Tudor and Rolex

[Quailhunter]

What is the basic difference between a Tudor and a Rolex?

[Old Expat Beast]

Price.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by old expat beast

price.

x2

[Cimballi]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Price.

Price and movement...until recently.

[eco8gator]

yep at this point...price...

With Tudor your getting Rolex quality...and with the in house chronometer rated movement they are now truly an in house brand like their big brother.

With all that said Tudor will probably not get as fancy as Rolex does on their watches simply to keep costs down. When comparing the details between a SubC and a Tudor Black bay you can tell the Sub C just looks more expensive... They will probably also rely more on machines to pump product out at a lower cost.

[Dubarzy]

Both high quality. Each has their own style. Rolex surpasses Tudor in the PM selection, but they are much closer on the SS selection in my opinion. I am more and more thinking of Tudor as an extension of the SS Rolex lineup.

[AzHadEnuf]

Lord I'm going to miss those Rolex vs. Tudors threads.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by AzHadEnuf

Lord I'm going to miss those Rolex vs. Tudors threads.

Are you leaving us?

[AzHadEnuf]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Are you leaving us?

Not at all Lee. Just didn't think there would be to much more debate with Tudor moving away from the ETA movement. I mean how far can you take the glide lock? I can't leave now, I still have to much to learn from you guys!

[Daytona88]

Price and marketing. Arguably some refinement in production processes ie. Clasp, bracelets, case.

[Furrygoat]

Aside from PM, design, and price, case size is a huge difference. Most of the Tudors are larger and thicker than the majority of the Rolex range.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Furrygoat

Aside from PM, design, and price, case size is a huge difference. Most of the Tudors are larger and thicker than the majority of the Rolex range.

They're not thicker, they just look that way because of the flat caseback design. Taking into account the convex caseback of the Rolex, the overall thickness between, say, a SubC and a Black Bay is about the same.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Furrygoat

Aside from PM, design, and price, case size is a huge difference. Most of the Tudors are larger and thicker than the majority of the Rolex range.

Actually the BB case is thinner and flatter than the subs at least from the way they sit on my wrist. They feel much more comfortable on my wrist than the comparable Sub C. Currently, it seems to me that Tudor is where Rolex takes design risks, where as the standard Rolexes are much more conservative.

[bdex75]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Actually the BB case is thinner and flatter than the subs at least from the way they sit on my wrist. They feel much more comfortable on my wrist than the comparable Sub C. Currently, it seems to me that Tudor is where Rolex takes design risks, where as the standard Rolexes are much more conservative.

Exactly my thoughts. They just feel great to wear.

I think there have been several examples of Rolex taking chances with Tudor that they would never take with the Rolex brand. The BB dark and North Flag are two that come to mind for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Actually the BB case is thinner and flatter than the subs at least from the way they sit on my wrist. They feel much more comfortable on my wrist than the comparable Sub C. Currently, it seems to me that Tudor is where Rolex takes design risks, where as the standard Rolexes are much more conservative.

Just to follow up on the comfort aspect, the SubC has the fancier Glidelock bracelet, but I think it needs it, because the case is more "mobile" on the wrist than the BB, which just sits firmly and comfortably in place even with a few mm bracelet variation if your wrist swells up or shrinks during the day. IMO, anyway.

[JRT]

Originally Posted by Furrygoat

Aside from PM, design, and price, case size is a huge difference. Most of the Tudors are larger and thicker than the majority of the Rolex range.

Before 2015, one of huge differences is the movement. Tudor made a significant move from ETA to in-house (COSC) and pushed itself upward in brand recognition afterwards.

[jrs146]

Both great brands. Is Rolex worth more in price than Tudor, probably not. But I can notice a difference in feel when wearing a BB vs a sub. Or maybe that's just the great Rolex marketing...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[liuk3]

Originally Posted by jrs146

Both great brands. Is Rolex worth more in price than Tudor, probably not. But I can notice a difference in feel when wearing a BB vs a sub. Or maybe that's just the great Rolex marketing...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Of course the feeling of the extra cash in your bank account from wearing a Tudor probably feels pretty good as well.

