Tudor on same level as omega?

[asiparks]

Originally Posted by Zackwheat

Unless Omega can give me +/-1 sec per week accuracy that my Tudor GMT gives me, I’m not buying “the co-axial movement is better” argument.

if that was the norm, then your argument would hold water. You were just lucky, you could just have easily have been sold one that was -2/ +4 a day.

[|404|]

Originally Posted by asiparks

if that was the norm, then your argument would hold water. You were just lucky, you could just have easily have been sold one that was -2/ +4 a day.

People like their anecdotal evidence as it confirms their belief.
Objectively as I've mentioned, Omega make fantastic watches that are on par with Rolex, if not excel above Rolex in certain areas.

But watches are subjective, and ultimately the Rolex brand prevails over Omega.

Tudor are Rolex's sub-division.
I don't like car analogies for watches but... I've always viewed Tudor and Rolex a bit like the Volkswagen group...

Their flagship (for standard consumers) is Audi.
Their base models are Skoda/SEAT.

They will not allow their basic models to compete with their flagships and artificially hold them back.

The same is what occurs with Rolex and Tudor in my opinion. Tudor designers and engineers could come up with something ultra fantastic... only to be denied by Rolex because that's a feature a Rolex should have... or a style choice etc.

However there are some exceptions to this, as Rolex are a brand. So the flip-side of this is... their brand is so powerful and well known that no matter what Tudor does, they will never be able to compete.

Which is what Omega are now in.... they make good watches, equivalent to Rolex and sometimes surpassing. But they'll never be Rolex.

The public perception is just too great for Rolex and I can't see that changing. 99% of all people have heard of Rolex...
A lot of people have heard of Omega... but not in the same way.

Truly Rolex's most marvellous feature that the company has achieved is their reputation. Their marketing game, their public appearance... goes beyond even PP/AP/VC.
When you buy a Rolex, you are buying this PR. In business we would call this 'good will' (however, we don't because good will doesn't exist unless partnership dispute/selling company etc).

Omega will have to spend a lot of money on marketing, and promotions and making their watches more exclusive to catch up to Rolex.
I personally love Omega, but I don't think that day will ever happen.

Rolex deserved or not, will be the king for the foreseeable future. But Omega > Tudor by a long way.

[samson66]

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.

This is basically exactly how I feel about Omega. Too many variants, too many changes all the time. They make great watches but their choices have really hurt the brand image over time. This is why the general public doesn't consider Omega to be even in the same ballpark as Rolex.

[kwingy]

I have had an Omega AT, PO and Moonwatch and a Blackbay Rouge and in all honesty I much prefer the quality of finishing on the Omegas. Just felt more robust. Tudors maybe better value for money but more often then not Omegas can be had for far less then retail and in that situation Omega with it's rich heritage trumps Tudor by some way IMO.

[bigfatpauli]

Reading through this thread I can't help but feel that one of the best feature of a Rolex is the marketing. And people are proud of that. That really is a profound shift in culture for a watch community.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by |404|

Tudor are Rolex's sub-division.
I don't like car analogies for watches but... I've always viewed Tudor and Rolex a bit like the Volkswagen group...

Their flagship (for standard consumers) is Audi.
Their base models are Skoda/SEAT.

Please don't tell me you are considering Tudor to be the "base model" of Rolex, similar to Skoda???

If you want to say Rolex = Audi and Tudor = Volkswagen I can live with that. But Tudor is certainly not a base model.

[|404|]

Originally Posted by samson66

Please don't tell me you are considering Tudor to be the "base model" of Rolex, similar to Skoda???

If you want to say Rolex = Audi and Tudor = Volkswagen I can live with that. But Tudor is certainly not a base model.

Why?

Rolex only have two companies, themselves and Tudor. One is their luxury the other is their base...

Skoda make exceptionally fine cars, this is more a problem with how you perceive the brand. IE subjective, not objective. Skoda cars are built on the same chassis as the rest of their range... again... this is how YOU perceive the cars.
Not reality. Tudor and Skoda are a fine example. Just because you're applying snobbery does not make you correct.

