Submariner 14060 Black Bay 58

[csaltphoto]

Well... I know which one I would pick. I do prefer the aesthetics of the sub. I'm not sure of the age of the 14060 in that picture but the tritium dial indicates it's at least 20 years old. While Rolex makes great movements (and the Tudor is a Rolex movement of a sort) the manufacturing technology of 20 years ago would be hard pressed to compete with modern manufacturing. The Tudor, objectively, might well be the better watch.

It would be interesting to hear from one of forum watchmakers as to their opinion of the Tudor in-house movement vs the Rolex.

[JR16]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Well Hans Wilsdorf already answered this question. Without taking away anything from Tudor, the Rolex will always be better.

There’s only two things that Tudor does better, one is subjective aesthetics and feel. The other is economics, it’s priced lower, for reasons.

Well, Hans died 60 years ago.... with that said, I think the OPs comparison is a bit unfair , comparing two watches 30 years in time and technology apart. It’s like saying , which is a better car in 2020- a used 1998 Lexus RX or a new 2020 Toyota Highlander ? I would take the 2020 highlander if I was looking for something better made.

I own both a 14060m and a bb58... I wouldn’t say the Tudor appears any less well made than the older sub. Also, not sure why the Tudor bracelet gets so much flack - feels solid to me and fits well. Don’t see what the big deal w the rivets, doesn’t bother me at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[-dustin]

Originally Posted by Generation

I would have to go with the Tudor Black Bay Fifty-Eight because of the technology of the movement. Does a 70-hour power reserve and silicon hairspring -- in addition to other modern technology -- sound good to you? If so, the BB58 is the winner.

Here is a review of the Tudor North Flag, which was released in 2015: https://timelessluxwatches.com/revie...h-flag-review/

This was the first watch by Tudor with an in-house movement, the MT5621.

I recommend anyone on the fence between these two watches to read it.

Of course, the Submariner is a Rolex. If that's all that matters to you, get the Rolex.

That was a mighty fine read. Thanks for posting that.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by putterlert

Not sure why you guys think the 5 digit sub is better made, have you handled the bracelet? It's kinda garbage.

The Tudor is better built than a 90's sub for sure. Obviously the SubC slays it though.

Agreed.

[Ny325]

Both nice, quality pieces. I would be happy with either watch.

[doramas]

Opinion Division

[1William]

Modern technology in design and manufacturing and a movement in the Tudor which exceeds the movement in the five digit Rolex in performance. If you take into account cost the Tudor is as good or better than the Rolex of that period. Take the modern 114060 and do a comparison and the Rolex wins hands down.

[MGCP]

I think it is an interesting question and well worth asking. I’d be really interested in a complete examination of the movements and casing to see how a modern Tudor compares to an older sub.

Strip away the intangibles and the brand name and look at them purely as two machines, it’s reasonable to question what you actually get for your money with each of them.

[doramas]

Originally Posted by MGCP

I think it is an interesting question and well worth asking. I’d be really interested in a complete examination of the movements and casing to see how a modern Tudor compares to an older sub.

Strip away the intangibles and the brand name and look at them purely as two machines, it’s reasonable to question what you actually get for your money with each of them.

Gracias "paisano".

My question is that. Out with the intangibles

[iliketime]

14060M are getting pricey

[Brny11]

116610 / 114060 vs BB58... Rolex is better by a long shot - WG, ceramic, 904L, bracelet, clasp, etc... However, $6-7k better? absolutely not (unless you just need the crown on your wrist).

14060 vs BB58. With hollow links on bracelet, the build quality is MUCH better on 58. The movement is debatable (70hr vs. more refined). Really, only improvement on the Rolex is WG markers on dial. Everything else goes to 58 in this comparison (not factoring in brand equity).

[Daveclock]

Originally Posted by djyolky

I've heard Tudor is a poor man's Rolex. Is this true?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

From the horse:-

Hans Wilsdorf said the following quote on March 6th, 1946:

”For some years now I have been considering the idea of making a watch that our agents could sell at a more modest price than our Rolex watches, and yet one that would attain the standards of dependability for which Rolex are famous. I decided to form a separate company, with the object of making and marketing this new watch. It is called the Tudor Watch Company.”

In my opinion, some of the early Tudor Princes and other watches that shared Rolex crowns and "case made by Rolex" etc., were far more close to being "like" a Rolex. And saying (flame me if you must!) modern Tudors are more far removed from Rolex now, and I love early Montecarlos and would kill for a Tudor Oyster Prince Submariner 7924
YMMMV and I am sure your opinion would too!!

[djyolky]

Originally Posted by Daveclock

From the horse:-



Hans Wilsdorf said the following quote on March 6th, 1946:



”For some years now I have been considering the idea of making a watch that our agents could sell at a more modest price than our Rolex watches, and yet one that would attain the standards of dependability for which Rolex are famous. I decided to form a separate company, with the object of making and marketing this new watch. It is called the Tudor Watch Company.”



In my opinion, some of the early Tudor Princes and other watches that shared Rolex crowns and "case made by Rolex" etc., were far more close to being "like" a Rolex. And saying (flame me if you must!) modern Tudors are more far removed from Rolex now, and I love early Montecarlos and would kill for a Tudor Oyster Prince Submariner 7924

YMMMV and I am sure your opinion would too!!

I was joking for the most part. But thank you for providing the quote and your opinion. I only have a little experience with Tudor. Good watch for the money I feel. But because it's in its big brother's foot steps, it's a brand I wouldn't consider owning.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[JohnGingerwood]

Originally Posted by djyolky

I've heard Tudor is a poor man's Rolex. Is this true?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Rolex is a poor mans Patek.

[djyolky]

Originally Posted by JohnGingerwood

Rolex is a poor mans Patek.

True that.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by iliketime

14060M are getting pricey

They really are if you want a 4-line with B+P in VG condition like I got mine. I paid around 6K and they are over 9K now for similar. It was my first (and only so far) Rolex so I wanted all the goodies. Not sure I would pay that now.

[ferrissteve11]

Tudor operates in its own space as does Rolex. There's certainly cross over, but I think anyone buying a Tudor thinking its 'better' than a Rolex will ulitmitley not be able to convince themselves of that. I guess a similar comparision might be between Snap On and Blue Point tools. Both good, but one outdoes the other. Be it in the marketing OR simply the refinement of some of the details.
FWIW I've owned a Tudor in the past....great watch. Only reason I moved it along is I disliked not having a date feature. That aside if it had a date complication I would have kept it, regardless that it didn't have the Crown on the dial.