Tudor on same level as omega?

[77T]

May as well compare Chevy to Ford.

Neither are Porsche.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JP(Canada)]

Tudor on the same level as Omega? Not even close. Omega outshines just about any brand in history, and long list of them when it comes innovation, finishing, and quality.

Tudor is not at that level, but that's also part of the appeal.

[AndrewSandbach]

Originally Posted by Largoshark

I've never handled a Tudor so I couldn't really say. Omega makes some fantastic watches though, and benefits from having some truly iconic models and a very rich history. Not to discredit Tudor as they seem to be well built and excellent value for the money. It's just that Tudor will always be associated with Rolex (definitely not a bad thing), while Omega has its own identity.

Agree with this. Was looking at some Tudor watches today and they do look very nice. I’m a big fan and definitely want one in the future. Not sure if I feel the same about Omega though, maybe that will change.

[Fallranger]

I own both and I think the Omega quality is slightly higher but it’s an apples to oranges comparison. Omegas are fancier, dressier and shinier. Tudor is going for the retro look all they way and does it fantastically. I think both watches will outlive me so I’m not worried about the quality of either.

[Justindo]

If you want a beach watch, get a Seiko SKX.

As for where Omega and Tudor rank, while some on here would disagree, in terms of quality, Rolex and Omega are currently about on par with one another. (If one goes back to the first half of the 20th century, however, Longines was above Omega and Omega was way above Rolex.) There are certain things that Rolex currently does better than Omega, namely the fit and finish of rotating bezels, cases (although Rolex cases are much simpler), and bracelets (Omega has been making their bracelets in China for about two decades whereas Rolex makes a truly 100% Swiss product, although the Chinese Omega bracelets were of much higher quality than the five digit Rolex bracelets). On the other hand, Omega is far more innovative than Rolex and Omega's movements are finished to a higher standard. That written, Rolex enjoys a higher public opinion and higher resale due to their superior marketing and overall brand vision.

As for Tudor, their overall quality is below Breitling and above Tag Heuer, although the latter (Heuer at least) has a lot more history on its side. I like Tudor's Heritage line and the quality is very good but they are a bit large and slab-sided for me, but that's also an appeal to some.

As for pricing, while Omega's list prices are close to Rolex's, the actual gray market prices of Omega put them not much higher than Tudor and so for that extra amount, not only are you getting tremendous history but, more importantly, you are getting a much higher quality watch. Regardless, buy what you like, as I would never fault someone for wearing any of the above mentioned watches.

[bman36]

Tudor is no Omega. Omega equal to Rolex on quality and innovation. I am looking at a plane ocean chrono and that watch is simply gorgeous and every bit the quality of a Rolex. Also the movements look amazing and you can even see them unlike Rolex.

[teabags001]

Originally Posted by Justindo

If you want a beach watch, get a Seiko SKX.

As for where Omega and Tudor rank, while some on here would disagree, in terms of quality, Rolex and Omega are currently about on par with one another. (If one goes back to the first half of the 20th century, however, Longines was above Omega and Omega was way above Rolex.) There are certain things that Rolex currently does better than Omega, namely the fit and finish of rotating bezels, cases (although Rolex cases are much simpler), and bracelets (Omega has been making their bracelets in China for about two decades whereas Rolex makes a truly 100% Swiss product, although the Chinese Omega bracelets were of much higher quality than the five digit Rolex bracelets). On the other hand, Omega is far more innovative than Rolex and Omega's movements are finished to a higher standard. That written, Rolex enjoys a higher public opinion and higher resale due to their superior marketing and overall brand vision.

As for Tudor, their overall quality is below Breitling and above Tag Heuer, although the latter (Heuer at least) has a lot more history on its side. I like Tudor's Heritage line and the quality is very good but they are a bit large and slab-sided for me, but that's also an appeal to some.

As for pricing, while Omega's list prices are close to Rolex's, the actual gray market prices of Omega put them not much higher than Tudor and so for that extra amount, not only are you getting tremendous history but, more importantly, you are getting a much higher quality watch. Regardless, buy what you like, as I would never fault someone for wearing any of the above mentioned watches.

One of the best thorough and thought out answers yet. Thank you. Helped me and im sure it will help others looking at this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[teabags001]

Originally Posted by Na84

I own 4 Omega watches (AquaTerra, PlanetOcean, Speedmaster, Vintage Seamaster) but no Tudor, but I am seriously thinking about buying the new GMT. So I think it is more a choice of your taste, since both brands offer great watches. Btw Omega expanded their guarantee time to 5 years for all watches!

