Difference Between Rolex and Tudor?

[Rolex Freak]

Hello Friends,

I know and understand Rolex fairly well in terms of movements, quality, craftsmanship etc., however i'm new to Tudor. Just wondering what are the main differences between the two. I know that Tudor is under the Rolex umbrella, but don't know much more. Thanks in advance.

[TattooedGQ]

In House vs ETA movements. Both are great watches, and are of very similar quality. Tudor's just priced lower due to the movement.

[Rolex Freak]

Originally Posted by TattooedGQ

In House vs ETA movements. Both are great watches, and are of very similar quality. Tudor's just priced lower due to the movement.

So...

Tudor = ETA movement = lower price

Rolex = In house movement = higher price

How about quality and craftsmanship? Rolex uses a lot of white gold, what about Tudor.

[JIFF1975]

Originally Posted by TattooedGQ

Tudor's just priced lower due to the movement.

Really due to marketing... An inhouse movement does not cost that much more than an ETA...

[TattooedGQ]

Originally Posted by JIFF1975

Really due to marketing... An inhouse movement does not cost that much more than an ETA...

I'm not talking material cost...I'm talking brag factor from the MFG.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by JIFF1975

Really due to marketing... An in-house movement does not cost that much more than an ETA...

ETA movements are in-house built its part of the Swatch group that manufacture every single part in-house.And lets not forget in nearly every Rolex watch over the last 40 years there has been a little bit of the ETA group
with the hairspring.Rolex make very fine movements so do many others, and today there have been quite a few mediocre in-house movements by the various brands over the years.Even today Rolex still out-source there watch mainspring manufacture.While I applaud Rolex now for making there own escapement parts like shock protection and hairsprings to become totally self sufficient in watch manufacture.In the pre 2000 Oyster Tudors IMHO the only step down from Rolex was the price .

[skywag]

Originally Posted by JIFF1975

Really due to marketing... An inhouse movement does not cost that much more than an ETA...

Nor is it any better.

[rolexertion]

Originally Posted by skywag

Nor is it any better.

Sorry to say this, but you don't know what you are 'talking' about. ETA movements are good Chevrolet workhorses, Rolex movements are BMW quality.

[rolexertion]

Originally Posted by JIFF1975

Really due to marketing... An inhouse movement does not cost that much more than an ETA...

Rolex's research and materials costs are likely a great deal higher than ETA's, and for good reasons having to do with performance and long-term reliability.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by JIFF1975

Really due to marketing... An inhouse movement does not cost that much more than an ETA...

Due to the basic nature of the Rolex 3135 movement (and their huge volumes), and double marginalization, I doubt ETA sourced movements are any cheaper.

[Tudor Fan]

Originally Posted by JP Chestnut

Due to the basic nature of the Rolex 3135 movement (and their huge volumes), and double marginalization, I doubt ETA sourced movements are any cheaper.

I agree.

So the bottom line is; it is ALL about marketing.

While I owned several (high end vintage and new) Rolexes in the past, comparing them to my (vintage and new) Todors, I could never ever experience any quality differences.

And for my watches (and I know that can change from watch to watch) I noticed that generally speaking my Tudors tended to run more precise and more trouble free.

I came to the conclusion that all you pay for is the name and you pay for it through the nose. For example a nice vintage Tudor Chrono sets you back 5 grand while you pay for essentially the same design, minus the date (vintage Cosmograph) 25 grand or more.

And that, by the way, had another effect for me. I was always more concerned to bang up, especially the vintage Rolexes, so I ended up enjoying them less than my Tudors.

And while I know that on this forum there will be tons of people that disagree (even though I am not speaking about collectors), the way I see it is that Rolex is for the people that need to buy prestige, while Tudor buyers are the smart ones that pay the right price for the same quality and style.

