[Bricey]

That's the very cruxtacean of choice :laugh: :laugh:

Not sure if your being nice or shellfish.

 

[Dilly]

What's the difference apart from the name?

It depends what angle your coming from:

Rolex is an internationally recognised commodity/currency. This is not the case for other high end brands including Tudor.

Rolex is an internationally recognised status symbol. This is not the case for other high end brands which require some horological knowledge including Tudor.

Rolex is very difficult 'for certain people' to obtain at retail price. Tudor is widely available.

The Rolex/Tudor history is side by side since the early 1900's, I think Tudor was one year after Rolex. So heritage history etc is similar.

Tudor used to be Rolex cased with 'non' inhouse movements to provide a cheaper watch to those who didnt want or couldnt afford the expense of a Rolex.

Many dont know that Rolex/Tudor is not a company now and might have a bearing on some of the weirdness that goes on, it was left by the owner who had no kids to form a charity.

Its a bit like the whole VW vs Skoda debate but worse.

We are enthusiasts, trainspotters, anoraks etc on here as its forum. Lets get one thing straight, lets leave out vintage for a second, modern watches are man jewellery, period!

The quality of modern mechanical watches from a £300 Seiko diver to a £30,000 Rolex Daytona can be debated to death but as a watch they can both be more than accurate than we as humans need.

So to answer your question, I think the technicalitys of Rolex vs Tudor are irrelevent because thats not what its normally about. Rolex isnt Rolex because of how good the watches are, it maybe once was.

A Tiffany blue Rolex OP isnt selling for 5, 6, 9 or 10 times Retail because its a 'bloody good watch old boy'.

The differences are supply, investment, Brand identity, consumer awareness, status all things that are mainly backed up by the non-watch public.

I worked next to a software engineer before lockdown, he had about 19 years service with the company and was given points that he could use to buy things with or could save them up. Hed worked out that by 25 years service he might manage to get a Rolex and that was one of his life goals to own a Rolex. I used to chuckle inside and one day I quized him on it. what type of Rolex did he want. He thought Rolex only made one watch!! He had no idea of OP's, Day Dates, Subs, GMTs etc bracelet type, metals etc etc.

Obsessed with Rolex but doesnt have the foggiest about them or the watches they sell. To him though hes made it in life if he gets his Rolex.

If after 25 years service the company couldnt get a Rolex but had a presentation for him and handed him a Tudor Harrods special edition he wouldnt know what it was, hed have no idea of value, that its anything remotely to do with Rolex etc etc.

This is the 'big' difference and why Rolex is Rolex and Tudor is Tudor.

If like my collegue you want a Rolex then you will have to work away at trying to get on the waitlist, or buy grey, buy vintage etc.

If you want a Tudor because you cant get a Rolex then dont do it.

If you want a 'nice' watch then have Tudor in the mix and start comparing it to other brands you can get and decide which is the one for you.

Hence back to my first question, it depends what angle your coming from.

Good luck.

 

[spinynorman]

Obsessed with Rolex but doesnt have the foggiest about them or the watches they sell. To him though hes made it in life if he gets his Rolex.

I recognise this. I inherited a Rolex Precision from my father, bought in 1970, the year of my parents silver wedding anniversary. He bought it from a small local jeweler in north London and, as far as I can from the serial number, it had been in someone's stock for nearly ten years. My mother often refered to his "gold Rolex" and those two words were all she needed to know about it. In similar vein, she loved his Rover 2000, and was much less impressed with the Triumph 2000 that followed it. There's nothing wrong with this, most people just get impressions of which brands are desirable and which aren't. In those days it was just a lot easier to indulge yourself with a Rolex than it is now.

 

[Karrusel]

Tudor used to be Rolex cased with 'non' inhouse movements to provide a cheaper watch to those who didnt want or couldnt afford the expense of a Rolex.

For the purpose of accuracy....

Aegler produced/supplied movements to Rolex, as did Valjoux.

Rolex didn't fully own Aegler till 2004!

:thumbsup:

 

[Dilly]

I recognise this. I inherited a Rolex Precision from my father, bought in 1970, the year of my parents silver wedding anniversary. He bought it from a small local jeweler in north London and, as far as I can from the serial number, it had been in someone's stock for nearly ten years. My mother often refered to his "gold Rolex" and those two words were all she needed to know about it. In similar vein, she loved his Rover 2000, and was much less impressed with the Triumph 2000 that followed it. There's nothing wrong with this, most people just get impressions of which brands are desirable and which aren't. In those days it was just a lot easier to indulge yourself with a Rolex than it is now.

I completely agree. The point I was trying to make to the OP when he was asking what the difference is you have covered. In Laymens terms some items are seen as luxury, indulgent as you have said. That is my point about Rolex vs Tudor. Non watch people dont know what Tudor is. Everyone knows what Rolex is. If I did I didnt mean it in a derogatory way to people who want one but know nothing about then.

For the purpose of accuracy....

Aegler produced/supplied movements to Rolex, as did Valjoux.

Rolex didn't fully own Aegler till 2004!

:thumbsup:

So does this mean Rolex's in house movements even today stem from them buying a movement manufacturer? and pre Rolex 2004 dont actually have inhouse movements?

