Tudor vs Omega (in 2021)

[liberalclown]

First BB Chrono against new Speedy
Then Gold BB58 against Bronze Gold Seamaster 300
Now Black Black BB Metas against Black Black Seamaster Pro Metas

Very similar releases this year in very similar price points. Omega released them first but I wonder who "get inspired" from whom? Is it Tudor targeting Omega's market or Omega trying to grab Tudor's mostly younger customer demographic's attention?

[Explorer2polar]

I like Tudor but Omega wins this race easy. No competition.

[spacebjorn]

The fact that you think Tudor can stand toe-to-toe with Omega competing for the same customer segment tells how badly Omega has fallen from their spot on a marketing standpoint.

If it weren't for the Rolex-sister company branding behind Tudor would you even care for watches like the BB chrono?? The new speedy is completely on another level if you ask me. It's moons apart.

[SaddleSC]

Omega > Tudor...and I love (and own) both.

[superspectral]

IMHO Tudor has a way to go to compete with Omega on style and quality. For the most part, Tudor undercuts Omega on price. Will Tudor catch up in 5 years - not entirely, I think. But they will overlap more with Omega.

Rolex has a very cohesive set of watch model segments. Omega kind of tries but there are a whole lot of Speedmasters and especially Seamasters that really are hardly cousins. Omega could be trying to do a better job of filling in the void Rolex has by promoting themselves as the "celebration watch for the guy who made it" - as it seems like Rolex is either going for the bitcoin or the Patek crowd.

[superspectral]

Originally Posted by spacebjorn

The fact that you think Tudor can stand toe-to-toe with Omega competing for the same customer segment tells how badly Omega has fallen from their spot on a marketing standpoint.

If it weren't for the Rolex-sister company branding behind Tudor would you even care for watches like the BB chrono?? The new speedy is completely on another level if you ask me. It's moons apart.

Omega is not being nearly as cut throat as they should be to skewer both Rolex and Tudor.

[Kinnakeet]

Omega makes a watch that is better than Rolex I feel. Let alone Tudor.

[Baboon]

Omega ftw

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by superspectral

Omega is not being nearly as cut throat as they should be to skewer both Rolex and Tudor.

I'm not sure a Coke vs Pepsi or Ragu vs Prego type marketing battle is one Omega wants to engage with Rolex.

[Wrist Watcher]

Omega easily imo.

[the dark knight]

I think Tudor's success is an incredible testament to Rolex. Just being the little brother to Rolex has really helped them. Considering that their most popular line (the Black Bay) is essentially an homage of an homage. Harkens to the Tudor Subs of yesteryear which were made to be more affordable versions of the Submariner.

Or look at the hype around the BB Chronos. The first one was widely panned, but they released dial variations that slyly allude to the steel Daytonas and they are hot.

[Manamana]

Omega no contest, can't imagine how can someone even think of comparing both.

[gnuyork]

Omega, especially the new Speedmaster.

Now the steel BB58 is interesting to me, (though not the gold or silver so much) and I'd rather wear that than just about any Omega dive watch (though I have the first Planet Ocean and it's amazing), but just to be clear, I'm not saying the Tudor is better, but I like the smaller 39mm case size for the diver.

[johnorpheus]

I like both, and both should start to see a bigger customer base as people become disillusioned with the inability to get the Rolex they want. I don’t think Rolex is coming back to earth anytime soon and the people who are in the market for a high end sports watch under 10k will have to start turning to other historic brands.

[samson66]

I like both and I own both and trust me when I tell you Tudor is nowhere near in the same league as Omega. I can't imagine anyone who has owned both disagreeing with this.

Sent from my Galaxy S20 using Tapatalk

[RayRay89]

Omega is more bang for your buck, even over Rolex.

[Nodzex]

Originally Posted by Manamana

Omega no contest, can't imagine how can someone even think of comparing both.

What he said!

[PBJ1925]

Speedy all day every day vs BB Chrono.

SMP > BB58.

[Pw92676]

I think they are both fine brands and I wouldn’t hesitate to purchase either if I wanted a model, and wouldn’t necessarily compare them vs each other or any other brand.

[Jack T]

Originally Posted by RayRay89

Omega is more bang for your buck, even over Rolex.

I have to agree with you; I own a Planet Ocean, 10 years old but rock solid, looks beautiful and feels great on my wrist. The Aqua Terra is a terrific watch, as is the 300M and Railmaster. Movements, cases, dials and performance are all excellent, plus you can buy one.