[Daytona88]

Also 904L steel vs. 316L although I am not well versed in the subject to give an opinion on how much better one is over the other.

[ltmgeller]

Price and name

[GB-man]

Price and brand recognition. If the pelagos was called the Sub II and had a crown on it they would sell like hot cakes for 12k. Fortunately for us, it's the pelagos and we can get it for a fraction. Ditto for the BB etc

With that said, many times i want my rolex. The heart gets what it wants!

[Quailhunter]

I would have guessed number of jewels in the movement or some technology unique to the Rolex. I enjoy nice watches, but I'm not a watch techie.

[Mr. K]

So, a serious question because I don't actually know.

I always thought Rolex was a better quality. I am hoping to get my first Tudor soon. Are they really the same quality? If so why would anyone buy a Rolex? Sure for the name but true watch folks like us should only buy Tudor if they are exactly the same in quality other than just the name.

Maybe late to the dance but feeling duped if they are exactly the same level of craftsmanship. Because I paid a premium to get Rolex?

[Rocket_Man]

Obviously price but that is for a reason.

- Brand recognition, marketing... in Rolex favor. If someone were to offer you a Rolex or a Tudor which would you take? Most will take the Rolex. Better quality (but not by much) and worth more, but probably not as much as they ask.
- Movement... Rolex uses in house movements that are of very high quality. Many refined over years, keep very accurate time. Tudor is only recently beginning to roll out its own in-house movements mostly due to the the loss of access to ETA movements. Many say the ETA movements are as good as Rolex but I owned an ETA based Tudor and my experience was that its accuracy left much to be desired.
- Materials... Rolex uses a harder stainless alloy than Tudor, Rolex has PM options, Tudor has some titanium.
- Finish... both are high quality watches. I felt my Rolex was slightly higher quality finish to my Ranger. But Tudor quality is high.

I think for these reasons Rolex commands a higher price, how much higher is of debate. It is more of a 'what is it worth to you' argument than an analytical cost discussion. I would pay more for a Rolex because I do think they are better, but I really don't have much say in what I'd like to pay. It is a market and the market supports the price that Rolex asks.

You could make a similar argument about Omega. I'd put Omega above Tudor, and they are trying to push their brand more upscale, but the market is not really supporting the higher value if you look at how much depreciation a used Omega sees.

Just one persons opinion....

[Old Expat Beast]

The increase in Tudor fans on TRF since the brand re-entered the USA and UK a couple of years ago has been quite phenomenal. It doesn't seem that long ago that Dan Pierce was just about the only serious Tudor guy here, as I recall.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

The increase in Tudor fans on TRF since the brand re-entered the USA and UK a couple of years ago has been quite phenomenal. It doesn't seem that long ago that Dan Pierce was just about the only serious Tudor guy here, as I recall.

Oh, how times have changed.
dP

[yannis]

Tudor is like a good value Rolex. They have recently been making good in house movements, they use top materials, they make robust watches. They do derive from Rolex style by also catering for a younger crowd. Additionally cases are slightly larger measuring between 41-42mm for divers competing in the SD and Sub categories.

[1William]

Both are great watches and unique in the way only Rolex/Tudor can do it. I think the watches can be compared but are sort of an apple or oranges debate. Look at what they are and the answer is easy. I own several of both and enjoy them.

[Mr. K]

The more I think about it, Rolex is a luxury item. So people will pay more for a luxury brand name.

[bigwatchman]

Both are luxury items... Rolex has a greater inflated price, but people are willing to pay it so that is why they cost what they do. Having owned both, quality is about the same in my book. Tudor gives you more bang for your buck I believe. Some people need a crown on the dial but for a Rolex watch without the crown, it's hard to beat a Tudor...