And because I am generally more drawn to understatement I am now exclusively into Tudor (...of course until a breathtaking Rolex comes along )

[NMS75]

Yes that's how I also understand the difference to be. The ETA movement is of course still high quality so the Tudor makes for a fantastic watch at a lower price than Rolex. Also I find Tudor tend to be a little more modern with their designs while Rolex a little more traditional/classic - if that's the corrct way to describe. I thin Rolex and Tudor compliment each other very well.

M

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Rolex Freak

Hello Friends,

I know and understand Rolex fairly well in terms of movements, quality, craftsmanship etc., however i'm new to Tudor. Just wondering what are the main differences between the two. I know that Tudor is under the Rolex umbrella, but don't know much more. Thanks in advance.

From the 40's to early 2000's Tudors were ostensibly a Rolex Oyster w/ a chronometer grade ETA movement. Tudor was designed to get you an iconic Oyster at a cheaper price point. Starting in the late 1990's Tudor started the change from Rolex crown logos to Tudor shields. Then in the late 2000's Tudor decided to change their design direction from Rolex. Currently, Tudor has come full circle and has added vintage design to return to classic historical glory.
dP

[Rolex Freak]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

From the 40's to early 2000's Tudors were ostensibly a Rolex Oyster w/ a chronometer grade ETA movement. Tudor was designed to get you an iconic Oyster at a cheaper price point. Starting in the late 1990's Tudor started the change from Rolex crown logos to Tudor shields. Then in the late 2000's Tudor decided to change their design direction from Rolex. Currently, Tudor has come full circle and has added vintage design to return to classic historical glory.
dP

Thanks Dan. As a true Rolex Freak (just ask my wife) it's very difficult trying to consider or purchase other brands. Currently I have two Omega's and yes they are nice watches, but they just don't do anything for me. Call me a snob, but when you own and wear a Rolex it's difficult settling for something of lessor quality if that makes sense. Rolex is Rolex, with that comes a long history, quality, craftsmanship, durability, and much more, not to mention the name is highly recognized and respected among most WIS. I also have the Panerai 312 which is an amazing watch, but not a Rolex. I'm trying to be open minded and I like the Tudor Chronograph, but often wonder if I'm going to find myself wanting to trade it in down the road. I guess you don't know until you try.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Rolex Freak

Thanks Dan. As a true Rolex Freak (just ask my wife) it's very difficult trying to consider or purchase other brands. Currently I have two Omega's and yes they are nice watches, but they just don't do anything for me. Call me a snob, but when you own and wear a Rolex it's difficult settling for something of lessor quality if that makes sense. Rolex is Rolex, with that comes a long history, quality, craftsmanship, durability, and much more, not to mention the name is highly recognized and respected among most WIS. I also have the Panerai 312 which is an amazing watch, but not a Rolex. I'm trying to be open minded and I like the Tudor Chronograph, but often wonder if I'm going to find myself wanting to trade it in down the road. I guess you don't know until you try.

I look at this way, I proudly own or have owned Swiss watches powered by ETA movements, the Marathon SAR and Tag Heuer Monaco are good examples. I, with even more pride, own or have owned the iconic Rolex brand, the GMT II and DJ being the only examples. It's a natural evolution then, for me, that an chronometer grade ETA movement wrapped in the iconic Rolex Oyster case, w/ a Rolex Triplock crown, strapped to an oyster bracelet, especially when they are feature unique and desirable functions like a date or exotic dial, would be a winning combination. Even more so at a more desirable price point. All made in the same factory, by the same machines, assembled by the same hands, and all supported by the same service network as Rolex. What's not to like?
Tudor is, and always will be, second banana to Rolex. As it should be. That's the reason for Tudor's existence and serves the purpose Hans Wilsdof originally intended. It's proven to be very successful.
dP

[RRY]

Originally Posted by Rolex Freak

Thanks Dan. As a true Rolex Freak (just ask my wife) it's very difficult trying to consider or purchase other brands. Currently I have two Omega's and yes they are nice watches, but they just don't do anything for me. Call me a snob, but when you own and wear a Rolex it's difficult settling for something of lessor quality if that makes sense. Rolex is Rolex, with that comes a long history, quality, craftsmanship, durability, and much more, not to mention the name is highly recognized and respected among most WIS. I also have the Panerai 312 which is an amazing watch, but not a Rolex. I'm trying to be open minded and I like the Tudor Chronograph, but often wonder if I'm going to find myself wanting to trade it in down the road. I guess you don't know until you try.

