My Two Favourite Submariners

[Black Bay Dan]

Just saying! Cheers.

Dan

[Shaky]

Nice.. Love the BBR..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JLM3]

my 2 favorites except i have the bbn.

[speedmaster73]

Originally Posted by Air King Dan

Just saying! Cheers.

Dan

i only see one submariner

[michael067]

Love that Black Bay, nice.

[Black Bay Dan]

Originally Posted by speedmaster73

i only see one submariner

Look harder.

Dan

[captain_NEMO]

Sexy!

[phranxinatra]

Originally Posted by speedmaster73

i only see one submariner

+1

[captain_NEMO]

Originally Posted by phranxinatra

+1

Tudor BBays of today are direct descendants of the Tudor Submariners of yesteryear.

[daytonaTBR]

Stunning

[Gotgolf52]

Originally Posted by speedmaster73

i only see one submariner

Same here, there is only one Submariner in the picture. Sorry but I can't comprehend calling Tudor as Rolex regardless how close they resemble or being called Rolex little sister company. I don't think they are equally compatible, if anything Tudor is lower than Omega professional line. Of course it's only my opinion, very nice pair you have there. Congrats

[Gerry62]

[DevinH]

Originally Posted by Gotgolf52

Same here, there is only one Submariner in the picture. Sorry but I can't comprehend calling Tudor as Rolex regardless how close they resemble or being called Rolex little sister company. I don't think they are equally compatible, if anything Tudor is lower than Omega professional line. Of course it's only my opinion, very nice pair you have there. Congrats

+1 on that.

[itchy243mhz]

Originally Posted by Gerry62

Mine too Gerry, with that pair of subs your have it all covered.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[fskywalker]

Nice!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sea-dweller]

Nice!

[Scapegoat]

I always find the bracelet of the Tudor watches a tad too large (width). Is it more proportionate with the larger Tudor cases?

[KenNethcole]

Great pair!

[BigAl72]

Originally Posted by Gotgolf52

Same here, there is only one Submariner in the picture. Sorry but I can't comprehend calling Tudor as Rolex regardless how close they resemble or being called Rolex little sister company. I don't think they are equally compatible, if anything Tudor is lower than Omega professional line. Of course it's only my opinion, very nice pair you have there. Congrats

I felt the same way until I tried one on, the bbr then it was love at first sight. Walked out the store with it that day. Maybe you have tried one on but if you haven't you may want to. Just my 2 cents.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[firstOwatch]

Originally Posted by Gerry62

My 2 Submariners

[autofiend]

Originally Posted by Gotgolf52

Same here, there is only one Submariner in the picture. Sorry but I can't comprehend calling Tudor as Rolex regardless how close they resemble or being called Rolex little sister company. I don't think they are equally compatible, if anything Tudor is lower than Omega professional line. Of course it's only my opinion, very nice pair you have there. Congrats

Your opinion. Others' mileage will vary.

[Gotgolf52]

Originally Posted by BigAl72

I felt the same way until I tried one on, the bbr then it was love at first sight. Walked out the store with it that day. Maybe you have tried one on but if you haven't you may want to. Just my 2 cents.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

I went to a local Tourneau store last night to see the new BBR because of all the recent hype about it. I must admit it has nice quality build to it, it wear slightly bigger than my GMT LN, it doesn't have the bling factor like modern ceramic Rolex watches which I like but it doesn't sing to me. Even my Rolex Sub LN didn't sing to me like my GMTc does, I actually found Omega Seamaster Pro line more interesting (IMO). However, if I ever go back to Sub again, I prolly buy the Smurf or Blusie. Tudor is a step to high end watches just like Omega but far from Rolex though. BTW, I think I starting to like the Panerai 392 on black strap.

[autofiend]

Originally Posted by Gotgolf52

I went to a local Tourneau store last night to see the new BBR because of all the recent hype about it. I must admit it has nice quality build to it, it wear slightly bigger than my GMT LN, it doesn't have the bling factor like modern ceramic Rolex watches which I like but it doesn't sing to me. Even my Rolex Sub LN didn't sing to me like my GMTc does, I actually found Omega Seamaster Pro line more interesting (IMO). However, if I ever go back to Sub again, I prolly buy the Smurf or Blusie. Tudor is a step to high end watches just like Omega but far from Rolex though. BTW, I think I starting to like the Panerai 392 on black strap.

Your perceptions seem to be based largely on status.

Some people buy watches just because they like them not because they're less expensive.

I've had 3 Rolex Subs (14060, 16610 and 16800) and currently own a Tudor 79090 Sub. Guess which is my favorite (hint: it's the one I still own)?

The snobbery pervades on this forum at times.

[jeffgo888]

Originally Posted by autofiend

Your perceptions seem to be based largely on status.

Some people buy watches just because they like them not because they're less expensive.

I've had 3 Rolex Subs (14060, 16610 and 16800) and currently own a Tudor 79090 Sub. Guess which is my favorite (hint: it's the one I still own)?

The snobbery pervades on this forum at times.

******

IMHO only for me, every one is entitled to their opinion. If i think my Omega has higher quality than Tudor, then, yes it does. I am the one wearing it, no one else. I am entitled to think however I want. Not that it is. Thats besides the point.

SO now, again, my opinion, why insist on calling a Tudor a Sub? Well, its not a Sub, is it? I don't know, call me a moron or an idiot, but to me, a Rolex is not a Tudor, isnt it? Its plain and simple.

Now, is Tudor a superb piece? I have not owned one, nor have I seen one, but in all indications, it seems to be a top notch piece, no doubt.
But is IT a Sub? Is it a Rolex Sub? Does it have the quality and the heritage?
I don't know, I don't think so. There is a reason I bought the DSSD and the SubC. Its a Rolex.

each watch has its own merits, beauties, etc. There are days I dont wanna wear my Omegas, but, I can say, there is not a day I don't want to wear the Rolles...:) I just have to pick...

[autofiend]

Originally Posted by jeffgo888

******



IMHO only for me, every one is entitled to their opinion. If i think my Omega has higher quality than Tudor, then, yes it does. I am the one wearing it, no one else. I am entitled to think however I want. Not that it is. Thats besides the point.



SO now, again, my opinion, why insist on calling a Tudor a Sub? Well, its not a Sub, is it? I don't know, call me a moron or an idiot, but to me, a Rolex is not a Tudor, isnt it? Its plain and simple.



Now, is Tudor a superb piece? I have not owned one, nor have I seen one, but in all indications, it seems to be a top notch piece, no doubt.

But is IT a Sub? Is it a Rolex Sub? Does it have the quality and the heritage?

I don't know, I don't think so. There is a reason I bought the DSSD and the SubC. Its a Rolex.



each watch has its own merits, beauties, etc. There are days I dont wanna wear my Omegas, but, I can say, there is not a day I don't want to wear the Rolles...:) I just have to pick...

The Tudor Submariner is a range of models made from the '60s to the '90s. They are actual Submariners and most often had actual Rolex cases, crowns and bracelets. History? Similar to that of Rolex since they were/are the same company.

The current Tudor line is all new and IMO Rolex's avenue toward an alternative to the Rolex line. This differs to the Tudor of yore.

I'd suggest a little research to get your facts straight.

[jeffgo888]

Originally Posted by autofiend

The Tudor Submariner is a range of models made from the '60s to the '90s. They are actual Submariners and most often had actual Rolex cases, crowns and bracelets. History? Similar to that of Rolex since they were/are the same company.

The current Tudor line is all new and IMO Rolex's avenue toward an alternative to the Rolex line. This differs to the Tudor of yore.

I'd suggest a little research to get your facts straight.

**********

You suggest a research to get my facts straight?

***The current Tudor line is all new and IMO Rolex's avenue toward an alternative to the Rolex line. This differs to the Tudor of yore.
*****

An alternative, thats the key word, still NOT a Rolex, is it?
Will a 5 year old Tudor maintain it's price compared to a 5 year old SubC ?
You can call it a Submariner all you want but I don't consider it one.
All your posturing is not going to make me accept something I don't believe in.

Once again, do I believe Tudor to be an exceptional piece? Like i said, i have heard nothing but superb comments about it. I have not owned one and prolly won't, as it does not appeal to me. Its me, my individual taste.
But, I do not consider it a Rolex. End of it.

[SC11]

Rolex make a Submariner, Tudor made a Submariner is this a Tudor Sub no it's a Black Bay.

Technically the title is incorrect and would of been better 'My two favourite divers/dive watches' but really is is worth arguing about?

But does it really matter?! The OP has two great watches

Is Tudor a lesser watch then a Rolex? Is a Rolex SS Sub a lesser watch then a WG Sub?

[Gotgolf52]

Originally Posted by autofiend

Your perceptions seem to be based largely on status.

Some people buy watches just because they like them not because they're less expensive.

I've had 3 Rolex Subs (14060, 16610 and 16800) and currently own a Tudor 79090 Sub. Guess which is my favorite (hint: it's the one I still own)?

The snobbery pervades on this forum at times.

Wow, easy there. No one talk about status or which one more expensive. I simply stating the fact that Tudor BBR is NOT Rolex Sub, you trying to lecture me about Tudor Sub back in the early days is irrelevant to what OP original picture presented. Calling me status and snob without knowing me is quite ignorant on your part. I didn't start with name calling or degrading people opinions on any of my posts, I am simply stating my personal opinions. Go drink a koolaid and chill dude.

[jeffgo888]

Originally Posted by Gotgolf52

Wow, easy there. No one talk about status or which one more expensive. I simply stating the fact that Tudor BBR is NOT Rolex Sub, you trying to lecture me about Tudor Sub back in the early days is irrelevant to what OP original picture presented. Calling me status and snob without knowing me is quite ignorant on your part. I didn't start with name calling or degrading people opinions on any of my posts, I am simply stating my personal opinions. Go drink a koolaid and chill dude.

+1 ....:) ..well said.
We all respect each other's opinions here without trying to "intimidate" another person into accepting an opinion...:)

[janice&fred]

the OP has two great watches in his opening post and i can easily see why he refers to both of them as submariners as they both are made by the same company and share the same style and DNA.

we have loads of rolexes of all configurations in our collection and some of our favorites are our tudors. they were also a source of the rolex founder's pride and joy and he made that very clear in some of the old advertisements