People looking down on Tudor and "starter rolex models"

[7shaun7]

Not keen on the term entry level Rolex. Each model is great in its own right. I was out last night with my son and his new airking (described by some entry level )seemed to get more interest than my Daytona C .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nick c]

Originally Posted by JP Chestnut

Sounds like an idiot.

Yes like all idiots that saying Tudor the poor man’s Rolex.

[2focus]

Originally Posted by nick c

Yes like all idiots that saying Tudor the poor man’s Rolex.

I wouldn't call those people idiots. Kind of harsh, considering that was Tudor's mission statement, pretty much. Although they are getting expensive, comparing to the prices when they last pulled out of the U.S. market.

[nick c]

Originally Posted by 2focus

I wouldn't call those people idiots. Kind of harsh, considering that was Tudor's mission statement, pretty much. Although they are getting expensive, comparing to the prices when they last pulled out of the U.S. market.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by nick c

Yes like all idiots that saying Tudor the poor man’s Rolex.

It is, and I'm no idiot.

Rolex created Tudor as a downmarket sub-brand. By definition it makes it the poor man's Rolex.

[sechsgang]

Originally Posted by speedolex

It is, and I'm no idiot.

Rolex created Tudor as a downmarket sub-brand. By definition it makes it the poor man's Rolex.

There is a difference btw being downmarket and being a "poor man's" XY or Z so to speak. A "poor man's" rolex to me would be a heritage watch/lookalike that was obviously styled to look similar to any rolex model that has a sub 400 dollar price point and likely made in china. The Tudor isn't trying to imitate, they do their own thing while still being a part of the Rolex company as far as I'm concerned.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by speedolex

It is, and I'm no idiot.

Rolex created Tudor as a downmarket sub-brand. By definition it makes it the poor man's Rolex.

No it doesn't. Just because it's lower priced, doesn't make it a poor man's watch. Not that there's anything wrong with being poor, of course.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

No it doesn't. Just because it's lower priced, doesn't make it a poor man's watch. Not that there's anything wrong with being poor, of course.

If taken literally I see your point, but that's not what the phrase means in popular culture. It's not about financial status.

Take "poor man's" to mean "lesser". A Tudor, while made by Rolex, is not a Rolex, so it is "lesser".

That's how I interpret the phrase at least.

[AzHadEnuf]

Originally Posted by speedolex

It is, and I'm no idiot.

Rolex created Tudor as a downmarket sub-brand. By definition it makes it the poor man's Rolex.

Are you sure about that statement? Maybe we should do a poll.

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by 7shaun7

Not keen on the term entry level Rolex. Each model is great in its own right. I was out last night with my son and his new airking (described by some entry level )seemed to get more interest than my Daytona C .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heck that's nothing. I've had several notice and comment on my fitbit while I was wearing some pretty nice watches.

[Macallan]

I have had experience with people in real life being unfriendly because my watches are SS. Because à Rolex is supposed to be solid gold. Lame assumptions. Like driving an Porsche Boxter instead of 911. Having an Iphone5 instead of à 6s. That kind of stupid things. You can always upgrade in a matter of value. SS to solid gold, Rolex to Patek, BMW to Rolls royce and so forth. It is just à thing jealous people use. Just my 2 cents.

[teb1013]

I hate snobs. The truth is, that I wanted a Rolex for years and thought I'd finally get one as a "retirement gift" (sorry no employers don't buy a Rolex for retirees anymore). Well, as you can imagine, I hadn't looked at watch prices. When I looked at what a new Rolex (or even a really good used one) would actually cost, I was forced to realize that I couldn't afford it. I spent a lot of time researching what would be a good replacement and ultimately I picked a Tudor Black Bay (Blue). Was I influenced to go Tudor due to its Rolex ancestry? Yes but not as a "replacement Rolex ND Submariner)" only because the Rolex connection assures me that it is a quality timepiece. I love the watch and still feel like a kid at Christmas about it. Just for myself, I don't personally know any watch people, and no one else has heard of Tudor. But I have the feeling that I have a nice watch (and so-far as accurate as the Tissot PR100 Quartz which was its predecessor. So I guess if anyone wants to look down on someone as not having enough money to buy a "real" Rolex, so be it. I'm glad to have a watch that I really enjoy. I'm glad the people on this board aren't judgmental!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[J!m]

I wish they would look further down so I could buy more!

[arinsd]

I think a true WIS will enjoy watches from all brands and price points. A nice looking watch is a nice looking watch. I enjoy my Swiss Army chrono or Timex on a NATO as much as my SubC.

[pablo5]

I have owned a Tudor and wore it a lot because it's a great watch and nobody cared one bit except for me. I wore this Tudor for about a year while I also owned 6 rolexes that I didn't love wearing as much and eventually sold off. Like many people who get into the watches I have bought and flipped so many pieces and have learned to only buy what what I absolutely love and appreciate. I have since developed a very specific taste and have put together, in my opinion, a very solid collection. Most people could care less what kind of watch you're wearing anyways and know nothing about them. More seasoned collectors I've met have taught me to buy only specific pieces I love and will hold on to instead of buying them simply for the brand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pa30crewchief]

Originally Posted by japenney

I just want to say that I have seen a couple of comments with people looking down on Tudor and entry level rolex like "I would not wear a Tudor because it would be like I couldnt afford a Rolex". Along this same vein there have been comments about the explorer 1 and no date sub being something you only buy if you cannot afford a sub or date version.

