Reply With QuoteNo because they are not exactly the same.Originally Posted by ingenioren
Tudors use ETA's etc and Rolex use in house movements.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... NA:GB:1123
Is just a rumour that Tudor use 'partially' various parts that Rolex consider below their norm ??
Seems decent price and this seller has been out there for a while ! :?:
No because they are not exactly the same.
Tudors use ETA's etc and Rolex use in house movements.
Cheers,
Neil.
Tudors used to us various parts that were used on the Rolex counterpart, as stated above the movement is completely different though, Tudors were fitted with ETAs, Rolex used their own, Tudor have always been like a budget Rolex, and in all fairness the 2824-2 works just as well and does the exact same job as the 3035/3135 that would have been fitted to the Rolex.
The case and case back are slightly different as well. I have a blue Tudor Sub and it's a great watch - and keeps excellent time. Possibly not as good as my 16800, but I'd guess it's pretty much on chronometer spec on the wrist.
Some of them old Tudors are quite pricey. I've seen some rival the Rolex counterpart in the subs and the Daytona models--I guess part of it is that Rolex is written all over them on the crown and casebacks.
They're good watches in their own right. If people stopped thinking about them as a poor man's Rolex, they'd probably be more highly regarded.
But that's exactly what they were sold as, as i stated above the only real difference is the movement, and the 2824 is a great movement itself and can be as accurate as any rolex movement.
i like them :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
IMO I love snowflakes :P
+1 favorite Tudor for me all do not cheap at all...
S
I like the Subs. :)
My 79090
Cheers,
Neil.
Tudor are excellent watches in thier own right, they ain't rolex but they are good, i have a Pre Tiger chrono bought off the SC a few months ago and love it.
I guess Tudor will always be compared against the Rolex because of the obvious simularities in looks but there can be no contest in actual quality terms.
Tudor are great watches, the old ones with their Rolex counterparts as well as the new ones (Basel 2009) with their own designs.
The quallity and reliabillity are equal to Rolex, indeed with ETA movements, but altered to Rolex specs. (Kif shock deflector).
I must say I love my sub 79090 and 79280 chrono to bits:
Have a look at the new collection at their website http://www.tudorwatch.com/ the grand tour is super I think!
Tudor have an identity completely on its own now with no reference to its mother company. I think they deserve some more atention now and are on the right path.
...unless it's a similar-looking, older Tudor with a Rolex case and crown. In which case, come to think of it there is no contest there either, because the quality is exactly the same, right :)
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Love Tudor. Have owned this one for a few years now; its my beater and I never get sick of it. Quality is superb, built like a tank, very well regulated from the first moment, triplock crown. Excellent value.
Having had both my Tudor 76100 (date) and my 5513 (no date) in my hands at the same time, and having also closely inspected a few 1680's (date) I really can't see how this view can be substantiated. I can't speak for the whole vintage range or the current stuff, but apart from the movement there is absolutely no discernable difference in quality between comparable Rolex and Tudor Submariners.
If you are a brand or movement queen then fair enough. The first is a bit sad, the other is admirable enough in its own way, but even Rolex movements aren't exactly the stuff of wonder.
I agree 100% Pete - I'm a huge fan of the Tudor 89190 Hydronaut.Love Tudor. Have owned this one for a few years now; its my beater and I never get sick of it. Quality is superb, built like a tank, very well regulated from the first moment, triplock crown. Excellent value.
The case design & build quality is simply superb imho...the 1 piece crown guard is not far away from a little work of art in itself.
It appears to fly 'under the radar' to most collectors - however this just means more for us Tudor fans to choose from!
:) - Neil.
a guy at my work has a tudor sub. i've heard countless people saying they thought it was a real rolex and then him trying to explain the history of Tudor. Rather embarrassing IMO since most of our clientele are very wealthy.
Really? - don't think I'd ever feel embarrassed explaining the history of and/or wearing a Tudor Submariner regardless of how much money the person had that I was talking to tbh.
Last thing I would like to do is start here is a: 'what is the better buy/value or rarer watch' scenario but I'll bet there's far more Rolex subs than Tudor subs out there......
PS - nothing against either watch or brand (thats why I have one of each) :)
Just mention the history with the French military for example, they used Tudor subs for many years. This is what I do when trying to explain what Tudor is all about.
It's embarrassing because his watch is too low for your wealthy clientele? Where are you, Dubai, Moscow or someplace? Or do you mean it's embarrassing that your wealthy clientele aren't all WISes who can tell a Tudor from a Rolex at 10 paces :?: Not sure I'm getting this...
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Central London actually. We do have a lot of wealthy Arab and Russian clientele if that’s what you're driving at. I think some of the new Tudors look nice... there were a few nice Tudors in Bazel as well. The new Tudors look nice because they have their own styling. This has nothing to do with the monetary value of the watch and in fact both your reasons to why I think it is embarrassing are actually wrong.It's embarrassing because his watch is too low for your wealthy clientele? Where are you, Dubai, Moscow or someplace? Or do you mean it's embarrassing that your wealthy clientele aren't all WISes who can tell a Tudor from a Rolex at 10 paces :?: Not sure I'm getting this...