And before you ask, no I do not own anything from VAG. I only own a 2018 BMW i8.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by |404|

Why?

Rolex only have two companies, themselves and Tudor. One is their luxury the other is their base...

Skoda make exceptionally fine cars, this is more a problem with how you perceive the brand. IE subjective, not objective. Skoda cars are built on the same chassis as the rest of their range... again... this is how YOU perceive the cars.
Not reality. Tudor and Skoda are a fine example. Just because you're applying snobbery does not make you correct.

And before you ask, no I do not own anything from VAG. I only own a 2018 BMW i8.

My issue is with "base." You own a BMW. Let's say they didn't own Mini. Would Rolls Royce be their luxury brand and BMW be their "base?" Or might you say both are luxury car brands, just at significantly different price points?

The real snobbery here is likening a $4,000 Swiss timepiece with a "base model" of anything. Different price points, but both are luxury brands. One is high tier, the other more mid-range. Rolex does not produce an "Invicta" model or any other model that I would consider base.

[Chester01]

This is a tough argument and one without a real winner. I think it depends on the exact model you like. I own omega, the speedy pro hesilite and for me Tudor does not have a watch that even comes close to the classic design of that watch, nor the history. With that said, I was looking at Tudor’s black bay chrono Versus omega’s Speedmaster 57 and preferred the black bay chrono and the b01 movement is very solid. I think the answer to the origional question depends on what model of each you are comparing. The materials of both are great (if one likes ceramic the edge goes to omega here) and the movements are likely not appreciably or perceptibly different.

[|404|]

Originally Posted by samson66

My issue is with "base." You own a BMW. Let's say they didn't own Mini. Would Rolls Royce be their luxury brand and BMW be their "base?" Or might you say both are luxury car brands, just at significantly different price points?

The real snobbery here is likening a $4,000 Swiss timepiece with a "base model" of anything. Different price points, but both are luxury brands. One is high tier, the other more mid-range. Rolex does not produce an "Invicta" model or any other model that I would consider base.

Rolex > Tudor.
1 > 2
Top > Bottom
Annexe > Base

If RR owned only BMW, yes. BMW would be there base brand. (BMW own RR brand so the comparison is a little strange... but it works if you don't know that lol)

RR > BMW
flagship company > base company.

I think this might help you.
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/th...word/base.html

• Something from which other things extend; a foundation.

• A supporting, lower or bottom component of a structure or object.

That is what Tudor is... a supporting branch (a foundation if you will) of the company. It is lower and the bottom competent in their organisation. Base is appropriate. Your comprehension of the word 'base' isn't. It isn't offensive to call something the base, it just is. These are lumps of metals with no feelings. Stop putting emotion and thinking only subjectively. Conversely thinking objectively - Tudor is Rolex's base product and base brand.

(Historically Rolex would be the foundation for Tudor, and thus the base for a small amount of time, but I digress, we're talking about current time)

[R G]

.

[R G]

Originally Posted by |404|

I think this might help you.
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/th...word/base.html

Haha

Oh dear...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nick c]

Originally Posted by R G

There you have it everyone.

Nothing more to be said... ??

And one more thing, lol the Worst resale

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by James444

Found this on another forum



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

To answer the OP’s question from the 2013 receipt; I don’t care.

A 1/2 link wholesale receipt with Omega logo could even mean a Swatch Irony link for an out of production model. And if it is for an omega, i suppose all Omega are s$/@ now. Tell the astronauts and James Bond.

[R G]

Originally Posted by nick c

And one more thing, lol the Worst resale

Ok that’s fine too.

Myself, I wouldn’t touch Tudor with yours.

[nick c]

Originally Posted by R G

Ok that’s fine too.

Myself, I wouldn’t touch Tudor with yours.

I’m a Tudor fan, I tried to love omega. But no luck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[R G]

Originally Posted by nick c

I’m a Tudor fan, I tried to love omega. But no luck.

Haha fair enough.

Look, I don’t love loads of Omega’s. There are a handful of modern references, and a couple of older models, that I think are fantastic.

Nice collection there.