I appreciate the Tudor brand and all Rolex models for different reasons ! I remember last year I had a sub, Daytona, and explorer 1 in my collection and many people told me to get rid of the explorer because it adds nothing, for example. I argued that it added a simple clean watch but many did not think it deserved a place?

Well I guess the purpose of this post is that we should try to stay positive and embrace the diversity in peoples collections and the choices they make. Now here is a picture of my new favorite watch :).

Stay positive :)

Have a great evening,

Josh

Lots of love for Tudor here! Pelagos is about as brilliant a dive watch at any price from anyone. Its technically superior to BB and Submariner and a watch I would dive with.Wish Tudor had a GMT...).

What there isn't a lot of love for, as far as I have seen, is for the Cellini sub-brand. In the precious metal Rolexes Cellinis offer remarkable value vs Rolex DD and the recent complications - like the Cellini Dual Time - are well thought out and executed. Definitely something to consider if you don't want a precious metal GMT.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[B737]

Though I love my new 16-Explorer and my BLNR I really enjoy this one. I guess it's Omegas least expensive watch, and if something should be considered entry level for Omega it's this one. Still I just love it and though it's as common as seawater I think it looks amazing...

[997.2]

Sorry your feelings got hurt 😭😭

[sechsgang]

I haven't had one person even really know what the tudor I've been wearing was other than watch enthusiasts, but I have seen a LOT of people being critical of them on various forums (not here really though). I think its an awesome watch, regardless of price and still have to think daily about if I want to wear that, my Patek, one of the rolexes etc etc as it's just THAT cool. I may even need to add a Pelagos...

[J!m]

Originally Posted by sechsgang

I haven't had one person even really know what the tudor I've been wearing was other than watch enthusiasts, but I have seen a LOT of people being critical of them on various forums (not here really though). I think its an awesome watch, regardless of price and still have to think daily about if I want to wear that, my Patek, one of the rolexes etc etc as it's just THAT cool. I may even need to add a Pelagos...

It's certainly nice to hear that Tudor is pkaying in the same sand box (watch box?) as Patek.

Once you move away from the price tag and see it for what it is you realize they are just damn cool watches. You will pry my 9411 from my cold, dead hands...

[sechsgang]

Originally Posted by J!m

It's certainly nice to hear that Tudor is pkaying in the same sand box (watch box?) as Patek.

Once you move away from the price tag and see it for what it is you realize they are just damn cool watches. You will pry my 9411 from my cold, dead hands...

I actually only first looked at them after I had owned just about everything else...and yes, they become WAY cooler when you've been around the block so to speak and can appreciate something for being cool vs needing a glitzy name behind it to validate my purchase.

[douglasf13]

I think we should all be honest with ourselves and recognize luxury watches as Veblen goods. It's not as if there's any other logic to the prices of nearly any steel Swiss watch over a thousand bucks or so.

In other words, in the world of Veblen goods, more expensive means "better," and that's exactly how Rolex and much of the world sees it, for better or worse. The same could be said of something like Tissot vs. Tudor. When it comes to perception, all that matters is price in this silly world of watches.

[nick c]

Originally Posted by speedolex

It is, and I'm no idiot.

Rolex created Tudor as a downmarket sub-brand. By definition it makes it the poor man's Rolex.

FYI this baby's called Tudor snowflake are not so cheap they going more money then any regular Rolex submariner

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by nick c

FYI this baby's called Tudor snowflake are not so cheap they going more money then any regular Rolex submariner

Beautiful watches, but vintage is a bit different. 60 year old VW Buses go to auction in the six figures, but that doesn't mean VW is Audi (well, outside of owning them. )

Geez, suddenly my posts are making it sound like I'm against Tudor, which isn't the case. I like them a lot, and I think they make cool watches.

[nick c]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Beautiful watches, but vintage is a bit different. 60 year old VW Buses go to auction in the six figures, but that doesn't mean VW is Audi (well, outside of owning them. )

Geez, suddenly my posts are making it sound like I'm against Tudor, which isn't the case. I like them a lot, and I think they make cool watches.

I'm cool with that no worries enjoy your weekend cheers

[nick c]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

No it doesn't. Just because it's lower priced, doesn't make it a poor man's watch. Not that there's anything wrong with being poor, of course.

Nicely said Adam

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by nick c

I'm cool with that no worries enjoy your weekend cheers

You too! BTW, I'll trade my 16610 for a Snowflake, if you're ever interested.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by nick c

FYI this baby's called Tudor snowflake are not so cheap they going more money then any regular Rolex submariner

Any time you need to refer to something else to justify something, that something is not as good as the something else.

It's clear that in order for Tudor to have value it needs to be justified against Rolex as a brand or a Submariner/Explorer as a model. If Tudor wasn't made by Rolex I doubt any of you would own one, no different than Invicta or other brands that make watches that resemble authentic Rolexes but aren't.

This phenomenon is similar to the patina/tropical fetish by the vintage gang. Some try so hard to be unique, different, and countercultural to the hobby they succeed in making something out of nothing to a small group looking for the same. Love your Tudor's, surely, but please stop trying to tell us how "Rolex" they are. They aren't.

[J!m]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I think we should all be honest with ourselves and recognize luxury watches as Veblen goods. It's not as if there's any other logic to the prices of nearly any steel Swiss watch over a thousand bucks or so.

In other words, in the world of Veblen goods, more expensive means "better," and that's exactly how Rolex and much of the world sees it, for better or worse. The same could be said of something like Tissot vs. Tudor. When it comes to perception, all that matters is price in this silly world of watches.

What, now we bash Tissot? but seriously, Tissot has a long history of fine watches.

[Daryl]

I love my Tudor BBN