 

[spinynorman]

Everyone knows what Rolex is.

Ironically, if my father had bought a stainless steel Oyster Perpetual, I would now be over the moon. My mother would have hated it.

 

[tick-tock-tittle-tattle]

Only if you own a Rolex or Tudor... :laugh:

...but what if you own both :hmmm9uh:

Maybe they should have another brand called Tudex...or Roldor

The last one sounds like a garage door company

 

[spinynorman]

...but what if you own both :hmmm9uh:

Maybe they should have another brand called Tudex...or Roldor

The last one sounds like a garage door company

I thought Tudex sounded medicinal and it is.

And "Roldor" seems to be a common misspelling of the watch brand Roidor"

 

[tick-tock-tittle-tattle]

I thought Tudex sounded medicinal and it is.

A little tricky to balance on your wrist.

 

[SolaVeritate]

Roldor.

Sounds dungeon and dragony.

Mount Roldor, where the giants in the icecaves keep time.

 

[RTM Boy]

...but what if you own both :hmmm9uh:

Maybe they should have another brand called Tudex...or Roldor

The last one sounds like a garage door company

That's easy, each watch comes with free a dual-branded Rolodex so that you keep track of all the ADs you have to maintain a relationship with, the birthdays of staff members for whom presents are gratefully received, and the huge range of other watches and jewellery you bought, and from whom, to cross-reference with all the waiting lists you need to be on, to get your next Tudex or Roldor :biggrin:

:laugh: :laugh:

Roldor.

Sounds dungeon and dragony.

Mount Roldor, where the giants in the icecaves keep time.

Do what to Roldor??? Is that what ADs want in trade these days?

 

[tick-tock-tittle-tattle]

As a Rolex owner I am saddened by how 'toxic' the brand has become with many watch enthusiasts.

Some people do buy a Rolex for something other than 'showing off' or wanting to make a 'fast buck'.

There is no getting away from the fact they do make a really good watch, but there are better watches for the money...unless you take into account residual values.

I think they should get some sort of recognition for keeping Swiss watchmaking 'alive' during the quartz crisis of the 1970's, however I do feel they are ever so happy to take credit for other watchmakers efforts, and achievements.

Personally I think I've reached the point where I will lose the will to live if I see another thread about Rolex, maybe I should just sell mine, and buy a replacement...

It's got a shark on it...I think that means it is suitable for deep sea diving :hmmm9uh:

...but don't quote me on that one.

 

[Dilly]

I 'need' a Rolex and a Tudor for my collection but looking at this label I hope I dont ever need Tudex!!

As a Rolex owner I am saddened by how 'toxic' the brand has become with many watch enthusiasts.

Some people do buy a Rolex for something other than 'showing off' or wanting to make a 'fast buck'.

There is no getting away from the fact they do make a really good watch, but there are better watches for the money...unless you take into account residual values.

I think they should get some sort of recognition for keeping Swiss watchmaking 'alive' during the quartz crisis of the 1970's, however I do feel they are ever so happy to take credit for other watchmakers efforts, and achievements.

Personally I think I've reached the point where I will lose the will to live if I see another thread about Rolex, maybe I should just sell mine, and buy a replacement...



It's got a shark on it...I think that means it is suitable for deep sea diving :hmmm9uh:

...but don't quote me on that one.

Im sure that red wrist wrap bracelet is made by Roldor

 

[Karrusel]

So does this mean Rolex's in house movements even today stem from them buying a movement manufacturer? and pre Rolex 2004 dont actually have inhouse movements?

Pretty much!

:thumbsup:

I think they should get some sort of recognition for keeping Swiss watchmaking 'alive' during the quartz crisis of the 1970's...

The saviour of the industry was solely due to one man, Nicolas Hayak Snr, having been given the keys to Federal Banks (with government approval).

:yes:

 

[Dilly]

The saviour of the industry was solely due to one man, Nicolas Hayak Snr, having been given the keys to Federal Banks (with government approval).

:yes:

Explain please Sir.

 

[tick-tock-tittle-tattle]

Pretty much!

:thumbsup:

The saviour of the industry was solely due to one man, Nicolas Hayak Snr, having been given the keys to Federal Banks (with government approval).

:yes:

I stand corrected.

 

[Karrusel]

Explain please Sir.

Google is your friend.

 

[harryblakes7]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, new Rolex watches are attracting undue attention from the criminal fraternity so it may require being cautious where you wear it

Whilst both brands have their merits, the Tudor Black Bay chronograph is an exceptional watch, the movement is a collaboration between Tudor and Breitling and can be purchased in the shops and is modestly priced in the grand scheme of things.

I agree with earlier comments about Tudor having a image problem in the early days, always seen as a poor man's Rolex. I nearly bought a Tudor Sub back in the day, but didnt due to it only being an "ETA" movement

These days Tudor doesn't have this problem, they can venture into different designs, diamond dials and different cases, they have their own calibre, as well as using the Sellita calibre, whereas the Rolex brand has to keep the Datejust case and other GMT designs almost the same.

Empty AD shelves for Rolex is bad for the brand and customers sadly. All i know is someone somewhere is making a lot of money on the grey market!