I currently own two watches. One is the EXP II to the left, which I absolutely adore, and the other is a Tudor 79270 pre-tiger white chrono on black dial, which I must say gives me as much pleasure as Snow White, and elicits as much praise from WIS folks as my Rollie does.

In the end, only you know if Tudors sing for you. But to me, Tudors are every bit as tough, reliable and classy as Rolex.

[NMS75]

Sandro

I know exactly what you mean. When I bought my Submariner I found I no longer wore my Omegas so sold both and bought a GMT. I wear both my Sub and GMT equally. I still like Omega but Rolex is king!

As for Tudor, well you are getting the next best possible thing to a Rolex. All part of the same family so if you like the look of their watches I don't think you can go far wrong.

M

[JIFF1975]

Originally Posted by NMS75

Sandro
As for Tudor, well you are getting the next best possible thing to a Rolex. All part of the same family so if you like the look of their watches I don't think you can go far wrong.

M

X2

Just like with the Kardasian sisters



Kim is Rolex ofcourse...

[SPARTAN2161]

Originally Posted by JIFF1975

X2

Just like with the Kardasian sisters



Kim is Rolex ofcourse...

:chee rs: Nice!!!

[antoun]

Tudor= Good Mercedes.

[Rolex Freak]

Originally Posted by NMS75

Sandro

I know exactly what you mean. When I bought my Submariner I found I no longer wore my Omegas so sold both and bought a GMT. I wear both my Sub and GMT equally. I still like Omega but Rolex is king!

As for Tudor, well you are getting the next best possible thing to a Rolex. All part of the same family so if you like the look of their watches I don't think you can go far wrong.

M

I wear my Omega's to wear them, but i just don't have that same feeling like when I put my Rolex on. Like you said...Rolex is King, hence the crown.

[versatile1]

Originally Posted by NMS75

Sandro

I know exactly what you mean. When I bought my Submariner I found I no longer wore my Omegas so sold both and bought a GMT. I wear both my Sub and GMT equally. I still like Omega but Rolex is king!

As for Tudor, well you are getting the next best possible thing to a Rolex. All part of the same family so if you like the look of their watches I don't think you can go far wrong.

M

Couldn't agree more.
Fit and finish of a Tudor is on par with Rolex.
You can knock the quality or the movement. They are a great timepiece

[ersnyder]

IMHO, both are Timex's.

[MortgageGuy]

Originally Posted by ersnyder

IMHO, both are Timex's.

[rmfnla]

Originally Posted by ersnyder

IMHO, both are Timex's.

X 1,000!

Except you can count on a Timex...

[cfw]

Originally Posted by rmfnla

X 1,000!

Except you can count on a Timex...

U buy a Casio/Timex when u need to be on time, u buy a Rolex/Tudor when u don't have to be.

That said my Tudor is 43 years old and keep perfect time while still looking modern and classy enough to still being talked about, will ppl still talk about your Timex in 50 years? I think not.

[TattooedGQ]

Originally Posted by ersnyder

IMHO, both are Timex's.

Ain't that the truth....them and Paris Hilton....Ick....

[Micha]

Originally Posted by ersnyder

imho, both are timex's.

love it!!!!!!! Hysterical!

[Angrypuppy]

Originally Posted by ersnyder

IMHO, both are Timex's.

Takes a licking and keeps on ticking!

[ersnyder]

I've gotta say, slipping on my HC after a Rolex doesn't feel like I'm stepping down.