So I have found a few PO on the grey for under 3k. That blows my mind considering the retail was above 6k. Has a depth rating of 200m but has a exhibition caseback? To me a dive watch should have a solid caseback. Is this a drawback or issue for this watch?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[R G]

Originally Posted by teabags001

One of the best thorough and thought out answers yet. Thank you. Helped me and im sure it will help others looking at this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

X2. I thought exactly the same thing.

[yannis]

Omegas are more refined watches in many aspects imho. Aesthetics/looks is subjective but materials on Omegas are (or seem to be) on another level. They have moved to ceramic dials, high quality ceramic bezels and even cases on some models, gorgeous to look at movements to name a few.

[unknown]

Originally Posted by teabags001

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

this is some FAKE SHIT !!

[capote]

Originally Posted by teabags001

So I have found a few PO on the grey for under 3k. That blows my mind considering the retail was above 6k. Has a depth rating of 200m but has a exhibition caseback? To me a dive watch should have a solid caseback. Is this a drawback or issue for this watch?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The issue with that watch is that it is fake

[unknown]

I have the impression a lot of people here are pretty wrong when comparing several brands
It's like they believe 'More expensive is better' .. something I would expect from non watch enthusiasts but not from a WIS.
I mean ... I read here more than once that Omega is better than Tudor and Tudor is better than TAG Heuer and Longines
Honestly I don't believe this. Is it coincidence that when looking at the average price it's about the same ranking ?
Omega - Tudor - TAG - Longines?

Another thing ... Do you think a Patek Nautilus is better than a Tudor Black bay?
Well forget it. I'm 100% sure the Patek is much more fragile. Of course the finishing on the Patek is 50 times better and that is why it costs much more.

It's all marketing. If brand XX thinks they can ask XXK for a watch they will sell it for that price. Perfect example is Richard Mille.
Do you really think they are so much better than the rest ? Somehow they became a status symbol and suddenly they can get away with everything.
The more expensive the more sought after. It is insane
For those that are long enough into watches ... Richard Mille started early 2000
Do you remember their list price back then ?
A fraction of what they charge today ! and do you really think they are 10 times better today ?

I really believe that most watches between 3 and 9 K are as good as the same ( no matter if its a rolex, Omega, JLC, ...)

[peterpl]

Originally Posted by unknown

I really believe that most watches between 3 and 9 K are as good as the same ( no matter if its a rolex, Omega, JLC, ...)

Pretty much this is right. In the $3k-10k bracket the differences would not be much if any.

An Omega PO is on par with a Rolex Submariner in every single way in my eyes. Finish, fit, movement stability, reliability etc....in fact the exhibition case back you could argue the finishing on the Omega is slightly better than the Rolex movement. If you ever seen a Rolex movement you will know its nothing special on any of their watches and yes I've owned both at exactly the same time in the past. Used to rotate between them.

Like I've been saying there are way way way too many people with very narrow minds and rose colored glasses that simply because it says "Rolex" it must be better. Quite laughable coming from many who claim to be WIS!!

[padi56]

Originally Posted by unknown

I have the impression a lot of people here are pretty wrong when comparing several brands
It's like they believe 'More expensive is better' .. something I would expect from non watch enthusiasts but not from a WIS.
I mean ... I read here more than once that Omega is better than Tudor and Tudor is better than TAG Heuer and Longines
Honestly I don't believe this. Is it coincidence that when looking at the average price it's about the same ranking ?
Omega - Tudor - TAG - Longines?

Another thing ... Do you think a Patek Nautilus is better than a Tudor Black bay?
Well forget it. I'm 100% sure the Patek is much more fragile. Of course the finishing on the Patek is 50 times better and that is why it costs much more.

It's all marketing. If brand XX thinks they can ask XXK for a watch they will sell it for that price. Perfect example is Richard Mille.
Do you really think they are so much better than the rest ? Somehow they became a status symbol and suddenly they can get away with everything.
The more expensive the more sought after. It is insane
For those that are long enough into watches ... Richard Mille started early 2000
Do you remember their list price back then ?
A fraction of what they charge today ! and do you really think they are 10 times better today ?

I really believe that most watches between 3 and 9 K are as good as the same ( no matter if its a rolex, Omega, JLC, ...)

Agree but with today's mainly stereotyped WIS types more expensive, heavier, greater W/R, and bigger is always better and many know sod all about the workings of the movement as many just wear the brand..