The Omega owners all talk about their watches, enjoy shopping for them, wearing them, bracelet and strap options, the entire ownership experience.

On this site, the overwhelming theme is about the dreadful procurement process, and how much money does one have to throw away to get a hideous orange dial OP.

[ks58]

I like the new matt black Tudor against the Omega but I think Omega is still better on the others.

[johnorpheus]

Originally Posted by Jack T

I have to agree with you; I own a Planet Ocean, 10 years old but rock solid, looks beautiful and feels great on my wrist. The Aqua Terra is a terrific watch, as is the 300M and Railmaster. Movements, cases, dials and performance are all excellent, plus you can buy one.

The Omega owners all talk about their watches, enjoy shopping for them, wearing them, bracelet and strap options, the entire ownership experience.

On this site, the overwhelming theme is about the dreadful procurement process, and how much money does one have to throw away to get a hideous orange dial OP.

Yep, new Sub on the secondary market approaching nearly three times a PO, which is arguably a more superior technical watch and looks and feels terrific on the wrist.

[Etschell]

I have no issues with omega but they've cheapened themselves with tons of models.

Simply put that is where tudor is going. I get why but I am not huge fan of the recent stuff. I like some models. But the Era that gave us the Pelagos is over. They've changed from tool watches.

Perhaps I'm just becoming less interested in watches. It sure is hard to beat a submariner unless you are solely interested in flexing.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Etschell

Perhaps I'm just becoming less interested in watches. It sure is hard to beat a submariner unless you are solely interested in flexing.

My thoughts exactly.

[johnorpheus]

Originally Posted by Etschell

I have no issues with omega but they've cheapened themselves with tons of models.

Simply put that is where tudor is going. I get why but I am not huge fan of the recent stuff. I like some models. But the Era that gave us the Pelagos is over. They've changed from tool watches.

Perhaps I'm just becoming less interested in watches. It sure is hard to beat a submariner unless you are solely interested in flexing.

Hard to beat a submariner and impossible to get one at an even semi-reasonable price

[Oyster Sauce]

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

Omega > Tudor...and I love (and own) both.

+1 Omega is still a notch above Tudor in my mind, but the fact that we’re having this conversation is legitimate and significant. Omega should be watching their back, and doubling their efforts on the Rolex front at the same time. Would love to see a true rivalry between Omega and Rolex.

[richiered1979]

I bought the Pelagos in 2014, loved everything about it - l already had the 42mm PO from Omega bought in 2011. To date the PO looks like its stayed intact and fresh compared to the Pelagos which has lost various bits of the lume on bezel and has a ‘smudge’ inside the crystal ! I have the Speedmaster also and am still hoping to double my Tudor collection but in all honesty its proving hard to due to watches that just don’t do it for me. Omega over Tudor for me today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doc Savage]

Originally Posted by RayRay89

Omega is more bang for your buck, even over Rolex.

This

Originally Posted by Jack T

...On this site, the overwhelming theme is about the dreadful procurement process, and how much money does one have to throw away to get a hideous orange dial OP.

So true

[Brny11]

Tough.

I think Omega makes a better watch. However, I feel the same for Omega vs. Rolex. With that logic though, there is no reason a Rolex, Tudor or Omega should be 10-50x as much as a Hamilton.

There is wayyy more to watches than the movement. I.e. a Paul Newman is 1/10th the watch a DaytonaC is and is 10x the price. With this logic, some Tudors are much more special than anything Omega makes.

Sure Omega was nice to own, but did nothing for me on the wrist and I sold them with 0 regrets. Tudor on the other hand feels special to me. Therefore, Tudor gets my vote all the way.

[RampageWatch]

Originally Posted by samson66

I like both and I own both and trust me when I tell you Tudor is nowhere near in the same league as Omega. I can't imagine anyone who has owned both disagreeing with this.

Sent from my Galaxy S20 using Tapatalk

Well, I might be alone on this, but I tend to disagree.

I don’t own either BB Chrono (yet) or the new Speedy, but have tried both on.
For me the speedy was a real let down, hard to fescribe, but it felt kinda cheap, the bracelet in particular felt loose and lacked finesse.
The tudor on the other hand, felt more substantial in feel and finish and fit.

If we’re talking movements specifically,
I’m no specialist, but I suspect the speedy might b ahead on that....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk