Tudor v Rolex

[Samoan]

OK,

So one of the reasons I work security gigs and concerts in addition to the day job is so I can build up my "Because I feel like it..." fund.

It turns out that what I feel like is a Submariner and I'm trying to decide between the Tudor and the Rolex. In the case of this particular model, most of the usual sources are not that much help due to the fact that the Tudor Submariner is held in relatively high regard.

Anyone here ever done a side-by-side? Is the Rolex movement really $1400 "better".

I'm also not completely set on the Submariner. The Omega Speedmaster keeps looking nicer and nicer in my eyes...

-F

 

[RH]

If you wan the Rolex, don't get the Tudor...you'll never be satisfied. On the other hand, the Tudor is a very nice watch.

 

[paulr]

Rolex movements especially the recent ones are nothing special. Rolexes are sold for their external finish and brand cachet.

The Speedmaster is nice but totally different than a Sub.

Try hanging out on www.timezone.com for a while, before buying a watch in that class. It's sort of the CPF of watches. You'll learn a lot there.

 

[bindibadgi]

Check out this page.

Its co-axial escapement doesn't need lubrication (so I'm told) and it therefore is a lot cheaper to keep. Doesn't make it cheap to get though. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/broke.gif

It certainly heads up my want list.

Except maybe for this one.

 

[Samoan]

[ QUOTE ]
RH said:
If you wan the Rolex, don't get the Tudor...you'll never be satisfied. On the other hand, the Tudor is a very nice watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the Tudor would be disappointing? I ask because I've heard this before, but never with anything to back it up. The closest is a buddy of mine (who has a Seadweller) saying that Tudor is to Rolex as a MB 190 is to a real Mercedes.

I've never been in this particular price range for watches. The closest was about 10 years ago when a bought a Tag that now needs a new crown and movement.

-F

 

[Lurker]

I think what is meant by "you'll never be satisfied with the Tudor" is the assumption that you really want a Rolex and you would be settling for something less expensive. After getting something less expensive, you would still want the Rolex, so what would you have accomplished?

I don't think there is anything inherently inferior about the Tudor, but it is certainly true that the Tudor brand name does not carry the same recognition and cachet (or resale value) as the Rolex brand name.

But if you really want the Tudor INSTEAD of the Rolex, then absolutely go for it. It is a fine watch.

If you want justification for the Rolex, you can learn on Timezone.com about how it has an "in-house" movement, a Breguet overcoil hair spring, free-sprung balance, a special grade of stainless steel, etc. You can decide for yourself if those features really matter to you.

 

[adimag]

This is just my 2 cents, but if you are looking for the instant recognition from others, that, "Wow, you have a Rolex!" kind of reaction, then stick with the submariner. However, if you want a high quality watch, there are many others out there that will give you the dive watch with the qualities you are looking for and will not get you arm cut off because some thug saw a Rolex on your arm. Almost everyone on the street knows a Rolex by sight, very few can spot an IWC Aquatimer, Brietling Sea Wolf, or one of the Panerai dive watches and really know what it is.

 

[RH]

Thanks Lurker...that's exactly what I meant. There is nothing wrong with a Tudor. It's is just that if you're built up for a Rolex and then get a Tudor, you won't be satisfied. It would be like wanting a Lexus and then buying a Toyota. The Toyota is probably every bit as good as the Lexus and has many of the same parts, but no one is going to compliment you on your corolla.

May I suggest the Omega SeaMaster Professional? It has a good heritage, good brand recognition, and is a great value. This watch can be had new for aroud $1,000. Let us know what you decide!

 

[Samoan]

Ah,

I see now. It wasn't that I specifically wanted a Rolex. In fact I kind of didn't want a Rolex. It's a watch, not a chick magnet. It's just that the Submariners have the style I'm looking for. A solid, substantial, large watch (I have a 9 1/2-inch wrist). There are other options with a similar look.

BTW, I do seem to find myself going back to Omega...

-F

 

[Lurker]

You can also get the Seiko automatic diver, which is a large, solid, substantial watch like the Submariner and Seamaster. It is also from a well-respected company. It is much more sensibly priced.

By the way, I personally wear an Omega Seamaster (just so you can guage what my preconceptions might be).

 

[bigcozy]

I wager the vast majority of people wear Rolex because it is a Rolex, whether it is prestige or it is just a quality watch that they know about. There are hundreds of credible Submariner types watches out there. At the low end, the Invictas Rolex-like models can be had cheap and are not bad watches. The inexpensive but good value of the Ollech and Wajs M series which have excellent reputations and top out around $250-300. The recent Tissot Seastar 1000 is very attractive at around $350-500. The Omega SMP's have their own following and are stunning to look at, but you are creeping into a pretty expensive watch at that point. I don't know what a new Rolex Sub runs, maybe around $4K. My theory is I can lose a $4K watch the same I can lose a $100 watch. I know guys that have been wearing the same Rolex for 20 years. I have had a couple, but I always sell them, just can't make myself wear them and can't justify the cost. The Tudor does have a different movement than the Rolex will. They (Tudor) did use ETA 2824-2 movements, think they still do. This is the same movement in the O&W, Tissot, Invicta, and many other watches for much less money.