[Justinmg]

Originally Posted by bigfatpauli

Reading through this thread I can't help but feel that one of the best feature of a Rolex is the marketing. And people are proud of that. That really is a profound shift in culture for a watch community.

Agree, one of the things I love about Omega is no one really knows the brand unless they are into watches, Rolex... not so much

[Jhowton23]

had both- kept omega

[fania123]

Having owned many Tudor watches I can say they are very nice watches but nowhere near the level of an omega.

[Vaxe]

Omega only makes 1 watch worth buying. Almost everything Tudor makes is worth buying.

[mgsooner]

A review of this year’s 300m including a couple of, ahem, surprising flaws on the dial.

https://youtu.be/_upu_bmaWKA

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by mgsooner

A review of this year’s 300m including a couple of, ahem, surprising flaws on the dial.

https://youtu.be/_upu_bmaWKA

Since getting my Bby bronze, I’m a leather strap dive watch convert.

Might have to get that latest SMP too.

[Raku]

I love it when some people in this thread compare the £6000 Seamaster 300 to the £3000 Tudor Pelagos and then say the Omega is better...

[liverpool23]

I have a omega 300m and a rolex sub, while the Rolex looks and feels like you are getting more for your money, the omega has the superb co-axial movement and to be fair at the price point of the sea master and the quality is hard to beat vs a Tudor. Just my humble opinion

[teabags001]

Originally Posted by bigfatpauli

Reading through this thread I can't help but feel that one of the best feature of a Rolex is the marketing. And people are proud of that. That really is a profound shift in culture for a watch community.

This is true. Because in most people’s minds Rolex = success. They have ingrained that in our conscious. People strive and make it a goal to own a Rolex one day. Because they know they will get the respect of being successful. WIS on the other hand know there are a lot of watches leagues above Rolex. But in the public mind Rolex is king. I bet if you would ask the normal joe off of the street to pick a AP a PP or a Rolex submariner he would pic the sub 90 percent of the time if not higher. WIS make up such a small part of people who actually buy Rolex. It’s just that this forum is full of WIS so the opinions of normal people gets clouded. I mean most people work their whole lives for one Rolex. How many new incomings do we see? Most people only have 1 or 2 watches at most. WIS have multiple watches. I know Omega makes a watch at least on par with Rolex. But to the average joe it might as well be a seiko because Rolex is the “best”. So yes marketing is a huge part of it. Just like in the diamond industry. Or with a high end jewelry like Cartier. It’s worth 5x10 times it’s value in gold just because of a stamp?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[R!$]

I think Tudor is better but only because of their Rolex association

[Sublovin]

If we are speaking purely from an horological perspective, one could argue either side. Many Tudors have a real functional military history. For some reason, Omega going to the moon has been something that the brand has profited from for 50 years.
Now that Tudor is a true manufacture of movements, I see them as very similar. I like many of the new Tudor better than Omega, and that is the most important gauge.
I also feel that Omega REALLY overdoes the whole limited edition thing. I like Heuer, so not much room to talk, but Omega makes every minor variation a new “limited edition”

[MinMay]

Any Rolex related watch >>>> Omega :)

I saw on slickdeals...they have a 50% of Omega :) Enough said :)

FYI, you'll noticed people defending Omega owns one :) .

[|404|]

Originally Posted by mgsooner

A review of this year’s 300m including a couple of, ahem, surprising flaws on the dial.

https://youtu.be/_upu_bmaWKA

Tbh it looks fantastic. I actually might look at getting one. Need see one in the flesh!

The flaws happen in every company... we had a thread not so long ago where many members posted about their sunburst Rolex dials... Tudor GMT date issue.... dust/ fragments under the glass on new watches... this is nothing new for ANY company.

He even said Omega are working with him to resolve it. I mean in reality what more can you ask? No companies produce flawless anything...

It would only be bad if they turned around and said "LOOKS FINE MATE" but they didn't. It's also only £3,600 - that's a total steal... Makes the Submariner seem disgustingly overpriced.

The movement is METAS certified to +0-5s a day... that's fantastic.
How many of us here on this forum aren't happy when we've got a watch that is running slow...