"Its been said a number of times but there really is only one Rolex Submariner, the rest are all just clones…but one watch is less of a clone than the others…. The Tudor Submariner". ( http://www.deskdivers.com/Site/Snowflake.html )
The reason why I think it's embarrassing is because the shape of the submariner is synonymous with Rolex...especially with the very high brand recognition it is understandable if people presume a watch of a similar design is a Rolex!!!!! The Tudor sub is a clone none the less.
I've had a Rolex Daytona.
Sold it.
I've had a couple of Tudor Oyster Chronograhs.
One stolen.
Replaced it with another that took a couple of years to find.
The quality between the two marques is indiscernible imho.
I'm not saying that they are the benchmark in quality & finish,
just that the materials used & time keeping can't be told apart.
Cheers
You'd have to be a particularly sad sort of person to feel embarrassment about a colleague wearing a Tudor Sub. I have a Tudor Sub and a Rolex one, and don't feel the need to wear a mask when wearing the Tudor.The reason why I think it's embarrassing is because the shape of the submariner is synonymous with Rolex...especially with the very high brand recognition it is understandable if people presume a watch of a similar design is a Rolex!!!!! The Tudor sub is a clone none the less.
What's wrong with that? Rolex actually owns Tudor. It owned Tudor then too. Tudor Subs from then are nearly as sought-after as a Rolex Sub. Still not getting why it's embarrassing but thanks for trying to explain it anyway.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Nope, still don't get it. The case and crown on older Tudor subs are marked Rolex as they are Rolex case and crowns, and of course Tudor is a sub-brand of Rolex. Franken-watches maybe but not clones.
I always felt that Tudors were a poor mans rolex
That's nice to know.
Thanks for sharing.
Interesting reading....I really like the Tudor Subs not to fussy on the Chrono's or any chrono for that matter as I like plain simple dial.
Where can I find a link to fully explain the connection between Tudor and Rolex....
I think I'm starting to get a Tudor itch :wink:
i think they are a different mans rolex. A man who isnt afraid to wear what he likes not what he thinks people will like and judge him on!
Rolex, Tudor, both superb in everyway.
RIAC
I don't apologize for wearing my Tudor, but the OP has a subtle (or not so subtle) point about anything that copies the Rolex design. Older Tudors have to sometimes be explained to non-wis watch aficionados -- or at an AD salesperson (I doubt the new models would be confusing since they really do look like original designs). You can of course simply believe they're idiots and move on; but the fact is that I have been asked about my Tiger Tudor twice at an AD, and neither time did they know what a Tudor was and one of those times I was complimented with "nice knock-off!" What does this mean? It doesn't mean crap, but I would think most of the general public would reasonably believe anything that looks like a Rolex, but isn't, is a copy.
i say lets keep the tudor thing quiet,then nobody knows and we can buy them all up :wink: if there not switched on to them thats there loss!! :mrgreen:
It means that the general public not only doesn't know what a Tudor is, but also doesn't know what "knock-off" means (No Tudor has ever had the word "Rolex" on the dial; only the redials and eBay fakes have that).
Either way, who cares. Tudor was pulled from the UK and US because the markets there couldn't stomach the idea of a Rolex-owned brand that sells cheaper watches that aren't Rolexes, and accordingly, didn't sell. To get proper recognition, should you feel you need some degree of anonymous validation, go to mainland Europe or Asia, where they have no such snobbish hang-ups :twisted: .
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Anyone know the answer ??? It seems very vague.....
What's the story with REDIALS....I have the chance to buy a vintage Tudor redial with both the Rolex Crown and the Tudor logo....
A quick reply would be very much appreciated...I make take the plunge tomorrow :wink:
I don't have a link to hand, but as far as I can remember, the 1950s/1960s/1970s Tudors (Rose and Big Rose logos, at least) all had casebacks bearing the Rolex name (Rolex themselves always had blank casebacks), and the Rolex coronet on the screw down crowns. If the redial is simply a repaint of the original design, then it should be OK - many 'true collectors' don't like repaints at all, but they can bring an old watch back to life. Good luck with your cogitations, and if you buy the watch, don't forget to post pictures!Anyone know the answer ??? It seems very vague.....
What's the story with REDIALS....I have the chance to buy a vintage Tudor redial with both the Rolex Crown and the Tudor logo....
A quick reply would be very much appreciated...I make take the plunge tomorrow :wink:
Junior you're a true gentleman :wink:
I most probably will take the plunge, I'll post the pictures as soon as I get it.
Might be an idea to post the pictures first, or at least a fuller description in case you end up with a lemon. Many older Tudor Subs have a Tudor dial with a case that has Rolex markings on the back (unlike all Rolex apart from the SD) and a Rolex crown on the crown.
If Rolex had chosen something other than a crown as their symbol, it could make this sort of thing easier...
Some pics that are available to me....I'm starting to get cold feet though.
I have been browsing all night and the advice I'm getting is to stay well away. The seller is selling it as a Tudor that has been Redialled. He is NOT trying to sell it to me as a vintage Rolex.
I be glad to here all your thoughts / comments.
I'd rather save my money for something that is 100%..if needs be.
I'd leave that one your showing us well alone Guz :(
Cheers gmt, its appreciated.
This Rolex / Tudor itch is killing me...I'm started to get obsessed :evil: :twisted:
Posting Permissions