[teabags001]

Originally Posted by capote

The issue with that watch is that it is fake

Not a expert on omega. Thanks for the heads up. I got that pic from a TS so I’m kind of surprised but I will take your word. Just so I can learn how do you know it’s a fake. And for reference it has the orange bezel. Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NimbleNavigator]

It’s laughable people think Brietling is better than Tudor. I feel I am one of the few that daily wears a variety of Rolex, Tudor, Omega, and Brietling. The fit and finish on the Rolex and Tudor are heads and shoulders above Omega and Brietling. Rolex, Tudor, and Omega are true tool watches that will take an absolute beating and look gorgeous.

Omega is still milking the same three models since 1957. Brietling is a fragile one hit wonder. Gone are the days of Tudor being a poor man’s Rolex. Tudor now has its own style, movements, and outstanding quality. I prefer wearing the new BB58 over my 14060 and Speedy.

I am very impressed with modern Tudor and I am excited to see where they go next.

[Token74]

Omega is above Tudor in my view, but not by the amount that the price difference would suggest.

I personally would put Tag alongside Longines. Tudor alongside Bremont (although they really need to crack on with going full in-house movements), Omega then alongside IWC (I suspect people are going to say IWC is higher up than that, but they have a lot of quality issues), and then Rolex on it’s own, before making the jump AP etc.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hands90]

Omega is OMEGA and Rolex is Rolex.

Rolex won the war in the water but I'd say the Ploprof is more of a divers watch then the deepsea.

Omega won over Rolex when it came to the moon. I know there is a lot of marketing but Rolex was tested against Omega and Omega won.

Tudor... They make great watches but they are more affordable. Also Tudor just recently stopped using ETA movements.

[ras47]

I think the build qualities of Omega and Tudor are pretty close. Everything else is subjective. I'm a big time Omega fan, especially the Speedmaster. While Tudor does make a chronograph that's roughly analogous to the Speedmaster, it's such a different animal that it's tough to make a comparison. As far as dive watches, Black Bay vs. Seamaster, I'd say they're pretty close - in style and quality of build.

[Homo Sapien X]

Originally Posted by ras47

I think the build qualities of Omega and Tudor are pretty close. Everything else is subjective. I'm a big time Omega fan, especially the Speedmaster. While Tudor does make a chronograph that's roughly analogous to the Speedmaster, it's such a different animal that it's tough to make a comparison. As far as dive watches, Black Bay vs. Seamaster, I'd say they're pretty close - in style and quality of build.

I’m consider to get an Omega speedy moonwatch or a Tudor BB chrono. Both have a different appeal. Tudor has a better power reserve but Speedy is iconic ...... very tough choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by Jean Melkanian

You could say Omega and Breitling are on par with Rolex, while Tudor lags behind. That's my view at least

My view too. But still too hard to decide...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Magicbee]

Recently I tried both Omega Seamaster, Planet Ocean and Tudor Pelagos LHD at AD recently. Pelagos is the one that steals my heart.

[APPRF]

Rolex>Omega>Longines>Tudor

Historically it was Longines>Rolex,Omega>Tudor.

The problem facing Longines is it's owned by Swatch group and they're concentrating on Omega and placing Longines lower in the market. This strategy can change or the brand may be sold to another group and in no time Longines can regain it's higher position because of its strong history.

[T.Mas]

Maybe OMEGA and Rolex, but definitely not Tudor. In my book, build quality goes to Rolex, movement quality goes to OMEGA, and it’s not even close with the movements. The 32xx series is full of problems.

[Unclebuck]

Originally Posted by TakeYourTime

Omega is way above! Tudor is more like Longines or Rado.

Spot on. I love Omega and even think it can stand with Rolex. Tudor is a fine watch, but not quite at Omega's level.

[nuts070]

Omega is outdone by Rolex only in terms of resale price...

[Luap1976]

No tudor are much better than omega

[samson66]

I own two Rolexes, two Tudors, and one Omega and I can report that my Tudor with the in-house movement keeps better time than any of the others. Not saying that makes them better than the others, just saying their movement has been nothing short of amazing (add in the 70 hour power reserve on top of that).

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S10 using Tapatalk

[playford]

I just don't like the aesthetics of modern omega at all.

I get they are beautifully built watches but they just do nothing for me.

I like the speedmaster professional and the pre ceramic old SMP from the late 90's but the modern planet ocean especially in the larger case sizes just does nothing for me. I looked at a used 42mm planet ocean instead of the Black Bay I ended up with just really didn't like it.

I wore a late 90's SMP for years before this, so it's not like I have a chip on my shoulder about the brand. Great movements, bracelets are hugely comfy, nice watches but the new ones design wise just don't give me the fizz.

Bargains for what they are though, especially used, if you like the look of em!