rolex and Tudor doing? BB Fifty-Eight? I mean it's basically a re-do of the original Turdor Sub and a cheaper alternative to a Rolex Sub. And the Tudor GMT Pepsi? I mean...is this just a money grab since the recent boom in popularity of the GMT Pepsi?

Further, I think it's silly for anyone to say the Sub is "better." How "better." $4k better for a SS model? Are the differences really that vast? Isn't it like comparing a car that goes 0-60 in 5 seconds vs. one that goes 0-60 in 4? How many people really need that 1 second?

Can anyone say GMC and Cadillac? I guess there's a market for both...

Because Tudor is the new Rolex https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=593872

[lhawli]

Originally Posted by Polarbears

Because Tudor is the new Rolex https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=593872

I made the same comment on an earlier post. Didn't realize there is a whole thread on this theory...

[kangajack]

Tudor watches are not built with the same level of craftsmanship of similarly designed Rolex watches. While movements, and the internal workings of Tudors are hidden, The bracelets are in completely different leagues in term of feel quality and machining. I’m sure the same can be said for movements as well. Tudor owners may like to conflate the two brands, but they are not at the same level, and my biggest problem with Tudor is that they can’t stand on their own without the relationship to Rolex. They are simply knock offs of Rolex watches. That’s what their inception was, and its what they are today. They make some attractive references, but I’d much prefer an Omega, Glashutte Original, IWC, or even a Sinn to Tudor because they don’t really have design cues of their own except for their disconcerting snowflake hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Yobber76]

I see the OP's point, I have been wondering and was left with a feeling after the announcements that possibly Tudor and Rolex are joining their marketing plans to fit Tudor into the market in a way that helps Tudor perhaps move up the ladder vs other competition in what is constantly described as a slowly declining demand market. Rolex is Rolex, just like Mercedes, and while no one disputes that, and Rolex buyers will buy Rolex over other brands for many reasons, I've watched Tudor strengthen their lines and this has happened in part because of Rolex's name, their product availability, and I'm sure, the financial strength of their corporation. Daily, this forum has threads about possibly buying Tudor's because you can't get the Rolex product without a waitlist, or paying a premium or whatever. Perhaps just as much as Rolex may be trying to control the gray market, manage AD's etc, perhaps they are also trying to boost Tudor in the lower price lines vs Omega, Tag Heuer, and others. I mean, they both announce a pepsi GMT this year, I'm sure you could get hold of a Tudor much sooner than the Rolex, at MSRP well below Rolex and for some people that's good. And if you are buying that Tudor, maybe you are not buying another brand. Ultimately the corporation that owns both companies is winning a sale they may not have had otherwise.

[lucevan le stelle]

Interesting post and well addressed. While I too intend to pick up a 58 the distinction remains that Rolex designs are more classic and ageless, with Tudors being more likely to look dated and out-of-style, dependent on how long the vintage look trend runs. The value proposition is an individual matter, but I feel Tudor would do much better here being matched up against some of Rolex's competitors rather than Rolex itself.