Sub No Date V Tudor Black Bay

[Solo118]

Originally Posted by wm5382

How do we justify the price difference? It's a Rolex, that's all the reason we need, full stop

I do not see the brand being the only reason to spend double the price.

These days I look at any Rolex as more of a luxury watch rather than a tool. The Tudor is a straight up tool watch, the Sub is a luxury watch with a high diving capability.

If it were my money, I would prefer to have the luxury piece as it fits my lifestyle and what I wear. I had a BB when they came out, but could not wear it with a suit or to work.

[Kroaker]

I really like both watches, but the reason I chose Rolex is that I could never get over the thinking that the Tudor is a "wanna be" Rolex. I know that isn't the case, but it would have bothered me...

[arguetaoscar]

Similar but different, both great!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[beer]

you cant really justify either using logic

this being a rolex forum we seem to consider tudor in the "utilitarian" or "tool" price bracket, forgetting that even these watches would be considered ridiculously priced to most people

if you want logic and justification a G-shock is the answer

just buy what you like

[Afghanvet]

Sub here...

[Boothroyd]

I think it's somewhat apples and oranges also. But when I got my BB, I consciously told myself I would not be getting a Sub. A Sub Date in the future to balance things out, perhaps, but not the Sub. I liked the retro look of the BB over the modern Sub with it's large lugs.

The Sub Date I consider to be a completely different model--who needs a date while diving? YMMV.

[wolffram]

I have had my SubC for over 2 years, and have recently bought the in house BB as well. The BB is a damn fine watch, and the vintage nods are awesome, but it's a definite win for the Rolex.

[Portland]

Originally Posted by vukotab

IMHO, while 100 meters more of water resistance and scratch-proof ceramic bezel are obvious advantages in theory, in everyday use there really isn't much of a difference.

Good point. One thing to note though is that the BB has a Triplock crown. While not advertised by Tudor, it does indeed have a Triplock. The "under the hood" design of the crown, gaskets, and threading allow for an incredibly solid seal that is identical in build to that of the Rolex Triplock.

While I haven't seen any hard and fast science on this, watchmakers that have inspected the design of the case and crown of the BB have commented that they feel the BB could easily handle the same depth rating as the Sub of 300m. Perhaps the reason it says "200 m" on the dial is to keep with the vintage theme. But from my research the BB could in theory handle much more than it's published depth rating.

I can understand why Rolex wouldn't want a watch in its sister brand lineup costing less than half the retail price of its own flagship model to be advertised having similar depth rating specs and using key attributes such as the Triplock crown.

[Jakx]

I had the 114060 for three years. Now I have an ETA BBn (8 months). I agree with Cru, it's really apples and oranges. Each represents a different interpretation of a classic diver's watch. If you want discretion, Tudor takes it. If you want the iconic Rolex look that everyone will recognize (at airport terminals), then by all means go for the Sub. I do think Rolex SA has done a good job separating the two products. IMHO professional reviews that pit the two against each other and end up favoring one over the other inadvertantly create a misleading impression. Different watches! I will say I do miss the sub's brilliantly engineered bracelet: nothing like it out there (I wear the BBn on the cloth or aftermarket nato). The dial of the Tudor is simply amazing in the sunlight ("compelling" as Adam/Old Expat says!)

[AK797]

Originally Posted by beer

you cant really justify either using logic

this being a rolex forum we seem to consider tudor in the "utilitarian" or "tool" price bracket, forgetting that even these watches would be considered ridiculously priced to most people

if you want logic and justification a G-shock is the answer

just buy what you like

This is a good point and one we ought to try to remember, but I also remember I've heard grand comp guys refer to the 5711 as a beater so it's all relative I suppose, just got to find your lane

[RUK]

Both great but the sub is nicer. Also it's nice to know that the Rolex will hold value better and be easily serviced.

Can't go wrong with either

[Jakx]

Originally Posted by AK797

This is a good point and one we ought to try to remember, but I also remember I've heard grand comp guys refer to the 5711 as a beater so it's all relative I suppose, just got to find your lane

So true! one's 'beater' is another's 'grail'!

[SeaDweller50]

A tool watch without crown guards. Hmm. Sub for me any day.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Portland

Good point. One thing to note though is that the BB has a Triplock crown. While not advertised by Tudor, it does indeed have a Triplock. The "under the hood" design of the crown, gaskets, and threading allow for an incredibly solid seal that is identical in build to that of the Rolex Triplock.

While I haven't seen any hard and fast science on this, watchmakers that have inspected the design of the case and crown of the BB have commented that they feel the BB could easily handle the same depth rating as the Sub of 300m. Perhaps the reason it says "200 m" on the dial is to keep with the vintage theme. But from my research the BB could in theory handle much more than it's published depth rating.

I can understand why Rolex wouldn't want a watch in its sister brand lineup costing less than half the retail price of its own flagship model to be advertised having similar depth rating specs and using key attributes such as the Triplock crown.

What I find surprising is that the Tudor Ranger has a better depth rating than the Rolex Explorer, and the THC has a better depth rating than the Daytona. Both are 150m vs. 100m.

[Sublovin]

Well...one is a Rolex and one is not. Tough to compare. Like saying why should you buy a mechanical watch when a cell phone is more accurate time!
I see people constantly buying Tudor thinking they will scratch their itch for a Rolex...doesn't work!

[Stevec14]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

Well...one is a Rolex and one is not. Tough to compare. Like saying why should you buy a mechanical watch when a cell phone is more accurate time!
I see people constantly buying Tudor thinking they will scratch their itch for a Rolex...doesn't work!

My experience entirely. Bought a pelagos and bbn (both fantastic). Had them both in for a Rolex gmt. They are tremendous watches in their own right though....

[jeanjean]

Rolex is Rolex.Rolex is outstanding.
the Tudor in house movement is better than the Rolex 3135 regarding power reserve(70h)
and at last share the same precision and even a little better and very stable.
For finishing and design Rolex is over Tudor.

[morimotom]

Originally Posted by anothernewphone

Why do you end every sentence in a question mark? You did the same thing in the other thread you started.

Weird.

I noticed that as well.

[wach16]

Although I really like the tudor the subc would be my choice between the two for sure...such a classic design with the updated clasp and bezel is tough to beat

[HogwldFLTR]

Get a BBR and with the left over money pick up a 14060. I found the 114060 too top heavy and the ceramic boring. No need for the improved clasp either.

[FTX I]

Sub. Otherwise I'd buy Omega.

[Marco76]

Nice article, thanks!

[Polarbears]

Originally Posted by RUK

Both great but the sub is nicer. Also it's nice to know that the Rolex will hold value better and be easily serviced.

Can't go wrong with either

I don’t know man... That Tudor of yours is gaining value.

[BreezyMan]

Originally Posted by sensui

I'd rather have the black bay.....the aesthetics and the vintage nods are risks Rolex would never take on a modern piece and it's well executed. People that had a problem with the ETAs now have the option of the inhouse movement also.....it's just more appealing to me. Nothing against the 114060, it's a crackin watch but for a no date sub I prefer the 5 digits.

This guy gets it again bravo sir guess us San Diego folk know what’s up

[lucevan le stelle]

Either one is a great choice. If you plan to hold for a long time and are concerned about value retention, the no-date sub is the better choice. The Rolex Sub is a timeless classic, while the Tudor has a vintage look that may or may not be appreciated down the road. Subs are also more of a historically proven piece than the Tudor. Additional concern might be how many models or variants of the BB Tudor may produce.

[Bluside]

It was a good read and some great pictures.

Ginger, MaryAnn?