ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

walds11 · 16 December 2008, 08:07 PM

Sub Date.

Anyway, the price on the Tudor chrono is way too high. They are nice, buy way too thick for my tastes.

Psmith · 16 December 2008, 09:24 PM

The Sub Date would be a great partner to the GMT...

...or (just to help

) how about a lovely black dial Exp II ...?

Good luck with whatever you decide on

Cheers

joeyk · 16 December 2008, 11:06 PM

sub for me , oh yeah :)

JimSnyder · 16 December 2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis

Tudor Chrono.

I have to have a date window in my watches. So the Tudor Chrono is, for my uses, superior to the Daytona. It's really the only racing chrono I'd own. It kicks the Subbie's butt in my opinion, and is more useful and more rare.

X2. The Tudor Chronos are not getting any cheaper. They are way underrated and valued. Far less were produced compared to a Rolex Sub. The Subs are a dime a dozen and one can be had anytime. Tudor

vapalux · 17 December 2008, 12:22 AM

That Tudor looks the biz, if the seller comes down as Wolfgang said. For me its the Tudor all the way.

Si

greenfan · 17 December 2008, 12:23 AM

The submariner. A Tudor is just a Tudor but a submariner is a ROLEX.....

MrCowboy99 · 17 December 2008, 01:12 AM

Submariner

Welshwatchman · 17 December 2008, 01:18 AM

The sub seems to be the better buy but the Tudor is the nicer watch IMO.

356 speedster · 17 December 2008, 02:48 AM

Go with the most famous watch on the planet. Sub that is.

Kokyuryoku · 17 December 2008, 03:15 AM

Sub Date, Sub Date, Sub Date, Sub Date, Sub Date, Sub Date

charliec · 17 December 2008, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

The sub seems to be the better buy but the Tudor is the nicer watch IMO.

Well said ....

TempoKing · 17 December 2008, 03:58 AM

Both, are great looking watches
If I was buying...
I would have liked to pay $2500 for the Tudor and $3400 for the Sub

wantonebad · 17 December 2008, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tempoking

both, are great looking watches
if i was buying...
I would have liked to pay $2500 for the tudor and $3400 for the sub

x2

chazha · 17 December 2008, 04:52 AM

Submariner. I would never wear a Tudor. :-D

Dr.B · 17 December 2008, 04:54 AM

Sub all the way.

SLS · 17 December 2008, 04:58 AM

Sub, but you can find them much cheaper than $3900.
Scott

earl of huntingdon · 17 December 2008, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLS

Sub, but you can find them much cheaper than $3900.
Scott

x2

haakon59 · 17 December 2008, 06:26 AM

I would get the Submariner, but I don't exactly understand why the GMT II can't be a daily wearer. I also think the Chrono price seems high, as others have said.

lawrenceb · 17 December 2008, 06:43 AM

M Sub date.. cant beat a SS Sub!

ArizonaHD · 17 December 2008, 06:50 AM

Submariner Date all the way, Tudor is over rated, it is a ETA in a watered down rolex case, it is the cheap line. I'd take a speedmaster over a tudor.

Tudor is NOT a Rolex, Just like Swatch is not an Omega!

Astroguy · 17 December 2008, 08:06 AM

No question go with the sub.

16 December 2008, 08:07 PM	#31
walds11 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Real Name: Adam Location: Philly ‘burbs Posts: 5,660	Sub Date. Anyway, the price on the Tudor chrono is way too high. They are nice, buy way too thick for my tastes. __________________ Adam

16 December 2008, 09:24 PM	#32
Psmith "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Clive Location: Exoplanet Watch: spring-driven Posts: 38,856	The Sub Date would be a great partner to the GMT... ...or (just to help ) how about a lovely black dial Exp II ...? Good luck with whatever you decide on Cheers Attached Images __________________

17 December 2008, 12:23 AM	#36
greenfan "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Real Name: George Location: Athens Greece Watch: GMT II 16710 Coke Posts: 1,046	The submariner. A Tudor is just a Tudor but a submariner is a ROLEX..... __________________ $C:\Documents and Settings\George.HOME\My Documents\My Pictures\Rolex$

17 December 2008, 01:18 AM	#38
Welshwatchman "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Real Name: Paul Location: Wales, UK Posts: 14,578	The sub seems to be the better buy but the Tudor is the nicer watch IMO. __________________ ..33

17 December 2008, 04:52 AM	#44
chazha "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: ChairmanMao Location: NY, US Watch: mickey watch Posts: 837	Submariner. I would never wear a Tudor. :-D __________________ I am always single, even when I am married.

16 December 2008, 11:06 PM	#33
joeyk "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: uk/earth Watch: GMT IIc Posts: 698	sub for me , oh yeah :)

17 December 2008, 12:22 AM	#35
vapalux "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Real Name: Si Location: united kingdom Posts: 1,655	That Tudor looks the biz, if the seller comes down as Wolfgang said. For me its the Tudor all the way. Si

17 December 2008, 01:12 AM	#37
MrCowboy99 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Real Name: Mac Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 1,367	Submariner

17 December 2008, 02:48 AM	#39
356 speedster "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Kansas city,mo Posts: 283	Go with the most famous watch on the planet. Sub that is.

17 December 2008, 03:15 AM	#40
Kokyuryoku "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Rye Location: Japan Watch: Sundial Posts: 2,156	Sub Date, Sub Date, Sub Date, Sub Date, Sub Date, Sub Date

17 December 2008, 03:58 AM	#42
TempoKing Banned Join Date: Jan 2008 Real Name: Anastasios Location: Athens Greece Watch: Rolex GMT 1675 Posts: 8,497	Both, are great looking watches If I was buying... I would have liked to pay $2500 for the Tudor and $3400 for the Sub

17 December 2008, 04:54 AM	#45
Dr.B "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Real Name: Fernando Location: North Carolina Watch: SS White Daytona Posts: 1,944	Sub all the way.

17 December 2008, 04:58 AM	#46
SLS "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Real Name: Scott Location: GMT -7 Watch: GMT's & Sub's Posts: 10,401	Sub, but you can find them much cheaper than $3900. Scott __________________ "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of lower price is forgotten." -Benjamin Franklin Member No. 922

17 December 2008, 06:26 AM	#48
haakon59 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Seattle Posts: 1,571	I would get the Submariner, but I don't exactly understand why the GMT II can't be a daily wearer. I also think the Chrono price seems high, as others have said.

17 December 2008, 06:43 AM	#49
lawrenceb 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: United States Posts: 20,984	M Sub date.. cant beat a SS Sub!

17 December 2008, 06:50 AM	#50
ArizonaHD "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: USA Posts: 472	Submariner Date all the way, Tudor is over rated, it is a ETA in a watered down rolex case, it is the cheap line. I'd take a speedmaster over a tudor. Tudor is NOT a Rolex, Just like Swatch is not an Omega!

17 December 2008, 08:06 AM	#51
Astroguy Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: Fred Location: S.E. Florida Watch: GMT II Posts: 123	No question go with the sub.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)