All I can tell you is watches are addictive and more expensive than flashlights.

 

[DLG]

Check out www.westcoastime.com

Its been mentioned here more than twice, and Howard is great to work with. I own an O&W M4 btw, and paid for it what tax is on some other watches with similar engines, etc.

 

[JML]

The Rolex is definitely different (better) in many ways than the Tudor, putting aside any questions about whether the Rolex is worth what they ask. The movement in the Tudor is an ebauche ETA, unmodified. Whether the Rolex movement is truly worth the price is another kettle of fish. I believe the case steel and finishing is also different.

But if you're considering buying anything in that price range, give yourself six months to educate yourself on quality automatic movement watches. Or you'll be unhappy unless all you want is something on your wrist to impress those who see "Rolex" as an indicator of wealth.

If you want a great watch (or your first/last), then learn about 'em from the internet watch sites (especially TimeZone, EOT, WatchUSeek, etc.) and print magazines. Go shopping, and see how they look and feel in person and, most importantly, on your wrist. You'll be amazed at what's out there. the Rolex Sub and the Omega Speedy are classics, but they're not for everyone.

I wouldn't recommend the O&W watches unless you're prepared to be ultimately dissatisfied. Nice bargains, but they're not in the same class as what you're apparently prepared to spend.

You are likely to end up with something very different. Or if you get the Rolex or Omega, you'll be happier in the long run for making an informed decision.

 

[Double_A]

I have a Tudor Submariner. I looked at the Tudor and the Rolex side by side in the store. I went for the Tudor for several reasons; The Tudor was 38mm v 40 for the Rolexand my wrists are smaller, it was a beautiful rich blue dial/bezel same the the Two-tone Rolex Sub (much better looking than the black in my opinion) and back in 1996 it was $1350 instead of $3850. I was in sticker shock when I went looking. Of course I eventually got over the shock and my next watch was over $5k.

I strongly agree with the others, if you want Rolex just to say you have one, buy the Rolex sub, It you want a very nice watch go with the Tudor.

GregR

P.S. The Rolex Sub has got to be the most counterfeted watch out there. If your buying for wow, you might find many will just think you've got a fake.

 

[DLG]

JML says:

"I wouldn't recommend the O&W watches unless you're prepared to be ultimately dissatisfied. Nice bargains, but they're not in the same class as what you're apparently prepared to spend."

I did some research before making an O&W purchase. I have to say most people who actually own them are very satisfied, myself included.

IMO, many other more popular watches, and other products for that matter, come with lots of additional baggage. By that I mean, lots of ads and billboards to pay for which ultimately gets passed on to the customer. Not a day goes by where I do not see an add for a Rolex, either in the newspaper, National Geographic and/or billboards in and around large cities. That's fine, but don't forget this all adds to the cost of doing business. And I believe it adds plenty.

That said, Rolex and other high end watches are fine pieces of machinery.

So are O&Ws.

 

[dg]

I recall a post somewhere which went along the lines of ...

... when someone sees a Rolex Sub they wonder if is it real or fake, but when they see a [watch name here]then they say "thats a nice watch, what is it?"

Most Rolex wearers only buy one just to tell the world "I have a Rolex", and not for time keeping. Many people also agree that the Rolex is over-priced.

The Rolex sub, is undoubtedly a very nice design - a design that has been widly duplicated by other brands - many of which are just as good timekeepers and look just as good too.

If you want a watch for posing, then those who don't know much about watches may be impressed by the Rolex badge. But those that do know about watches will be just as impressed with the Tudor badge.

And as mentioned previously, if you want a Rolex, then you may never be happy with a Tudor.

 

[Samoan]

What a weekend of trying on watches will do to a man?

I had been considering this rascal for a while but kept coming back to the Rolex and Tudor. Well after trying them all on I really liked the way this one felt and looked.

Thanks to all the good input and opinions from everyone!

-Fern

 

[bindibadgi]

Nice choice. I'm an Omega man too. I wear a cheapie though, it's a Valro. That can get stolen. I'd care bigtime if the moonwatch was nicked!

 

[Samoan]

I'm trying to convince myself that this watch is for wearing. I also buy my knives for using (including the Sebbie), my cigars for smoking (I don't care if the Presidente is discontinued), and my wines for drinking.

Taking a look at my watch situation has also gotten me to take in the Tag that stopped running about 8 years ago. I had it looked at back then and was told it needed a new movement. Today I get a call from the watch repair place and he says all I need is some major maintenance. So for about $300 I get the old Tag back in the rotation.

Thanks again for all the input!

-Fernando

 

[DimBeam]

Rolex's look great but Omega's actually keep the correct time.